Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive738

Reintroduction of copyvio

Resolved

Bopstar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reintroduced copyright material into an article here after being warned here. Editors contributions have been adding copyright violations [1] [2] [3] [4] and four other edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious copyvios can be reported to AIV in the future, provided they have been adequately warned. —Dark 08:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

98.103.186.3

Resolved: No. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Err...yes --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I get this (my) address blocked? It seems other students are primarily using it for vandalism. 98.103.186.3 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't block accounts upon request. If the vandalism through this IP becomes a problem, we'll take the appropriate action. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, other than this edit, and the one immediately preceeding, which reverted some vandalism, I can't see a single good edit, going back forever. All the rest are juvie variants on penis vandalism. As this is a static school IP, I have blocked for a year. If the teachers ever want to use it, they can get the technician to email OTRS --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha, suicide by cop? Drmies (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

YMMV, but when I was an admin we did serve schoolblocks on the request of school officials. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkAlexisGabriel and socks redux

MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated IP socks 76.109.99.165 (talk · contribs) and 65.34.131.50 (talk · contribs) have returned to their favourite passtime of edit-warring at Jessica Lange. Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel. A few preventative blocks are requested. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I requested a protect of that page last evening, which appears to have been done. Calabe1992 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Calabe. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)

This has veered into the realm of nonsense posts, possibly for filibustering. Any editor who has a problem with the RS/N closure needs to follow the dispute resolution process, as no admin has seen fit to take action in nearly a week. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RS/N discussions occur under a culture of limited discussions soliciting outside involvement. As a long term RS/N editor, I have taken to closing discussions early that do not fit within the RS/N culture or mission, or where IDHT behaviour is occurring. I recently closed such a discussion. The closure was reverted, and then another editor reverted back to my close. One user is unhappy with this closure. Please review my closure (as stated in the diff) in the context of this evidence for the closure: Diff notes: Movement over previous discussion Competence failure to comply with RS/N requirements Suggestion that initiator feels free ("If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment.") to ignore RS/N culture 2 and related ("draw") battlefield tag teaming; (this) and (this) by an involved editor (this) and (this) by the same editors editors fail to restrict general discussion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 over contribution by an involved editor 2 3 4 5 6 7 and noted in dicussion 2 3 Core points for the closure 2 3 (regarding the business model of the publisher) 4 (regarding currency of RS/N reliability, future reliability can be determined in the future) 5 (regarding publisher quality) 6 (MEDRS context) 7 (journal indexing) I have notified WT:RS/N; and the user who expressed concern (and reverted my closure), and the user who reverted back to my closure on their talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I can understand why some editors are annoyed if the issue hasn't been resolved, but personally I think it was the correct call in the end. If the editors want impartial assistance then they need to respect the spirit of the board; there is no way I would read through that mountain of crap just to help them out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I also think it was correct to close this. The underlying aim appeared to be to find a hospitable page on which to argue out the editorial policies of a publisher: such discussions could not have answered the specific issue that was raised. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Comments per RS Notice Board action I assume Fifelfoo acted in good faith. However, his action in closing a NB discussion was ill considered and inappropriate: General: There is no standard on NB which allows for an editor to randomly close a discussion, warn other editors, to make judgements about sources under discussion, and/or to make comments and judgments about sources not under discussion, for example (Anderson and Taylor-see closing statements). [5]. The NB discussion was closed after less than a day and a half. Specifically: Fifelfoo's close was based on the misassumption that, "I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors..." Granateple is not an involved editor. Graneteple and 7 uninvolved editors (LeadSongDog, Granateple, Yobol, RexxS, Andrew Dalby, David Eppstein, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), with occasional comments by 2 involved editors (Fladrif, Littleolive Oil) made pertinent comments per the specific question posed which was based in the reliability of the publisher, whether a vanity press, and open access publication. The discussion was appropriately online with the issues on the source. Tag teaming assumption is based I presume on the idea that Graneteple was an involved editor. He's not. And lining up two editor comments and assuming they are tag teaming is highly presumptuous and in this case dead wrong. I did not forum shop as Fifelfoo accused me of. LeadSongDog suggested moving a more general discussion here to the RS Notice Board here which I did. My concern: It was inappropriate to publicly criticize an uninvolved editor, Granateple, for commenting, and especially to issue reminders in the manner of an arbitration. This: -discourages good-faith participation at a noticeboard -discourages use of noticeboards -discourages participation by an uninvolved editor such as Granateple That said, I assume Filelfoo acted in good faith with the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I believe closing of NB postings needs further discussion. I've opened a discussion here (olive (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) I think Filelfoo's problem was mostly the way in which the discussion was conducted. The purpose of the board is to get outside objective opinion, so when the discussion is taken over by the involved editors and made inaccessible to impartial editors it ceases to be productive. If the issue still needs to be resolved, you should restart the discussion but limit yourself to stipulating your opinion on the matter, and the opposing editor can do the same, and then let uninvolved editors judge for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) To clarify: The discussion was in the hands almost exclusively if uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo assumed one of the uninvolved editors was involved which was not the case. He in good part based his close on that misassumption.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) I rely on my impression of tag teaming between you and Granateple; Granateple's gross over contribution to discussion; and the "uninvolved" editors wandering straight back to the topic of the general discussion of the reliability of open access journals. (See diffs above). In particular your attempts to control the discussion (again, diffs above) indicated a stewed discussion excluding outside editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Your comment is absurd. You are accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy to skew a discussion. That's ridiculous. Attempt to exclude outside editors? They were all outside editors with two exceptions, Olive an Fladrif, Please feel free to accuse Short Brigade Harvester Boris and others of being part of some "stewed" discussion. And control the discussion? You're grasping at straws. My intent was to prevent an escalation of a few angry posts. I made very few posts. My real concern here is that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern.(olive (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) Please do not misread my comments, in particular, I am not "accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy," I have accused your behaviour and the behaviour of another editor as constituting "tag teaming" and supplied diffs. I have suggested that the discussion wandered off into general discussion and supplied diffs. Your ownership and battleground behaviour excludes other editors—RS/N editors do not need to be invited by an involved party into a discussion on the noticeboard they frequent, and supplied diffs. As you may note from the extensive list of diffs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris' contributions were not contributive to the poorly constructed discussion. "that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern." do you have any evidence for this, or would you like to make accusations without demonstration? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not the one who needs to prove something. You have made assumptions and then found diffs to prove your case. I've never met or worked with Granateple. I came to a NB in good faith to deal with a troublesome source, to make sure that whatever was done with the source was compliant. The discussion was civil and helpful with many good comments. I question your closing of that discussion after a day and a half, and I'm telling you your comments about what went on are misguided. I am, as I said concerned because you made some massive misassumptions, closed a case based on those assumptions and warned an editor in the manner of an arb which can only serve to chill the NB environment. I have nothing more to say. (olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) Awesome! I think it's awesome that a civil single-purpose POV pusher can try to push a vanity published journal article into a wikipedia article where they have a massive conflict of interest, then, once totally uninvolved editors realize that the journal article is crap argue for pages and pages about how everyone is just behaving oh-so-terribly, and nothing is done to stop them! That's AWESOME! We should DEFINITELY have more of that! Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see [6] and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Stating that one journal is a vanity published does not mean the publisher is a vanity publisher. If you have any reason to believe that the "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" (ironically named almost identically to Nutrition and Metabolism, wonder why!) is a reliable source, that can be discussed at RSN. It might be - I don't really care or know. What I do know is that anyone who finds an article in "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" and thinks it's a good source for Wikipedia was either furtively directed their by someone who is an expert in the field as their meatpuppet, is an expert themselves, has a massive conflict of interest, or is googling for dollars. If olive is an expert, she'd know how to find the OTHER side of the arguemnt (you know, the one that the experts believe in). If she's googling for dollars, then she needs to be topic banned. If she's being directed by someone, perhaps the meatpuppetry needs to end. Of course, we know the answer is that she has a massive conflict of interest, but dare we say what it is? No, we'll be wikilawyered with OUTING OUTING OUTING all day. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC) What is amazing here, is that an editor can attack another editor on an admin Notice Board and no one says anything. That seems a conspicuously strange and ironic event. (olive (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) Hipocrite - tone it down. I also strongly advise you strike some of your more accusatory comments above. olive - If you've got a problem with how admins are reacting to a situation, there are FAR better ways to bring it to our attention. Now this case requires a bit of examination before a newcomer can meaningfully weigh in, and I'm sure all parties would prefer a measured response rather than a kneejerk one. In the interim, both sides should focus on presenting the core elements of the dispute without descending into incivility. Manning (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I have not been uncivil and I have been treated to Hipocrite's foul comments both here and on the RS NB talk page. My sense was to stay out of this after I did present the core element of my concerns, but this foul comment has been siting here for a good part of the day. Normally I would apologize for any kind of forceful language . Tt's not my style but in this case. No. I'm fed up with being bullied. Hipocrite has not been part of this discussion. His purpose seems to be simply to attack and bully. Thanks for your comment, I will take it to heart.(olive (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)) Note: Olive has been topic banned by arbcom in the past for WP:TE and POV pushing on Transcendental Meditation and it was pointed out in the AE report that she has a conflict of interest, so there is merit to what Hipocrite is saying. Noformation Talk 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC) There is no merit to bullying. NoFormation. One of the reasons poisoning the well is frowned on is that first , one has to be very careful to get the facts straight, and second one can be lacking in the understanding and nuances of some environments. Editors who edit in contentious areas can be set upon by all manner of those wishing they would disappear. What counts is that the arbitration committee has never sanctioned me for anything. (olive (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) User:Noformation - I'm not disputing (or endorsing) any of Hipocrite's claims, just asking that they be toned down a bit. ::olive - you WERE put under Arbcom sanctions by an Arbcom clerk, in accordance with the discretionary sanctions ruling handed down by Arbcom. (For the record I note that those sanctions have long since expired). These are considered equivalent to direct action by Arbcom, so you will achieve nothing by disputing that fact. Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Manning I was referring specifically to the TM arbitration, where I was not sanctioned in any way, nor warned...and NW did not act as a arbitration clerk. Noformation has some of his information wrong and given what has gone on in this thread I'm reaching my limit on false accusations. I would request that you do not accuse me of being untruthful which is not the case.(olive (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) You were topic banned by arbcom, I didn't say that it was during the initial TM case so congrats, strawman successfully torn down. How can you state that NW wasn't acting as an arbclerk? What does this even mean? He's an arbclerk, he banned you, he logged your ban at the TM log of blocks and bans. You cannot separate NW's position as an arbiter from his actions in an administrative role and your attempts to do so come off as wikilawyering. What does it matter when it happened anyway? The fact of the matter is that you were topic banned for bad editing practices and pushing your POV. Further, you were also sanctioned with a 1RR restriction as arbcom believed that you, Timidguy and Edith Sirius Lee tag team reverted edits in order to keep your POV in. You then tried to wikilawyer yourself out of the ban by claiming that you weren't properly notified about discretionary sanctions, and your appeal was denied. This was what, a year ago? And it seems as though you're still pushing your POV. The first three results searching for "User:Littleolive_oil prefix:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement" are the three AE incidents with which Olive was involved (though these do not contain the topic ban, which can be found here). Noformation Talk 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I am telling you what I said and what I meant. You can make out of that what you want to, but none of that is true to what I said or meant. Wikipedia is one dimensional. There is no way of explaining the multi dimensional environments which accompany what you think you see. I shouldn't have tried to given what has gone on here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)) I will continue a little bit because of the strange incident with the excommunication. I meditate very seldom. I think this journal is tolerably reliable and okay, and that it suits the topic, which is limited and doesn’t belong to larger journals. Preliminary findings suggests that relaxation might cause a drop in blood pressure. Not very remarkable, and why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia? We are not talking about the “Hypertension” article. On the 17th of February 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Universe is infinite, with an unlimited number of stars. But the sheeps need a shepherd. Every movement, when it becomes messianic, has its purists and priests, more catholic than the Pope. Take a look at the reputation of Hindawi, and the editorial board of the journal in question. What do we tell the researcher and professors on that board, many from reputed universities around the world? What do we tell Cindy Davis, now at the National Cancer Institute? What do we tell assistant professor M. Shauwkat Razzaque at Harvard? What do we tell Professor Dr. med. Hans Konrad Biesalski at Universität Hohenheim in Germany? This editorial board consist of more than 40 respected researchers, and they also have some self-respect. To say that Hindawi or their journals are unreliable, that is not in accordance with a scientific outlook, as I perceive it. I hope you admin folks will read through the discussion (rather lengthy) on WP:RS, and judge fairly regarding this unexpected excommunication. Granateple (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC) This board is for discussing behavioral issues not content. Further, RS/N has already dealt with the source; it's time to drop this. Noformation Talk 02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine anyone? 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC) My thoughts exactly --Guerillero | My Talk 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Second trip to ANI I have restored this thread from the archive. A user asked ANI to review his closure of an RS/N discussion, and the closure has not yet been reviewed. Granateple (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC) No objections from uninvolved editors and at least a couple supports is generally what you would expect from something like this. Consensus looks pretty clear that the closure was appropriate. Noformation Talk 08:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Granateple is an uninvolved editor and he objects. I'd really like to get some facts straight here. I assume that on an Admin NB the desire is to have an admin make a judgement, however I'm not clear on that. For myself I don't care one way or the other. This was a simple NB discussion on a source that spun out of control and became nasty. I don't really need more of that. I do respect another editor's request, though.(olive (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)) Granateble is obviously involved, he was part of the RS/N discussion. One of the diffs mentioned by the OP belongs to him. How can you say he's not involved? Noformation Talk 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Granateple was not an "involved" editor in the original discussion on the NB and he objected to the NB closure. He is asking here that that decision/closure be scrutinized. I assume now you mean by uninvolved that the editor was not a participant at all in the original RS/NB content before commenting here. That wasn't clear to me in your post. Any editor has a right to ask for clarification. I have to say NoInfo that your attitude towards me an editor you have never actually worked with is pretty darn aggressive.(olive (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)) olive: It doesn’t matter how many times you say that you don’t know me. It will not help. And if I were involved, would it have mattered? Perhaps I am mad or a TM guru, or both, does it really matter? We were discussing a review and the reliability of a source. A RS/N closure is brought before ANI for review, by the user who did the closure. I expect this will be done. Granateple (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Generally, if an admin does not weigh in before a thread is automatically archived, it can be considered that there was nothing requiring admin intervention. If it were serious enough to need intervention, they would have. Give it time and, if it winds up getting archived again, it's de facto not an admin issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC) It was a free, natural evolving and democratic discussion. “User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion”. That was a part of the closure summary, just after they realized that the academic publisher in question was reputable and reliable. If this is not an ANI issue, could you please advice me whom to contact? Do Wikipedia perhaps have a shrink for these totalitarian chickens? Granateple (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; also, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Hi Bushranger, on WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I can read that ”…method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion”. A discussion was closed on RS/N. What is more civil, to close a free discussion or to label the phenomenon? I look forward to your answer. Granateple (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC) First of all, consider this a warning: calling other editors "totalitarian chickens" is a personal attack. Don't do it. Second, what exactly are you asking for? The discussion was closed on RS/N with a resolution. No admin has seen an error there, nor felt the need to reopen it. There's really no recourse beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) It's at least a more creative insult. And amazingly enough, I found an example.[7] The internet has everything! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) HandThatFeeds: the user who closed the discussion brought the closure before ANI for review. You told me yesterday that this is de facto not an admin issue, and by that I presume you probably are of the opinion that this is de facto not an admin issue. Which forum on Wikipedia can be contacted regarding this incident? I and the user:olive have not received an apology. Granateple (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) There's really nothing to be done. If you really want, you could open a Request for Arbitration but, based on what's been presented here, they'll reject it as unnecessary. And there is no requirement for you to receive an apology. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I am not as experienced as you on Wikipedia, and also not as clairvoyant. Thank you for your suggestion. I will consider arb enforcement, and I am hoping for a larger community input regarding this. Granateple (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Olive's gratuitious post at the article talkpage [8] from earlier today strongly suggests that she simply will not accept the consensus of uninvolved editor comment at RSN if it conflicts with her own position:There is a standard for WP:MEDRS compliant sources on Wikipedia. There is not a separate standard for TM articles. A NB is usually a fair way to get editor input, but editor input does not trump WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC) I've posted [9]. As it happens, through a noticeboard is not the court of final appeal for content matters, (that's the role of an rfc), the interpretation of MEDRES depends on the consensus, and the place where the consensus is formed is on RSN. We rightly have n separate noticeboard for MEDRES because of the very close relationship of the problems involved. Even actual policies need interpretation, and the community as a whole is the only body competent to interpret on content. MEDRES is a guideline, not policy, and is therefore specifically open to exceptions and interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Update. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and a strange thing just happened. I got a notice on my talkpage that user:Fifelfoo had reported me to something called “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”, and I was invited to give a statement. When I did, an automatic machinery took over, closed the case, and sent me a message on my talkpage signed user:WGFinley. I am now part of the TM Movement. LOL Is this serious? Is this how Wikipedia works? I refuse to believe it. Granateple (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Believe it or not, yes, this is how Wikipedia works. You have misunderstood a few things. Fiflefoo was notifying you that someone brought up your name atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Admin WGFinley then notified you that articles about Transcendental Meditation movement are under community sanctions, which means editing of those pages has specific rules due to problems in the past. I suggest you read the links WGFinley provided on your Talk page, so you can learn more about how this works before you do something that gets you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Statement and Speech by his highness Granateple from Norway, father and mother, and aunt to the Transcendental Meditation movement. Dear fellow Wikipedians, let us first meditate together, so that our blood pressure might drop a little bit. For this occasion I have cut my beard with 2 inches, and it is now only 54 inches long. Who are you, if not for me? Who am I, if not for you? If not now, when? If not here, where? Let us feel united with the Transcendental. Who is the Transcendental or where is it? It is high up in the sky and under your feet, it is in your computer and on Wikipedia. You can’t see it, only feel it. Thus spoke Granateple. Until very recently, I thought of myself as a rational guy with scientific leanings, but not any longer. After Wikipedia (with the help of “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”) appointed me a TM master, I now see things much clearer. The mysteries of the Transcendental is not for the faint-hearted. Try to embrace it, it will enlighten your Spirit. Thus spoke Granateple. Until yesterday my heroes were Democritus, Lucretius, Voltaire, Darwin and the Second law of thermodynamics. Not any longer. My heroes now are a couple of editors, great thinkers in their own right, and I am sure that future generations will find their names and deeds inscribed with gold in the Annals of Wikipedia. Where are we TM gurus? We are everywhere. During the McCarthy era in your country, when accusations and paranoia reigned supreme, a good citizen saw many Communists. A dedicated citizen spotted many more. A fanatical anti-communist saw a hell of a lot of them. They where everywhere. We TM masters, we are also everywhere. Some of us even assume a disguise; we are clean-shaven. Thus spoke Granateple. But all of the above is not true. I am sane and I have a certain interest in science. My areas of expertise is cellular biology, phytochemistry and medicine. I became a Wikipedian when I realized that the “health section” in the Pomegranate article was outdated. But on Wikipedia it is Anathema to report the scientific findings regarding the Pomegranate. I does not help that the Journal of Urology, the Official Journal of the American Urological Association, report the findings (clinical trials). I have now made up my mind. It can’t hurt to let ArbCom have a preliminary look at the two strange incidents: the closure of a free and open discussion on RS/N, and now my imaginary connection with TM. But maybe you will have my account blocked or deleted before that time, HandThatFeeds? Your blatant machiavellianism impresses me. It really does. Don’t you realize that it is detrimental to the community and Wikipedia? Send my regards. Granateple (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I understand that you're new, Granateple, so I should ask that you read up on WP:NCR. It's a fairly quick read and should be relevant to your current situation. Maybe it will help a little. If not, maybe it will at least be a bit amusing. :) -- Atama頭 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Abusive Editor - Previously posted in error at Wikiquette assistance

Hiding text pasted from Wikiquette. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AceD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk:Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban." [I request administrator assistance. I know that I am partially at fault for responding and reacting to uncivil behavior, and have been uncivil myself. However, my behavior may not rise to the level of abuse that I've experienced. Consequently, I'm bringing the entire discussion to this venue for review. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)] After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency. As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." ([10]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011. Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part. I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material. Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away. Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility. While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC) According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Some comments as an uninvolved editor: It's clear that there is a long standing conflict between you both (Computer Guy 2 and AceD). The comments by AceD are indeed over the top. And I can't be the only admin who is profoundly irritated by editors proclaiming "You will be blocked when I report you" and the like. Being treated like a compliant standby doesn't dispose me to look favorably upon the wielder's viewpont. It's also clear that you both have strong opinions on the subject and that this may be affecting your respective abilities to work together on this article. I have noticed a clear pattern in both of your talk page edits of 1) discussing the topic beyond what is necessary to improve the article and 2) disrespectful commentary on each other. I urge you both to evaluate your approach to editing and to talk page discussions and to think about what your goals are here. You will not convince each other of your respective points of view. The article will not look the way you would prefer and will probably appear biased to you. But, if you keep your conversations concise, the focus always on the article text itself and not the ATF generally, and have as a main goal finding a wording and form that is mutually acceptable and conforms to verifiability and neutral point of view, you can get through it. Computer Guy 2, it seems like you've already done this to some degree and kudos for that, sincerely. Danger High voltage! 07:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I am quite tired of arguing with you about this, that much is true. As far as the content resolution side of it, you and you alone keep promoting this anti-ATF agenda dispite numerous editors on the talk page fundamentally disagreeing with the section you alone are responsible for, it is that simple. Beyond that, it is beyond debate that you have engaged in meatpuppetry. You have now twice referred to (here, and on the talk page) the "numerous editors" that you "built a consensus with" as support for your point of view, without acknowledging that these "numerous editors" are friends of yours from an anti-ATF message board where you posted this article and asked for support. Not the first time you have done so, either. Subsequently, multiple people registered for the first time for an account and promoted your same point of view to reach your idea of a "consensus". I haven't reported you yet, because I have strong suspicion that such an act will get you permanently banned so close on the heels of your latest sockpuppetry ban, but will certainly do so today if you persist in this action and vitrol. Beyond that, I think the true consensus regarding the content speaks for itself, and I am done with it.AceD (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC) With the exception of 9 early postings, AceD has occupied nearly all his time on Wikipedia reverting the undersigned's edits and engaging in personal attacks on the undersigned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AceD) To be fair, there was a short period of rational, almost cordial discussion. The AceD account was created on 5 Feb 2006, posted one edit, and was silent for over 5 years. AceD began using the account again on 9 August 2011, made 8 minor posts, then exclusively began reverting the undersigned's edits, edit warring and making personal attacks. He made no posts to any other subject area. When confronted with the evidence, AceD responded that he had "forgotten" about the account and had been previously posting under various IP addresses. Wikipedia specifically forbids this practice; "Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users." Before changing to the AceD name, he posted almost identical edits as 71.226.23.207 (13 July 2011 - 23 August 2011) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.226.23.207), beginning his postings by reverting the undersigned's edits. Just prior to 71.226.23.207, another ID (71.203.85.14) was used to post nearly identical edits and engaged in vandalism (17 March 2011 - 30 March 2011). When other editors were critical of 71.203.85.14 failing to sign his posts, he responded, "I don't sign things because I do not yet know how." How many other IP addresses were used by AceD is anybody's guess. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I agree with some of the less involved editors that both of you are taking it too far. If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry or other policy violations, report it at the appropriate place and it will be addressed. Instead, both of you seem to be throwing the accusations out there to try to win the argument over the content of the article, which basically just annoys other people and accomplishes nothing. If your suspicions are justified, this conflict could be over tomorrow thanks to banning, or otherwise those accusations can at least be put aside and everyone can focus on improving the article. Since you specifically mentioned article content above, I'll just say that I'm generally closer to AceD's opinions in terms of article content. You obviously have strong feelings about the ATF and its actions, which is fine and maybe even admirable, but doesn't always lead to a better encyclopedia article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way. AceD's sockpuppetry was previously addressed in a complaint, however HelloAnnyong was unable to make the connection between the various IP addresses and AceD. My background in other articles is irrelevant to this issue. I repeat the earlier quote, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." The topic of this request for assistance is personal attacks on the undersigned. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC) This is not the place to revisit a 6 month old complaint you made where the investigation found there was no wrongdoing on my part and that you were warned for superficially trying to carry out an edit war. Especially since you are the only sockpuppet in this conversation, and are even now continuing to engage in similar behavior. For the record, I have exclusively used only one username- not three like yourself- on wikipedia. Before that username I exclusively used a single IP address at a given time. I have never presented myself as different entities in the same conversation, unlike what you have done on multiple occassions. And never will. But I can't fail to see the irony of being consistently accused of sockpuppetry by someone who has been banned from editing this article for months on end and is within two weeks of coming off a ban for multiple sockpuppets. Further, to Hazydan's point- this is no attempt by me to "win" an argument or debate on this issue. Indeed, I do not see a present issue as over the past year not a single individual (outside of the meatpuppets that registered yesterday) have supported Computer Guy's well documented attempts to enumerate each and every issue with ATF. Numerous people, in various different venues, have explained that the section is unbalanced, redundant, uncalled for and/or crass NPOV. Now back to you, Computer Guy/Ike/Solo I Fatty- your history DOES matter. Even a cursory glance at your history shows that EVERYBODY seemingly has a problem with you. Even the people who do "work" with you subsequently explain the difficulty in dealing with you. This is very telling. I can honestly say that you are the ONLY person I have EVER had an issue with on wikipedia. You mention that most of my posts have been edits on your material, and in some way try to cast that in a negative light. However, by your own admission now, you recognize that the very same material you blasephemy me for editing did not belong in the first place and you, as the original editor, were wrong for posting? How in ANY way is that an indictment on my history?AceD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC) As I said before, "The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way." Now, we have yet another personal attack. I have no intention of responding to flame-baiting. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Query: how is a mutual focus on each other's editing history and behavior helping improve Wikipedia? Are you closer to finding a resolution to any disputes over content than you were yesterday? Danger High voltage! 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Answer. My purpose in bringing this situation to Wikiquette assistance is to clearly demonstrate the personal attacks upon the undersigned. AceD's continued speculation on my off-site identity is a clear and flagrant violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's threat to continue disrupting my work on Wikipedia is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's continued personal attacks upon the undersigned on this page consist of prima facie evidence of Wikipedia:Harassment. Further, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....whether any such information is accurate or not." Other editors have engaged in Wikihounding and continuing the personal attacks. None of these violations contribute to constructive editing nor finding any resolution. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Again, yet another bait and switch on your part....and another outright lie. Please read these policies you so flippantly throw out. "Personal information" is defined by wikipedia policy as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information". Kindly link where any of these items have been posted by this user or any other. You won't though, because you can't. I didn't respond to you last comment, because there was nothing to respond to. Just leave it alone. You have made your "point", and repeatedly changing the issues that you have with me literally from post to post is only going to provide the opposite effect that you intend.AceD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Wiki-policy isn't a legal code. Repeatedly referring and linking to to a user's undisclosed off-wiki identity may be seen as harassment, regardless of whether that specific type of information is listed in policy. I see that you have not responded or apparently listened to either of my comments. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Danger High voltage! 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC) First, I have "listened" to your advice. I do not see the need to verbalize my acknowledgment, though maybe that was an error. However, the essence of your advice has been received and acted on- I am not posting anymore in the article, not engaging with Computer Guy, etc. I didn't even respond to his penultimate comment earlier today, but I did feel his most recent remark and false accusations merited a defense, without overly vindictive personal remarks or verbal comments that expanded the scope of the discussion beyond a defense. I was done with the "content" some time ago, as I also mentioned earlier. When viewed through the prism that I am not the reason that we are here and did not initiate this action, I can only say that I can truly answer your question "what do you hope to accomplish here" with...Nothing. Beyond that, there is no "repeated" action here- I posted the complaint and have been done with it. Computer Guy 2 is the only one bringing it up now. And the "off-wiki" identity isn't "undisclosed", in fact Computer Guy 2 is who disclosed that previously unknown website to this editor and into one of our previous discussions, while acknowledging his postings here there. Now, I will certainly be done with this issue....if allowed to be. And truly, thanks for the advice.AceD (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Both of you should really pay attention to Danger and Hazydan and just stop. Rehashing the bad blood, fighting about the content of the article - none of that will accomplish anything. Computer Guy 2, I suggest you end this topic. AceD, I suggest you be a little less strident in your language; regardless of whether you think it's supportable, it's not constructive. Both of you should pay more attention to the good of the encyclopedia rather than your own viewpoints. And if you can't edit the article neutrally, then don't edit it at all. Edit other articles you don't feel strongly about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Concur. Nobody Ent 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems I [originally] posted this on the wrong assistance page (Wikiquette assistance). I was looking for administrator intervention rather than any rehashing of bad blood. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, CG2 has copied all of the above posts from WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor I saw this at WQA. I strongly suggest both of you (CG2 and AceD) drop it. The fact that you didn't get any sanctions applied at WQA and now pasted practically all of this into the ANI page instead of providing a link demonstrates not an attempt to resolve the problem, but to continue being disruptive and levying accusations of misbehavior at each other. I am willing to apply liberal usage of oily fish to communicate the point that you need to find something besides antagonizing each other on the site. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from reading the history, that's the same advice given to CG2 and AceD by several editors (including me). Frankly, I don't understand what CG2 expects to accomplish here (other than his stated request for sanctions).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly heed this advice and abide by it. In truth, I have acted less than civily in the past with regards to the complainant but can honestly say I have limited my recent history (outside of reinitating a previously unrelated to me sockpuppet investigation that merited action) with him to defending myself in the multiple venues he chooses to vent against me, unprovoked. Whatever the respective culpability between our two parties, however, I will resolve to leave the issue alone even if continually baited. I hope better and more objective editors can continue the content editing over the contentious material, as it has certainly needed attention. Thanks for your time.AceD (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in the WQA thread and saw no grounds for admin action. If another admin disagrees though, by all means take it. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mraandthebigbrother

Could an admin please deal with User:Mraandthebigbrother, who seems to revert stuff he doesn't like with a "fuck you" in the edit summary. Maitch (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The editor concern appears to have been abusive in three edit summaries today, but I don't see any pattern of previous misconduct. I have posted a level-1 NPA warning with an addendum about use of edit summaries.
  That warning could have been given by any editor, including the OP ... and per the notice at the top of this page "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". That prior discussion was not done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know, I could have done it myself, but I usually loose my temper in these situations, so I try to stay away. --Maitch (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's just keep an eye on this guy.--v/r - TP 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It looks to me like he is not a native English speaker [11], so perhaps he is unaware of how his tone is received? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Theres a new user called Mr.misterismysister, could they be related?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• First I am from Chinese Wikipedia, and my English Quality is OK, so I doing this (editing those Simpsons Articles) for quallity (See Theleftorium's Talk Page). And I really been mad at the time of editing by other stuff like Undo Edits that I feel not very good on Chinese Wikipedia and talk to its editor. At editing Politically Inept, with Homer Simpson , I don't attack at Maitch but I claim what I said and what Maitch think (what he think is "off") is wrong. Sorry for any convience Caused. And I have no connection with Mr.misterismysister. --Mraandthebigbrother (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review restart

Resolved

On Talk:Rani Mukerji/GA1, someone said they would review it, and then said they could not. Could you remove the page but keep the article in the GA review queue? BollyJeff || talk 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a note to say that this is the admin noticeboard, for getting admins to help with incidents, but anybody can be involved with GA reviews and not only administrators. For your query, somebody else will use the same page when they come to review it. Rcsprinter (message) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that anyone can do GA review, but they may not think to review this one since it seems to be under review already; in fact it is sitting idle. There is a note on the page asking for an admin to help; since that was not happening I posted here. BollyJeff || talk 20:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it. I think the bot that updates the status of GA nominations automatically marks it as already under review if the page exists, so the page needs to not be there for the status to be set right by the bot. Either way it's no trouble for the person who actually reviews it to recreate the page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the GAReview (in double brackets) manually, because the note was still there saying it was under review, but the bot put it right back. Maybe I'll have to review it myself. BollyJeff || talk 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it by replacing the GAN template, but now it says I nominated it...if someone can fix that particular quirk I think it'll be back the way it should be. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, got it fixed. It should go back the way it was now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BollyJeff || talk 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm inviting administrators to mediate the following discussion taking place on Talk:Anti-Defamation League. The debate is about properly sourced material being removed under different charges. All material had as references reliable sources. These are the edits arousing controversy:[12][13] Arguments from both sides have been laid out on the Talk Page, and no consensus has emerged. Please, weigh in on the discussion. These are the users I've been debating with:

• User:Jayjg, an administrator.
• User:Plot_Spoiler

Guinsberg (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong page. You don't need admins for a content dispute, and I would expecy Jayjg to be contributing as an editor, not an admin. Try one of the steps in Dispute resolution - third opinion, DR noticeboard, mediation, RfC.

DRN is probably the way to go here. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mr. Curious Man ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mr. Curious Man (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Curious Man. After multiple previous socks (most recent was yesterday), the user has come back again with yet another IP. Refusing to stop socking, and I'm hereby proposing a full ban. Calabe1992 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Master is under the hardest possible block short of a global lock. Only would make rolling back this guy easier.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ditto. Wifione ^Message 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why shouldn't we? He is very problematic, and if he refuses to stop socking, there is no point opposing a ban. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - not just a formality (since I know somebody will make that argument), a community ban requires community consensus to overturn (vs. a "de facto ban" from indeffing). That said, I agree that this calls for a Cban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per this and many others. Doc talk 06:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support In a way, it wouldn't make much difference, as I regularly block (if no other admin beats me to it) and revert anyway. However, it would be nice to have it as an official ban, so that there is no ambiguity about it. The user has repeatedly been invited to agree to edit within policies and guidelines, after which an unblock request could be considered, but he/she has made it abundantly clear that he/she has no wish to cooperate, and has repeatedly stated the intention of socking indefinitely. We are beyond the stage where there is any reasonable purpose in holding back from a ban. (For what it's worth, I have a list of 48 IPs and 7 accounts used by this person, with no guarantee that the list is complete. The first trolling and other disruptive editing that I know of from this person was in April 2011, continuing since then up to now.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: Following further investigation, the totals now stand at 52 certain IPs, together with several other possible ones, and 9 certain accounts, together with one possible one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support If I recall correctly, this user also undertook a directed harassment campaign against another editor, just to put the cherry on top. Danger ^{High voltage!} 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has made harassment campaigns against more than one other editor. The longest running one has been active from time to time from April 2011 to January 2012 on Wikipedia, and both the harasser and the victim have indicated that this is a part of a campaign of harassment that started on another site. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Persistent sockpuppetry, repeated declarations of intent to continue socking. Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I do believe this is a formality. Noone would even consider unblocking or overturning such a block, I see no reason why we can't treat him like any other career vandal. —Dark 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The history of overlapping sock accounts clearly demonstrates the editor has planned from the beginning to be disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an obvious ban that needs to be done given the disruptive editing, harassment and numerous socking attempts. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even though someone will almost certainly come along, tell us we're wasting our time because "he's de facto banned and we can just tag him banned and forget about it". Never mind that the ban policy is now in permanent limbo as a result of this de facto nonsense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It is worth noting that a de facto ban has nothing close to the enforcement power of a community- or Arbitration-enacted ban, since reverting a de facto banned user's edits is subject to WP:3RR and de facto banned users' socks tend to get prioritized lower than a codified banned user's unless they've made a reputation for themselves (Case in point: [CENSORED PER WP:DENY], who got [it]self banned at ED for pulling the same crap). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point we've established enough consensus in 24h, requesting close. Calabe1992 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of it, I want to be the one who adds the {{banned}} tag and the update to WP:BANNED.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it is rather fun to do, isn't it? Calabe1992 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yep.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article created on en.wiki that forces to tr.wiki

Resolved

While on NPP I noticed that Mgc92 (talk · contribs) created an article at tr:In Bruges. Clicking on that link will take you to the Turkish Wikipedia. I tried putting a {{noredirect}} tag around the title in my sandbox, but clicking the link still takes me to Turkish Wikipedia. I finally was able to see the page this user created by looking at contribution history and clicking on diffs/permalinks ([14]). It appears that the user was trying to take some of the material from the In Bruges article and translate it into Turkish ([15]) and possibly copy it to the tr.wiki page. The question I have is is this page appropriate to keep on English Wikipedia? Note that I am not accusing Mgc92 (talk · contribs), whose only en.wiki contributions are to this page, of any wrongdoing or bad faith. I am just perplexed at this technicality that I've never come across before. I'm willing to guess that s/he created the page, made a couple of edits to it, and is no longer able to access the page for the same reason I can't access it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That is a serious software bug. I wonder how he was able to create that page. Give me a few minutes to see if I can somehow move that page to an accessible location. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Can't move it, can't delete it, can't even nuke it. Let me try some other things. It's clear the page isn't needed here, since it's just a stripped-down foreign language copy of In Bruges, which would be an A10 speedy delete. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Will not rollback either, getting a Turkish message that I'm guessing is telling me I don't have rollback there. Calabe1992 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't even edit it - trying to do so takes me to the Turkish edit form. Oh my. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take this over to WP:VPT. I may have to file a bugzilla report for this. I can't figure out any way to move or delete this page, and the software shouldn't have allowed it to have been created in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. I tried deleting through API, but doesn't work either. I could edit it though. Amalthea 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's gone. I /could/ delete it via API if I used the page id instead of the title. Should still be brought to bugzilla though! Will you do the honors, 28bytes? Amalthea 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This might be pushing WP:BEANS, but should someone tell the user to please not do that again? Calabe1992 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt they meant to do it in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, will do. Thanks for getting it deleted! 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:34128 submitted. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea, I know Graham87 (talk · contribs) used a similar trick in the past. You might want to confer with him and document it somewhere for the future. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did? Can you remember which page that was? The only deletion trick that I remember doing was a history merge of the "Apple" page, and that was basically just watchful waiting. I've used the API before, but not for editing or deleting pages. Or are you thinking of this undeletion that I did with the help of a sysadmin? Graham87 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A script to delete a page by id would be easy, but the bug that allowed creating the page in the first place has already fixed, so hopefully we won't need that anymore.
I can't really think of a place where folks would intuitively look for such documentation anyway, a quick post to WP:VPT should always be easiest -- someone there will quickly try the same things I did. :)
Amalthea 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Satinmaster

I would think that a block of some reasonable duration is in order for this SPA who, despite repeated warnings over first editwarring[16], then outing[17], and finally personal attacks, persists in asserting that experienced, uninvolved editors (as well as some involved editors) who disagree with his or her, are pursuing an "Islamophobic agenda". The editor has been warned at the article talkpage, RSN, and the editor's talkpage, but pointedly reposts the same attacks. A SPA vigorously defending a diploma mill is pretty routine on Wikipedia, but this is over the top.

Diffs: [18][19][20][21][22]

Warnings:[23][24][25][26]

Notice to User: [27]

Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admire persistence. More of the same, now on an Admin's talkpage, even after getting notice of this ANI.[28] Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• On my talk page, Satinmaster asked "Why do you keep accusing me of working for euclid?" Actually, I don't believe I've ever accused that user of working for Euclid -- and, in fact, my interaction with this user has been relatively limited. I will, however, say that this user is a WP:SPA focused on promoting EUCLID (university), by embellishing that article with content that appears positive but is fundamentally meaningless, by discrediting entities that have published negative information about EUCLID (some diffs of edits against Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: [29], [30], [31]; Satinmaster's accusations against Accredibase are largely at Wikipedia:RSN#"cannot_guarantee_the_accuracy_of_the_information"), by accusing anyone who reverts his/her work of being an Islamophobe, and by hinting at the identity of various IPs who have reverted or disagreed with Satinmaster. All in all, Satinmaster is disrupting Wikipedia with these behaviors. It's time for a final warning that additional disruption will lead to a long block. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Court found 'Oregon Office of Degree Authorization' violated constitutional rights

Ah yes, 'Orlady', the wiki editor who thinks the fact that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization being found by a court of law to to have violated the constitutional rights of a non-accredited degree holder, should not be included in the ODA article. But I get accused of being disruptive. LOL . Satinmaster (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you must be confusing me with someone else. I basically ignored the innuendo that you posted on the article talk page, although I did add a lot of content to the article in response to the campaign to declare the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization to be non-notable. (On second thought, maybe I did respond when you posted that comment somewhere else -- you've been engaging in a bit of forum-shopping, so it's hard to keep track of the various different places that the same discussion might have been started.) It was another who user who responded when you posted a similar complaint at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. I did look at the court decision (which is, by the way, a primary source, making it questionable as a source for Wikipedia) and did not find it to be of sufficient consequence to bother mentioning in the article -- which might explain why there doesn't seem to be any secondary-source documentation of the court case. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure Orlady, that if it was a court document saying something bad about a school it would be "worth mentioning". LOL Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the comment on your user page: "I no longer wish to contribute. No point. To many idiots with agendas and a keyboard." A promise to stop editing and keeping that promise might close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Bbb23, That was before I realized what was really going on here. So I am morally obliged to continue. Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Enlighten the board. Please. What is it precisely that you "realized was really going on here"? Don't be shy. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

SPAs with WP:TRUTH agendas are always like that Fladrif. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that this user starts every sentence with "Shalom" whilst s/he continues to claim there is an anti Islamic agenda in relation to Euclid? Am I the only one getting confused? 2.96.245.231 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In itself there's no reason why a Jewish person or someone else we would expect to use shalom can't be concerned by Islamophobia to the extent of seeing it in places where it doesn't exist. However [32] does make me wonder of the user. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the "Shaloms" are Satinmaster's way of saying "If you disagree with me, you must be a Jew.". Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, sockpuppet of Rlevse

Resolved

 – There's a right way, and a wrong way to return after RTV. this was the wrong one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the last few weeks, User:PumpkinSky has made numerous personal attacks against me - so many that other people openly wondered where the animosity was coming from. But there's more - he's also been adding tons of copyvios. Well, it turns out that Pumpkinsky is, in fact, a sockpuppet of disgraced ex-arbitrator user:Rlevse (violating Rlevese's claims of right to vanish). When Amalthea confronted Pumpkinsky about this, Pumpinsky admitted he was Rlevese and claimed he was leaving the project.

I have tagged Pumpkinsky, but not blocked him. (I'll let someone else do the honors). Meanwhile, people should be on the lookout for any more sockpuppets of his that happen to get registered in the next few days. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should self revert tagging the page until something more official occurs, like an actual block. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with tagging the account. The sock account needs to be blocked and the Rlevese main account needs to be tagged as a sockpuppeteer and blocked. Anything less is going to be seen as blatant bias. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've switched the tag to a more appropriate one until a block is enacted, or whatever. Calabe1992 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disgraced or not, Rlevse is not a banned editor. Is there an allegation he's using more than one account at the moment? 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that he abused WP:RTV. I don't know if this is possible, but if so, I think his account should be renamed from Vanished User back to Rlevse. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And abused of it in order to specifically revisit old grudges (his disgrace via the defeatured Grace Sherwood, revisited in his attacks on Raul654 and FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Rlevse account is already blocked. Do the bureaucrats and/or ArbCom need to be notified? --Rschen7754 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, they have most certainly been made aware. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like Amalthea or another checkuser to comment here before anyone does anything drastic. Rlevse may be back, or Pumpinsky may be falsely claiming to Amalthea that he is Rlevse for whatever reason. Any action taken on the Rlevse account (e.g. renaming) should only happen if the first case is true. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Background:Rlevse was extremely active at DYK, which came under fire (um, from me) in October 2010 for extreme repeat instances of copyvio. This culminated in October 2010 with Rlevse's Halloween WP:TFA revealed to be a copyvio (Grace Sherwood). He stepped down as an arb over that, and then exercised RTV. Now he's back, going after FAC, and committing and passing copyvio at DYK, with them turning the same blind eye they turned back in 2010. But specifically, he is violating RTV to revisit his old grudge on Raul and FAC.Let me know if diffs are needed-- this is all pretty well known stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just picked up on this. Rlevse vanished, not blocked or banned, and although he disappeared following issues around plagiarism/close paraphrasing, I don't think he *would* have been blocked, as it wasn't copy-pasting-half-a-website or passing off ripped-off piccies as one's own work, it was a sentence or two, albeit in a lot of articles :( Which would mean he couldn't WP:CLEANSTART, and anyway I think his style is so characteristic that he'd get spotted fairly fast, but there is nothing to stop him coming back. The prescribed course when a vanished user comes back is supposed to be to reinstate the vanished account. Tagging the new one as the old one is also OK (as far as I can see) but there's no need for a block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(tons of edit conflicts) He exercised RTV. That means you leave permanently, not "rename my account to hide my history and then I'll come back with a new account to resume editing". If he's not blocked already he ought to be blocked. He exercised RTV, then came back with a sock to resume engaging in old grudges. This is just as bad as circumventing a block. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Account is blocked because he was editing from it - which vanished users are not supposed to do. If Pumpkinsky is also generating copyvios, lets focus on that. If he's come back to do it again, then I suspect the community will have an opinion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That (EotR) is an incorrect description of his copyvio, and users who continue copyvio and don't help clean it up are blocked. OK, so how many arbs are behind or aware of this and any other RTV or CLEANSTART accounts affecting FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• (many edit conflicts) Actually just for clarity, he vanished, his old username isn't currently registered and his vanished account was blocked. [33] — Moe ε 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So he is circumventing a block. The userpage is protected or something so can someone plase add the puppeteer tag? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) It's only a block from the standpoint that vanished users cannot be editing. It's not a true block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How about someone make a checkuser verification before this conversation continues along the lines that they are affiliated. My76Strat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea is a checkuser (see User talk:Amalthea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes but I've seen no indication that tools were actually used. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This user must remain blocked. He caused all manner of damage to the project and, once made aware of it, exercised RTV. He then came back and resumed damaging the project, now without any excuse that he may not have been fully aware of what he was doing. This is precisely what blocking is for, and this is how blocks should be applied to this project. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. As to the attacks and disruption at FAC, too much to diff-- I sorta think everyone is aware of it by now, but diffs can be easily offered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. Also, since October 2010, we've been quite aggressive at FAC about monitoring for copyvio, so Rlevse joined in a mere handful of editors calling for FA leadership to be thrown out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general request could everyone just slow down a couple notches and think rather than just shooting from the hip? Everyone seems to be responding based on gut reactions rather than coherent, well-developed thoughts. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

speak for yourself, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said nothing on the matter and have no intent to at this point. By the way, that indent may have looked like I was replying to you specifically but that wasn't my intention, it was more a general comment to everyone. Need another cookie? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I know Grace Sherwood was a fiasco, but editors who get blocked for copyvio are the ones who copypasta entire websites, rip off photos etc. This was a sentence here, two sentences there, close paraphrasing way too much. Yes, it was a huge issue for FA, I'm not denying that, and I'm not supporting a vanished user coming back and repeating problematic behaviour, but.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And to my knowledge, you are still wrong. Considering where the arbs' credibility is on this matter, and that as far as I know you weren't an arb then, pls reflect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not coming at this as an Arb Sandy. I used to work a bit in CCI, and I've blocked a good few copyright violators. All I'm saying is that the ones that get blocked are attempting to pass off the contents of entire websites as their own work, and hiding it by not citing the copysource. It appears Rlevse had great difficulty rendering his cited sources using his own words, which is a major problem for someone trying to write an FA, and a problem for the pedia, I'm not denying that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen I agree with that: In my estimation the improper paraphrasing is caused by carelessness, not malice or intent to disrupt. Obviously a huge problem if done on this scale, but since it was a first offense back then the editor was not blocked: a block would not have been preventative. That part really is normal. Amalthea 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To the degree that an editor who generated copyvios is unwilling to help clean them up, I have to agree with SandyGeorgia; if Rlevse has returned to editing, he needs to lend a hand to the cleanup effort (and obviously not create any more). Other editors have been required to actively help clean up copyright messes and the ones who don't aren't allowed to continue editing. For consistency's sake I think we need to approach this the same way, assuming the identity is confirmed. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My point was only that at the time when Rlevse vanished back in 2010, the account was not blocked for copyright violations (edit: or plagiarism/close paraphrasing -- I'm in no position to judge whether any of this actually is a copyright violation.). He could have un-vanished and, yes, would have been expected to help with the cleanup. The situation is of course different now, and I'm expecting that this thread will at some point make that quite explicit. Amalthea 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Provided the two users are the same, I would support a block for flat out disruption, ignoring the sockpuppetry issues. --Rschen7754 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear up a point, which the conversation above seems to be confused about. Usually we do not permanently block an account if the person does not help clean up a copyright violation mess they have created. You only have to spend a short time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Open investigations to see how unusual it is for a perpetrator to help clean up their mess. Not long ago a well known and prolific editor was temporarily blocked for hindering the clean-up process, but because there was no evidence s/he had been involved in adding any copyrighted material since the start of the investigations, the block was lifted once it was clear the person would no longer hinder the process.

Unfortunately as can be see from the investigations many editors caught persistently breaching copyright first of all deny it, then plead ignorance, and then, despite the initiation of an investigation, they continue to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. To protect the project from further harm, it is those editors who are indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's be sure it's him before we do anything

It should go without saying that any editor can claim to be someone else. Some editors are better at such things than others, but we should eliminate that possibility first. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the conversation I had it is very unlikely that he was pretending to be Rlevse, and that wouldn't have really made sense in the context. IP also matches older information that I can find, and FWIW, the latest mail I sent was CCed to Rleves' old address. I have no doubt whatsoever. Amalthea 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sent the person I know is Rlevse a text message and will call him later this evening. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder who leaked Arbcom-L to Wikipedia Review! Wait, no I don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is Rlevse, it may not be the first time he's broken RTV: PumpkinSky started editing just two days after BarkingMoon quit last July. That may be worth revisiting. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Rlevse strongly denied to be BarkingMoon. I myself am convinced that they are the same though, there are way to many similarities to explain it away.
A cursory look through the articles created by BarkingMoon did not raise red flags, but that's not really my specialty: I agree that a closer look would not hurt -- but not on ANI. Beyond that, I don't think that anything needs or should be done. Amalthea 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mainly wanted to draw it to checkuser attention: the BarkingMoon account is blocked, but by user request, and is not tagged. An example of a point of contact revealed by this new information is the Noel_F._Parrish article. There may also be a pattern of behavior here. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original barkingmoon SPI. Raul654 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, that one ended inconclusively. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that it ended with Arbcom intervention: I have asked for clarification about this here. Geometry guy 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, 3 hours later. Geometry guy 02:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is absolutely not the first time Rlevse has come back after his RTV. About a week after he left, he created another account. A firestorm ensued, and he left after a day or two. I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. (Someone help me here) Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought he came back and started editing with the vanished account, caused a firestorm and that's why it's blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Elen is correct. He left after a lynch mob on AN/I, initiated right to vanish and then made a few edits after vanishing. Which resulted in a major firestorm. I don't recall any other incidents. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I find your account to be blatantly wrong, I was there minute by minute, but I'll leave it to others to read the link of the entire incident I've posted here. The minute his copyvio was discovered, he left-- there was no "lynch mob" at that point. The anger came later, when he continued editing after having exercised his right to vanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All this happened while I was going through one of my periods of "underground" editing (I embark on these periodically). I consider Rlevse to be a friend, and so naturally my first inclination is to support someone I respected. However it is easy enough to review the evidence, and Sandy's assessment is, unfortunately, painfully accurate. Manning (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there any possible relationship with the recently blocked User:PumknPi? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he's a sock of User:TungstenCarbide, a serial socker and all around troll, which would fit with PumknPi's edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scuse me...need to go and whack someone upside the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Duly whacked [34]. He's definitely TungstenCarbide. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the fiasco surrounding the Grace Sherwood article what was ignored in favour of a mob like lynching was that Rlevese had asked for editor help on that article citing his own weakness in writing, and that as Elen said the sections which were too close to source text where sentences not pages which an editor was trying to hide. Clearly there was no malice involved.There are few articles on Wikipedia where one cannot dig up sentences that are close to the source text. There was and still is no established line where text automatically is judged to be too close to the source. Holding one editor to a standard that is difficult for most editors on Wikipedia is unfair. And I'll add that after the first incident with Rlevse I found numerous instances of the same kind of writing concerns that Rlevse had been attacked for in articles, and some of the writers were those who had attacked Rlevse. Perhaps More of Elen's calm and reasonable behaviour would be useful on the this thread, rather than another ugly lynching?(olive (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

He couldn't write well so he plagiarized in order to get ten FAs? How is that anyone's fault but his own? Also, lynching kills people. ANI does not. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynching, bullshit. Rlevse has close to 100,000 edits, and during that time couldn't learn a simple thing like proper paraphrasing? And then comes back, a couple of times, doing the same shit? They should have used their time off-wiki at a community college, re-taking freshman comp. Olive, have you even looked at this, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky? If you're looking to do a nice thing for them, you might get started on that list. There's a couple hundred more to go. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What's more strange is that someone could make 100,000 edits before anyone else noticed the problem. Thankfully SOPA didn't pass. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was quite common place then, before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written, and if you'll read the description of the entire incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, you'll find it was a systemic problem at DYK. Worse-- still is. Rlevse came back there to continue more of same, and it still wasn't detected, and there have been multiple serial copyright violators at the top of DYK for years. Was always a problem, still is, what is shocking about this case is that Rlevse came back to continue more of same even after being discovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If Rlevese/Pumpkin Sky struggles writing articles without plagiarising, then they shouldn't be writing at all. Good intentions don't outweigh the disruption caused. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So after an editor has a certain edit number its not called lynching. I wonder how many editors on this page could stand the same scrutiny. Wikipedia is full of this kind of writing, full of it , and its tolerated and rewarded. I'm not saying its the best way to write, its not, but don't kid yourselves that this one editor has crossed some clearly identifiable line behind which we all stand, and he does not. Get real guys. Any editor here want to have all of their edits combed through? I won't cmt further.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

You're welcome to trawl though mine; I don't think I've "offended"! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In four years on Wikipedia this is the most offensive statement I've ever seen. You just compared a difference of opinion on Wikipedia with the brutal terroristic murders of tens of thousands of African-Americans and the destruction of their families through rape and other forms of violence. And on the first day of Black History Month. (shakes head) --NellieBly (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's called lynching when a mob drags you from your home or a jail cell where you are awaiting trial and beats you, hangs you, burns your corpse, then takes souvenirs from your clothes, and possibly body parts. It's some serious shit. ANI is a circus for children. Here I am, natch. Copyvio and plagiarism are problems, and perhaps pervasive problems, but serious editors should recognize plagiarism and copyvio, learn how NOT to do it, then not do it--and quite possibly help undo the copyvio they've done. None of what Rlevse or PumpknSky have done in this realm is respectable in any way. Rlevse quit when his copyvio was brought to light. Now he's used a sockpuppet to harass editors at FAC and sound like a dimwitted adolescent. What is there we should be mindful of in this instance? --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would we selectively take this term literally on an encyclopedia that includes terms like cherry-picking, WP:DUCK and we could go on?...TSK....(olive (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

We might selectively perceive its casual usage, unlike that of ducks and cherries, as belittling something we don't wish to belittle. For similar reasons a lot of people dislike casual hyperbolic usage of Fascist (epithet) or Feminazi. The difference is that lynching and fascism and Nazis stand for something atrocious, while ducks and cherries don't. I don't mind being called a duck or someone who picks cherries. I do mind being called a Nazi or someone who is part of a lynch mob. Now, you can call me PC for pointing this out, that won't offend me at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was friends with Rlevse, and also hold Raul and Sandy Georgia in high regard. What follows may imply my support towards RLevse, and that is not my intent - I am just trying to present his claimed position, (which has been absent thus far). So here's a diff of his farewell statement, posted by SirFozzie on his behalf back in Nov 2010. Make of it what you will. Manning (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's what I make of it. All true, but then he came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio, and back to FAC to beat on the very people who instituted checks for copyvio, making it harder to get an FA. And this goes to what Oliveoil is saying above-- sure, probably few have a stellar record. In the early days of my editing (2006 to 2007), I thought it was ok to cut-and-paste from public domain, and I thought it was OK to almost directly translate foreign (non-English) sources. Then the Plagiarism Dispatch was written mid-2009 -- by the way, well before Rlevse's 2010 copyvio was discovered-- and a whole lot of us learned we'd been doing it wrong for a long time. So, bottom line-- once you are educated (and Rlevse was), do you try to clean up after yourself, or do you come back under multiple other accounts to 1) defend ongoing coyvio at DYK, and 2) continue creating copyvio yourself? He didn't help-- he continued same. Endorse indef block, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely wish I had some basis on which to disagree with you, Sandy. I'm so saddened by the whole affair. Manning (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you back up you claim that Rlevse "came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio"? Cause I see no indication that's true. Amalthea 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor phrasing on my past, because Rlevse defended copyvio, and PumpkinSky blamed "the FA crowd" for increased copyvio checks: more concise phrasing to put those two together would be "came back to DYK to continue defending the status quo" (which was and remains little checking for copyvio, and was what Rlevse did); see for example, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 76#Reflections of a long-time user. And generally note that Pumpkin appeared there to keep pushing things along, which lowered the chance of getting regulars to take copyvio seriously, even after a year and a half since the Rlevse Halloween debacle (which was not a few phrases as stated here several times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky blocked

I've blocked the PumpkinSky account indefinitely after realizing it had not already been done. I'm watching PumpkinSky's user page. There seems to be some confusion: a sock template was placed on that page and removed twice despite a confirmed checkuser. If it happens again, I'm going to protect the user page. As for this thread, I'm not sure what more can be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Not much more can be done in this thread. Hopefully he realises that if he wants to come back and edit, he has to deal with the backstory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying totally out of the issues with PumpkinSky's battles with admins, as I respect him but I also respect many of you, (Sandy, for example, was at one time very kind in defending me when I had a major problem with a now-blocked user) but I was working closely with PumpkinSky on an article where he was a useful and gracious editor and feel someone needs to make some statement in his defense. I have spent hours and hours on the article myself, and now will probably have to purchase a hardcopy book to verify every last bit of his work and I am not happy about it because I suspect that it will be, at most, another Grace Sherwood situation where one or two sentences here or there might be a little close, but not a mass plagiarism issue. Seems most of this fuss is over personality issues, not content. I AM concerned about the level of vitriol here over the copyvio issues, because we now have about 800 articles to look at, mostly for what will mostly be minor edits and vandal reverts, with possibly be too-close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a fine line on very short start class articles, particularly when there isn't a lot of source material. And that was a lot of what PumpkinSky was working on. As for Rlevse, I have no clue if they are the same person, but Rlevse was an admin who also helped me deal with the same individual Sandy helped me face, so I also considered him a kind and helpful person. I was sad to see him go and remember thinking the Grace Sherwood dogpile was a bit over the top when the problem was only a few sentences in one paragraph, which probably should have been quickly fixed (before the article hit the main page, agreed) and then move on. Seems to me that personality issues are getting in the way and minor sins are viewed through a lens clouded by other concerns. As for not writing at all, it is important to remember that in some fields of writing, scientific discussion or law for example, close paraphrasing is practically required so as to keep precision in nuance and interpretation -- getting too creative changes the meaning. So I have some sympathy for stuff getting cranked out that comes a bit close to the source. It's like WP:BEANS -- once a concept is in your head, it is a bit of a challenge to put aside a concept and be completely original. So my take is that I'd like people to separate the content from the contributor: PSky may have been wiser to have avoided engaging with admins on admin issues, I won't comment there because I've not been following the drama boards. But the content sins are, as far as I can tell, misdemeanors at most, and mostly less than that. I will admit that PSky bailed fast rather than defend his work, and that was the same pattern as Rlevse, but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters. So I just hope everyone tones down the rhetoric. I'd like to see these users -- whether one person or two -- return, as they were tackling things that needed to be done. I for one am going over the CCI stuff and trying to at least check off the low-hanging fruit. I'd also be willing to help these users if they return by being a second set of eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Given all the personal attacks directed at me from his pumpkinsky sockpuppet, I for one have no intention of toning down my commentary on him. Nor do I have any desire to see him return. He should have the good grace to never darken our door again.

And for any checkusers reading this, please make a note of any IP data used by Pumpkinsky, because if he stays true to his pattern, he'll be registering another sockpuppet very soon. (If he hasn't done so already). Raul654 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems quite likely even to me. Camp Disappointment. Google "Rlevse Montana". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... for example:

I lived in Montana too, blacks were about 0.1% of the population there. Indians and Hispanics are far more common in that part of the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I also "hear" where Montana's coming from, but no ... after all the attacks directed at FAC and Raul over the last months, this reaction is justified. It wasn't "just" copyvio that brought us to here-- it was coming back under a new account to visit huge amounts of disruption upon FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw for a humane and perceptive comment, "but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters."(olive (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

1. Seemed like the dude was doing good work on the Yogo Gulch article. At least trying.

2. The Grace Sherwood concern was vastly overblown. Especially the ZOMFG on the main page concern. Lots of articles get more traffic than a main page article just from Googling in and the vast amount of our content is not accessed through the main page. The main page of the NYT it is not! Isolated sentence level too-close copying exists (at least in history) in every popular and well contributed to article (every major element, country, etc.) The lack of perspective on a too close para (even just by Wiki standards, not real world liability or the like) and confounding it with blatant or large scale copying is a real problem. The genuine plagiarizer has a pattern and does it a lot and in stretches. Some of the parsing being done on phrases at Wiki would get laughed at by an IP lawyer or an academic review board.

3. I'm concerned that copyvio is becoming on more weapon to use in feuds. (We already see this some with some of the Wiki rules and policies.) This is especially concerning since it is a perversion of what should be very much a content thing and not connected to squabbles of factions. I have personally seen this used this way twice recently. Both times very sketchy, too. I think concern of a single, nonremarkable fact in an article missing a references (in the Fae RFC) is similar.

4. Thinking that Raul does not do much as FA leader or that the position should be elected is not a personal attack. It actually shows a lack of perspective and analytics to confound the two.

5. The Pumpkiner dude's not perfect (like I want a more detailed map of the Yogo Gulch damnit, not that little red county!), but he is probably just bailing from the embarrassment more than anything.

TCO (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah 100% TCO: all style "dude", no substance. Reminds me of, now who? Geometry guy 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Rlevse wanted to return to Wikipedia after claiming to have left, he should have just taken the Elen-approved route - just claim that, even though he used it for years, he just realised his Rlevse account contains his first name somewhere. This lucky quirk of fate can then be used to set up a new account that openly claims to be a WP:CLEANSTART, but which can hide behind WP:OUTING if it's ever asked if it used to be Rlevse. This method of switchover takes two minutes, and allows immediate resumption of high level editing. If he'd done it this way, he could go right back to his old topic areas and activities no matter what record he had there as Rlevse, and in situations like this nobody would be getting away with pulling up old evidence based on the Rlevse history, they'd be getting told by Elen to compile whole new dossiers based solely on the new suit, or shut the hell up. That's of course the best benefit, but even better than just skulking back and hoping no-one notices, this method even allows the resumption of whatever wiki-friendships Rlevse had in place, right in plain sight as if it was all perfectly normal and allowed. Imagine the possibilities. It cannot be countered by anyone, for the experienced user of this con-trick there are easy plays available against anyone. So there you have it Rlevse, 100% satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, just ask User:Mo ainm for further advice if you can't pick it up from these instructions. Tora Bora Mora (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Oh, dear, as if this topic wasn't already "entertaining" enough - now, a newly registered user pops up and posts the above and another post at Arbcomm. The post here reminds me of those who post how-to-make-a-bomb instructions on the Internet. Of course, I have no idea whether the instructions here would work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) This is turning into "Ducks Unlimited" in more than one way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after the original departure of Rlevse issues about his activities on Wikipedia were discovered which were perhaps much more serious than the plagiarism. At the time it seemed more fitting to let the negative stuff stay hidden since he had left and didn't appear likely to return. If he has returned then he needs to address his past errors.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has categorised the recent activity at FA as "disruption". Since that word has such negative connotations here at Wikipedia, I would like to point out that what actually happened was there was an RFC which called the current leadership into question and proposed possible elections for those positions. Sure, the current leadership at FA would find such an event "disruptive" in the more usual sense of the word, as it interrupted their normal routine and challenged the status quo. But I can assure you that none of us did so with any intent to destroy FA or the work they do. And just because the proposal is going to fail does not mean that the RFC was a waste of time, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I disagree; it seems to me to have been a complete waste of time, although the revelation about Pumpkin Sky is elucidating...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to "call the current leadership into question" without inaccurate overly personalized stirring-the-pot statements, verging on personal attacks, most certainly a failure to AGF, which those doing the "calling into question" engaged in frequently. They also consistently fail to provide diffs or answer direct queries, but that's already been pointed out many times. Here is Pumpkin's involvement (as a returning user breaching CLEANSTART, grinding an ax against Raul and FAC, clearly disruptive):

• Pumpkin on Rauls' talk
• Pumpkin at WT:FAC
• Pumpkin at the RFC fueled by a small handful of editors, including Pumpkin (where those editors have been found to be in a substantial minority).

Perchance, with the hindsight of 20–20 and knowing know that there was motive, you (Diannaa) will go back and answer the multitude of queries you chose to ignore throughout the runup to the RFC. Apparently I wasn't the only person using the word "disruption"; some outside observors also found the runup "disruptive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - lots of unanswered questions...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Missed this:

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=PumpkinSky&page=User+talk%3AAlarbus&max=100&server=enwiki

Alarbus (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Entertaining as all this has been, somebody close and hat this. The account has been blocked. It's over. If Rlevse wants to come back after exercising courtesy RTV, there is a process which he is certainly experienced enough to follow. All the issues, real or imagined, about whether he should be permitted to return and on what terms can be hashed out then. This hardly seems the time or place. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

Per WP:CBAN, moved here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Propose_community_ban_for_User:Rlevse_.2F_User:Vanished_6551232 Nobody Ent 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming

• "The article on Neuro-linguistic programming, and related pages, are placed on article probation. Any user disrupting these pages may be banned from the article and related articles by an uninvolved administrator."[35]

I asked Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop making accusations of bad faith against me via his talk page[36] but he continues. Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lam Kin Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not creating a pleasant editing environment. Rather than dealing with the issue they keep making accusations of sockpuppetry both direct and implied. The reason I created the account is that I want to be anonymous. I realize that this is an extremely controversial topic and that several editors have been harassed off-wiki by editors exposing their real identities in order to embarrass them to their friends and family, cause them anxiety or other harm.

I made it clear when I create this account that it is a single purpose account for editing the NLP and related pages only. I am not here to promote or disparage the subject. I want to see articles written based on reliable sources and relevant wikipedia policies.

Every edit I make in good faith based even when clearly based on reliable sources is automatically reverted. It has been going on for some time, but here are some examples from the past few days. I have been trying to ascertain how to accurately report on the Norcross et al 2006 paper. It is a poll designed to establish a consensus on "what does not work" in psychotherapy. It does not make any specific conclusions about NLP in the body of the article. There is a table which lists the results concerning NLP for round 1 and 2 in a table. Snowded and Lam Kin Keung argue that we can just use the data from the results table and make our own interpretation for the wikipedia article. I do not agree with their opinion on this so have been asking them to tell me the conclusions made by the authors. Rather than dealing with the issues they launch into personal attacks saying it has been discussion before and that I am wasting their time on the same sources. I do not believe I am wasting their time. It really does not matter what has been discussed or agreed to before if the article still misrepresents a source.

• "just by changing your name"[37]
• "you have been told this before"[38]
• "Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour."[39]
• "you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references."[40].

This is a highly controversial topic on wikipedia. Looking at the editing statistics here, Neuro-linguistic programming is probably more controversial than Abortion. The editors whether they are pro, con or neutral have been personally attacked and harassed off-wiki. I can provide more details privately to a trusted administrator as I do not want to give away my real details.

The user Snowded has been threatening for some time to reveal my personal information. I don't think he knows who I am but still the threat is there. Links and further evidence can be provided privately. I'd rather it done in a way that protects the privacy of editors including me. I think he is trying to put pressure on editors to conform to his viewpoint or "be exposed". He has also implied that I was responsible for creating a off-wiki web site designed to bring in meatpuppets. I have approached Snowded at his talk page and ask him to stop making the threats but he continued and even stepped it up a notch.

I believe I am within my rights to edit using this single purpose account so I ask that the editors remain civil and assume good faith. I request that they stop trying to accusations of bad faith. Rather than just dismissing and autoreverting all my edits, try to work with me in creating a better article. If I ask for clarification on a source they should not assume that I am trying to waste their time.

I need help dealing with this situation. Perhaps a mentor can be suggested for me. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the fourth "serial" ID that this user has used (listed at the bottom of this sandpit which has draft evidence. Changing ID of itself may be OK, but its not OK to use said change of ID to repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved with his earlier persona. Especially as the first manifestation (Comaze) was subject to Arbcom remedies. We can then add to that a series of SPA's editing in conjunction with the current persona and clear evidence of meat puppetry linked to two of the previous IDs (both in comments from banned users and in the repetition of attacks suggested by external web sites organised by one group of NLP enthusiasts). I and other editors (see the article talk page) consider that the disruption has gone on long enough and I have agreed to put the evidence together and submit it to the community here for consideration. It is a fairly time intensive task which I can't undertake given work commitments for a week or so. I think this report is probably an attempt to pre-empt that report or at least muddy the waters. Oh, and by the way, as far as I am aware I am the only editor who has been harassed off wiki so I am not sure what that is about. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A cursory study of the talk page will reveal that recently 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated unilateral editing against consensus, or while subjects are under discussion. The user has consistently attempted original research, (a recent example of many being an accusation of plagiarism by an author of a journal article here), some of his talk page "queries" have verged on hoaxing (see this thread for example), and he has repeatedly tried to shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP, contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM. He has been given numerous warnings about this kind of editing behaviour. There are also serious and legitimate questions about whether the user is an spa or mpa, which are still to be resolved. In any case, the user's editing has been disruptive, and of itself calls for administrative intervention. I would suggest a ban on editing pseudoscience-related pages, but given the fact that the user has admitted it is a single purpose account, a block would be more appropriate. ISTB351 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the user here admits to being 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user does not make this openly clear, and there is an overlap of editing without declaration on January 17th this year. This is a fairly clear case of sockpuppetry, even if an obvious one, and there is much to believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. ISTB351 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns on SPAs & the person behind the mulitple IP accounts, has just declared him/herself an SPA. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a quick point of order, Wikipedia doesn't frown on SPAs (or shouldn't), as long as they edit according to policy. Wikipedia does frown on sock puppetry, however (no implication on my part that sock puppetry's involved in this case, as I haven't really reviewed it). — madman 02:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit by certified sockpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::Hello administrators. First up, there is an ongoing problem concerning the background context of the NLP article. Now there are some interested and concerned parties who have already pointed out the extreme likelihood that Snowded, Lam Kin Keung and others are sockpuppets of the banned Headleydown[41]. Putting that aside for now, it has been a sad spectactle watching a bona fide editor be bullied and pushed around by especially Snowded and Lam Kin Keung. They refuse to reply properly to questions asked. They regularly delete messages on their talk pages rather than reply responsibly. They have driven away good editors on the NLP talk page. I for one, if I were an administrator, would feel extremely let down by myself if I didn't deal with this situation by at least cautioning Snowded and Lam Kin Keung to stop editing NLP related articles at least until the article has been fixed by myself and other bona fide editors. I do hate to point out poeple's failings, but your lack of care and attention to that article is becoming obvious. Snowded, Lam Kin Keung, ISTB351 and others are producing an article that disparages and defames the legitimate field of NLP. Please keep in mind the reputation of Wikipedia. Congru (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not think that ISTB351 is independent of Snowded so his comment should only be taken lightly. I edit NLP and related articles under a separate name is that the topic is highly controversial within my professional and social circle. Unfortunately my Wikipedia identity is traceable to my real name and I have already been the subject of harassment. I don't want to discuss or give any more details because it might give them more fuel for the fire but I am willing to talk to a trusted administrator privately. For this reason I wish to use an alternative account to avoid this harassment and embarrassment in other areas of my professional and personal life. Snowded repeatedly claims whenever I discuss an proposed edit that I "repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved". I'd prefer that we foster a collaborative atmosphere rather then the war zone metaphor. He keeps calling my edits "editing warring". I am not repeating previous discussion that have been resolved because I am basing my edits on what is currently in the article. If it was resolved, why do the issues remain in the article? ISTB351 claims that i have: "consistently attempted original research". This is not fair because I have been using reliable sources to make my edits. It is a stretch to call what I am doing original research. ISTB351 and Snowded said that I should not use the word "sought" in my change proposed edit: here: "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010)<ref name="Norcross et al 2006">Norcross et. al. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association. {{doi|10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515}}</ref><ref name="Norcross_et_al._2010_Pages_176-177">Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, ''Journal of Addiction Medicine'', Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180.</ref> sought to establish expert-consensus concerning discredited psychological interventions, they found NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders was ranked between possibly or probably discredited, and certainly discredited for substance and alcohol abuse." ISTB351 believed that the word "sought" was a weasel term. I knew it was familiar. I looked at the Witkowski paper again and found that not only was that word "sought" used in the context of reporting the intention of the Norcross study but it was also used in the abstract of the original study Norcross 2006. In fact Witkowski had plagiarised the Norcross abstract. Earlier in discussion Snowded that there is no question that Witkowski is reliable and we should take what he says at face value. But I noted that the journal was not highly regarded anyway - it is not listed as a reputable journal. I ran the Witkowski paper through "turn it in" and found a large plagiarism count. I was just making a comment that I questioned the credibility of the journal and the author and that we should report on the original two studies by Norcross et al instead. ISTB351 (falsely) claims that I "shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP". I strive to stay on topic and rarely discuss anything in general about NLP. My discussion is almost always about specific edits or I am questioning the papers cited in the article. I did attempt to divert discussion to what other editors would accept as reliable sources but they refused to be party to those discussion. They said you they need to evaluate the source in the context of a specific edit. So I made effort to be very specific giving the exact text in question and a proposed change. I need to add that I completely agree with the arbitration findings and suggested rememdies on NLP back in 2005/6: [42] but think the remedies should be extended to current editors of the article such as Snowded, ISTB351, Congru and even me, or anyone else who joins in. I would not be surprised if several editors banned under the arbcom remedies have returned to the article (albeit better behaved which is a positive). I do not want to name anyone in particular because I think that this should be a blanket guideline for anyone editing NLP or related articles. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit by certified sockpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
::::In addition, there is polite disagreement from editors such as myself and 122.x.x.x. This seems to be the norm here at Wikipedia, or indeed any legitimate field where concerned collaboration takes place. However, there is a suspicious amount of agreement going on between Snowded and other editors to the point that would make one question the nature of their association. They never disagree with each other. Just a tip! Congru (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we have a number of new users who only edit NLP and who all edit in the same disruptive way, making accusations of sockpuppetry against other established users who edit a broad range of topics, and whose only alleged connection is that they also edit NLP. This is about as good a case of WP:BOOMERANG as we are ever likely to see. ISTB351 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ISTB351, don't pretend that you are independent of this dispute. Wait for an independent administrator to comment. And don't be fooled by Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who might be a strawman sock: "Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side."WP:SOCK Congru I would not doubt your authenticity if you used reliable sources more consistently and used diffs to give weight to your views. 122.x.x.x (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So everyone is a sock apart from you. You are in breach of AGF to an extent that WP:Conspiracy comes into play. This is of course despite the fact that you have been running SPAs contrary to wikipedia policy. It's laughable. ISTB351 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) I filed a request for a third opinion, and then a request for comment on one of the points (the declaration that NLP is a pseudo-science) in the article. This complaint I mostly agree with; there is a hostile attitude towards NLP expressed in the article that didn't used to be there, and on the talk page; edits intended to return the article to the more NPOV flavor it used to have (at the time it was a good article candidate) are reverted. htom (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a point about article content and is not suitable for the ani. The reason that the article says what it says is because that is what the sources say. The user above incidentally is another who mainly edits NLP-related issues. ISTB351 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputes about article content, raised in improper, hostile ways, are indeed appropriate for ANI. As far as my edits on NLP or the talk page, recently that's been too true, and for a sad reason. htom (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that in their final decision the ArbCom decide that "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact." --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single violation of that Arbcom ruling in the current version of the article. Nowhere does it state as a fact that NLP is a pseudoscience. The article reflects the balance of the sources. You are simply wasting people's time here with spurious and tendentious points. ISTB351 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that "the article reflects the balance of the sources"? What is your evidence? As I said in the discussion we need to work together to compile a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoint according to weight. It is not an easy task because the literature is spread across different disciplines. We should not just focus on the view of naive empiricists or evidence based psychologists, this is just one view. Balance can only be achieved by compiling a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoints. At the moment there is hardly any description of what NLP is as described by its founders. There is a book titled Frogs into Princes by Bandler and Grinder published in 1979. It has 700 citations in Google scholar but there are just two short mentions of it in the current article: (1) "Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies."... (2) "According to Stollznow (2010) “Bandler and Grinder’s infamous Frogs into Princes and other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia.” That is far from a fair and balanced treatment of the subject according to the sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The context of the NLP situation has been mentioned before recently: [43]. There appears to be a commercial element at issue. For the past months a commercial site named Inspiritive.com that promotes a “New code” of the neuro-linguistic programming: [44][45][46] was linked to. Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Commercial links continue to be removed:[55][56][57]. Some editors on the neuro-linguistic talk page tend to edit towards the new code version of neuro-linguistic programming and be towards edit warring or against BRD:[58][59]. Discussion is encouraged even so: [60][61][62][63]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those commercial links except for maybe the 1996 interview of John Grinder [64] that was linked on the John Grinder article. That interview is also linked from the Skeptic's dictionary article about NLP and from memory is also used as a reference in several academic publications. It probably meets wikipedia guidelines for external links. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development: Following the lead from postings of user Congru and confirmed sockpuppet Syductive: There are the other further diffs [65][66][67] to commercial firm [68]. Firm appears to be an example company of comaze.com [69]. This all relates to the case: [70]. Comaze.com concerns with writing promotional NLP sites and the search engine optimization [71]. This needs more following up. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the example company NLPcorporate has now gone from Comaze.com website [72]. It was there a short time (minutes) ago. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Screenshot evidence of recent coverup on comaze.com: [73]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And, per my earlier link the editor who brought this case, in his previous IP address was linked to a Hong Kong member of New Balance NLP, who was then apologises to "Scott" for her inability to get things changed just before she is blocked. Nearly all the SPA accounts on this page, including those permanently blocked have made multiple accusations of sock puppetry against other editors as part of their Headly Down conspiracy theory. That is again detailed on external web sites which includes clear guidance as to how to disrupt wikipedia. 122.x.x.x in a previous manifestation is no exception to that. What we have here is extensive meat puppetry, with some socks all geared towards a commercial interest. It really needs investigating by an experienced admin. --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a certified sockpuppet of Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit, asking an editor: "Hello, have you ever previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user[6]. Please explain." 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is the same user as 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who started this thread, made this edit asking a different editor: "Hi, have you previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user. Please explain". The similarities here are too obvious. Even if 122.x.x.x is not a sock of Congru, then there is clear evidence of meat puppetry here. Admin intervention is required. ISTB351 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch ISTB351. Following up on your lead: The edit summaries are similar here also: Sydactive: [74], User IP122... [75]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have nothing to do with that exposing socks site that you mentioned. I will support your efforts in guarding against that sort of disruption. I would not collaborate with editors who pop up with that sort of agenda. I do need to stress that your implication that I been editing "towards a commercial interest" is false. Point out any edit that I have made which is promotional. You will not find any. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then its a pity you have been making the same accusations as advocated on that site. As far as I can see from the Brenda Lim posting to your user page and the links the the NLP sites in Australia that you are associated with this is meat puppetry at best. The pattern of behaviour over the last year or so is your persona that attempts to adopt a "reasonable" position supported by a series of SPA accounts that change over time. Some of those SPAs have made commercial posts and have been banned, others have attacked other editors. The pattern is pretty clear and I imagine some more analysis of text (per ISTB351 above) would spot more links. --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment that I take the "reasonable" position. But don't be fooled Snowded. I don't know who is doing it but I can absolutely guarantee that I have no known personal, academic or professional connection with any editors on the NLP or related pages. I had to assume good faith with these people but always demanded evidence and reliable sources from them and certainly did not accept their support. I have not asked anyone to edit with me or for me. Didn't you consider the possibility that the SPAs (Sydactive, Congru and probably Brenda Lim) you referred to were probably strawsocks? Someone was just copy and pasting my words an using it in edit comments then adding links to commercial sites to try to embarrass me. Assuming what I said is true, you (Snowded) must be at least a little embarrassed that you did not detect it earlier. I'm willing to assume good faith with you (Snowded) again but you cannot keep autoreverting my edits and keep accusing me of things I have no control over. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its an interesting conspiracy theory but I doubt it and I am more than happy to be embarrassed in the interests of assuming good faith, although I did start collecting evidence last June. Also you are not "auto reverted", you are reverted when you ignore decisions or discussions on the talk page.--Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted for the record that 122.x.x.x suggestion of straw socks turned out to be false and yet another attempt to create a distraction. SPI result here ----Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Autoreverting" is an accusation used also by now banned user Congru: [76] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP on precisely one point: That there is an unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming. In reality, the unpleasant environment is caused by a stream of different accounts - whether SPAs or socks or whatever - which all turn up to patiently advocate NLP or try to remove or water down the mainstream position. Still, at least we've moved on from the "skeptic" conspiracy theory and SPI... The offsite coordination is hardly a surprise, but nobody's going to confess to being associated with that site even if they act in accordance with its bizarre claims. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner, At no time have I tried to "advocate NLP", patiently or not. Show me the diffs where I have advocated for NLP. Also, can you give diffs where I have sought to "remove or water down the mainstream position" because the has never been my intention. I did try to clarify the Norcross pollshere. "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010)"... My edit actually strengthens the "mainstream" or EBP position because it lets the evidence speak for itself. In this edit I added a reference to a high impact journal to support the "mainstream view". Also in relation to the use of NLP in management training, I made this edit followed by this edit to strike balance. It is difficult to know with precision how widely NLP is used so we had to base it on the estimations by independent sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your evasive use of multiple identities makes it the difficult task, but evidence can be found that is contradicting your claim: Persistent removal of reliable critical material [77]. Doing same using misleading edit summaries [78]. Doing same using accusatory edit summary [79](creating unpleasant editing environment). Removing reliable source critical of NLP [80][81]. Personal attack [82] (no WP:SPI made). Misleading edit summaries to remove mainstream critical view [83] misleading edit summaries similar to banned user [84]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading and editing the Wikipedia article about NLP for a few months now and fully agree with 122 that there has been an unfair amount of pressure put on him by Editors, many of whom sadly are disparaging him right here on this page yet again.

122 has shown a deep understanding of the subject and a balanced approach to editing. For example, he made a perfectly valid point about the Norcross reference, which reflected study and thought. That point was met with auto-reverting and attacks rather than with recognition of his ideas and cooperation towards a balanced reflection of that source on Wikipedia.

You can find the nasty responses on this page.... you don't even have to look at the article talk page: LKK says "evasive," Bobrayner says "unpleasant" due to "pro-NLP" people, Snowded has been accumulating references that he can use to attack "SPAs" and linked it here. Etc. etc. It's obviously not a nice atmosphere, just as 122 says.

Instead the Editors who are responding that way here should address the source not being reflected fairly on wikipedia, and then work towards a balanced reflection of the source. They are focused on the wrong thing. I do not believe this will be solved without intervention of some kind in support of knowledgeable people such as 122 simply trying to express well referenced ideas in a balanced manner.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh)Encylotadd is the latest SPA to edit the article (it might be worth pulling them all up with edit dates, as they all link with periods of active editing by 122). Encylotadd is currently on a final warning for personal attacks relating to the NLP page. And guess what, the accusations he made all came directly from the external web sites referenced above. He has stopped the attacks since that final warning, but it is ironic given his comments on atmosphere above. --Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of meat puppetry

This site relates specifically to new code NLP and Wikipedia. A check on edits shows that the author is Scott C. Same venue as this attack site. I have screen shots of the pages in case they are taken down. The sequence of serial editors culminating in 122.x.x.x together with the links to Scott C is:

1. User:Comaze, subject to Arbcom injunction account redirected to Action Potential
2. User:Action potential (user page linked to Scott Coleman of comaze.com) edits from 23rd August 2005 to 24th July 2010 (and we have six months of peace thereafter)
3. User:122.108.140.210 comes in after a period of silence, but is linked to other SPAs via web sites for New Code NLP. Here we have confirmation from Brenda Lo that IP is Scott and that she has been canvassed before she was blocked. Contributes from 12th January 2011 to 29th January 2012
4. User:122.x.x.x link shown by this edit shows the IP is 122.108.140.210 edits from 26th January 2012

Now I assume meat puppetry is reported here not SPI? Also this may be an enforcement issue given that Comaze is subject to an (admittedly old) arbcom ruling here --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Especially significant is line on the site [85] that states "The Oxford English Dictionary definition is by far the closest to the new code definition, and it is a lot more appealing than others". The last entry on the footer link of that page (recent site activity) is December 11 2011. User 211... continued to edit war for Oxford English Dictionary information in January 2012 [86] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x. also advocates the OED (Oxford English Definition) here on 17 January 2012. [87]. Also advocated by user Encyclotadd [88] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Content discussion already resolved on talk page of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I always thought Oxford English Dictionary was an independent reliable source for definitions. --122.x.x.x (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC) IIRC, the OED is good for the history of usage for a word, and not all that good for any technical meanings or usage of words. It was never intended to be used for scientific discourse meanings. Collect (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I agree entirely. Dictionaries can get specialist words badly wrong. I recall a dictionary that called archaeology the study of prehistory, for instance, which of course excludes the work of probably the majority of archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I have to admit that the definition in the OED did focus on psychotherapy which excludes the majority of what NLP practitioners do so I can agree with Dougweller and Collect in that respect. Then we were left with the question of finding a definition that best represents the discourse concerned with NLP. The definition entry in the US NLM [89] is precisely "intended to be used for scientific discourse meanings" and similar to the OED but only mentions psychotherapy in the see also field so it excludes those academic researchers (and practitioners) who treat NLP as a form of psychotherapy. So the key is to use multiple sources for definitions but which ones? We need a stability point. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of commercial involvement

New information emerging: Changes to Comaze.com website yesterday included removal of “search engine optimization” from the page, but evidence is left over in “search engine optimization” in the mouseover function [90](photo evidence No 6).

Also, the information on “NLP new code” advocacy site [91] includes “Neuro - we only know and represent the world through our neurological processes (our mind, body and sensory systems - the five senses.)”. This line and others also appears on the comaze.com website before Jan 30th [92] (photo evidence No3).

Concerning the commercial connections between companies involved, there are the hosting similarities with NLP companies related to case [93][94][95][96] all companies being remotely hosted from Houston area according to the links. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I share your frustration in dealing with promotional editors, I certainly do not appreciate that you have taken out your frustration on me. Please show me diffs where I have supposedly added promotional or "commercial" links to wikipedia articles or otherwise engaged in SEO. If you think that I did it using another account then make a case to SPI. Otherwise, stop your unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry expressed or implied. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x recently applied for a self SPI and will be likely rejected [97]. This is a meatpuppetry case. It involves multiple editors some already been banned. It concerns neuro-linguistic programming, known to be a mainly commercial development involving mainly promotion on the Internet. It appears to be likely that the organization of the meatpuppetry would rule out the use of a single IP. There is also the possibility of the website company (ISP interactive [98] and following the company link there, Comaze.com) being able to access Wikipedia via shared proxy servers. Applying for an SPI would be without a point.

More commercially related information discovered: There appears to be the long term habit of meatpuppetry: It goes even back to 2005 [99][100] both in the same commercial directory [101].

User 122.x.x.x. promoted as user Action Potential using the links (inspiritive.com.au) [102][103]. They are the same commercial site identified very recently as the spam[104] [105]

The promotion appears by removing criticism on the neuro-linguistic programming article, adding favourable or preferred promotional phrases to it and appears to be using promotional links via a group of meatpuppets. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Further commercial information: As of 1st Feb 2012, Comaze.com has been changed again [106] photoevidence No7[107]. Before 30th Jan 2012, the website included promotion of company NLPCorporate (photoevidence No1) [108], a company promoted by probable meatpuppet[109] notified here on Jan 30th [110] removed minutes later on Jan 30th (photoevidence No2). Such a cover-up series appears highly incriminating in the circumstances. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Example SPA accounts

I think there are some more, but this is a basic list. All support 122.x.x.x in current and previous manifestations generally taking a more extreme position. The advise given here to: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances" is followed in most cases.

• User:Encyclotadd Nov11 todate warned for attacks using material from external web site
• User:Congru Dec 11 to Jan 12 blocked as sock
• User:Willyfreddy July 11 to Dec 12 multiple personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Colemchange Oct 11 to Nov 11 personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Jpjans July 11 too Aug 11 supporting 122.x.x.x on citations tags etc.
• User:Brenda Lo88 June 11 blocked

I have not listed non SPA accounts who may be linked to meat puppetry --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I have nothing to do with any of those accounts. If you think I am connected with any other account then please submit an SPI, otherwise, stop making your unfounded accusations. This is exactly why I made the complaint here. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is meat puppetry and disruptive behaviour not sock puppetry (I think, although I would not rule that out). Evidence has been presented in that respect, including direct links to offsite web sites edited by you which propagate a view of what should be on wikipedia for NLP. That plus the links to BrendaLo88 (not just her posting on your user page, but links to NLP web sites which can be provided if needed) demonstrate that your comment above is just bluster. ANI is the proper format for that discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

References

My 2 cents

I use Wikipedia often to research concepts/subjects that I am (newly) aware of, but not very familiar with. As I mentioned to Snowded when I first got involved in the discussion, I have avoided editing/discussing pages on Wikipedia because of the us vs. them mentality that often prevails (and is especially present here). Nevertheless, NLP was one subject that I had a passing interest in where the corresponding Wikipedia page was (imo) abhorrently lacking in informative, and unbiased, content. I first heard about it through my sincere interest in Erickson's work, but found most of the books on NLP to be awful. And so I chose to get involved.

Now, as to the "charges" against me from Snowded. They are all patently false. I never was involved in the HeadleyDown conspiracy theory. People pointed out their theories to me on my talk page, and I asked about getting someone with authority involved. That was my level of involvement. Secondly, I never offered 122.x (and his previous names) blanket support, not at all. In the past, Snowded has labeled me as a "proponent of NLP" simply because I disagreed with him (if I had more time, I'd find the diff on the talk page). And it is the same situation here: I have regularly disagreed with him and so he is labeling me as a confederate of 122.x. Furthermore, by highlighting this statement on some website: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances", he is now able to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of working in collaboration with 122.x. If I agree with 122.x then I'm guilty. If I disagree with 122.x then I'm guilty as well. It is because of users like Snowded that I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again.

Regarding the state of the NLP page, I do agree that it is in awful shape. Honestly, I think it's embarrassing. The majority of the lede is now devoted to criticism, and it amazes me that anybody could consider the article as demonstrating an NPOV. Snowded and LKK, two of the most active and vociferous editors on the page, both believe that NLP is "a fringe pseudo-science." (again, apologies, but I don't have time for the diffs) As long as both of them have considerable control over the article, an NPOV will never be achieved.

I wish everyone involved good luck. Willyfreddy (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"...I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again", that statement needs clarification. If you were never involved with Wikipedia before? then you couldn't get involved 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy of structured workshop to develop article

"A case against editors on Neuro-linguistic programming was closed on Monday. As a result, a form of probation was enacted on the subject, whereby any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles. The article will also be placed under mentorship, with mentors to be named later. Editors Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey have also been required to discuss any reversions on article talk pages, and have been reminded regarding NPOV and adequate sourcing."from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-02-06/Arbitration_report --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that it says that "any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles". The mentor run workshop was intended to help editors work together in a structured way to bring the article closer to NPOV. Unfortunately, the mentors gave up after banning most of the editors for failures to adhere to workshop rulesbanned. I think that another structured workshop is in order to encourage edits to work together and produce a better quality article based on relevant policies, especially regarding NPOV together with WP:FRINGE recommendations. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And you of course as Comaze (referenced in the ruling above) are subject to those sanctions which you have persistently over several IDs broken. We need to deal with the clear evidence of disruptive behaviour, attempted promotion of commercial links and meat puppetry outlined above. The view that there is some massive POV issue is yours and that of the SPAs that appear from time to time, other experienced editors brought to the site have in the main endorsed the current properly sourced position. --Snowded ^TALK 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well.

I invite any non-involved editor who intends to participate in bringing the article to a NPOV to read Bandler and Grinder's Frogs into Princes, Reframing, and The Structure of Magic I && II, and and then compare both today's version of the NLP page and the allegations about NLP above to what you know about NLP. That hucksters have taken it and used it to bad ends ... demonstrates that it can work; Bandler and Grinder also explain how it can fail, in Frogs into Princes, page 175:

If you decide that you want to fail with this material [NLP], it's possible to. There are two ways to fail. I think you ought to be aware of what those are, so you can make a choice about how you are going to fail if you decide to.

One way is to extremely rigid. You can go throught exactly the steps that you saw and heard us go through here, without any sensory experience, without any feedback from your clients. That will guarantee that you fail. That's the way most people fail.

The second way you can fail is by being really incongruent. If there's a part of you that really doesn't believe that phobias can be done in three minutes, but you decide to try it anyway, that incongruency will show up in your non-verbal communication, and that will blow the whole thing.

There are those who believe that NLP does not work, and they currently own the article. Eventually, they'll go away, and those of us who are skeptical of NLP while believing in NPOV will be able to improve the article. htom (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling was clear: any editor may be banned by an admin if they fail to adhere to Wikipedia policies. There is no need to produce another workshop because people were banned in accordance with that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry & Meat puppetry is unacceptable. All puppeteers (upon being discovered) should be immediately banned. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That worries me because I have openly stated that I am using single purpose account so I technically a sockpuppet account. But I choose to do this for privacy reasons. I am not simultaneously using multiple accounts to support myself or make my viewpoint appear more widely held. I can absolutely assure you that I am not a sockpuppeteer. When looking for sockpuppeteers please take into account that someone has been deliberately copying my contributions including edit comments(e.g. Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and supporting me in a strawsock way (e.g. Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I believe that a long term sock-puppeteer has changed tactics. As part of this this latest attack, sock-puppeteer pretends to support to other editors in an uncritical or exaggerated way in order to muddy the waters and make their own position seem more rational. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are persisting with the conspiracy theory idea? I assume (from your attacks on other other editors in a previous guise) that this is part of the Headlydown stuff? SPI reports on that have been dismissed. In contrast we have clear evidence here that you are maintaining a web site to at least coach other editors to support your commercial interesting in a specific variety of NLP, and that you have altered those sites during this debate in an attempt to cover up that involvement. --Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history of Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Its a blatant example of a strawsock. --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x, timing is against you in your conspiracy argument. Your advocacy for the Oxford English Dictionary [111] comes after the last edits of the NLPwikipedia google site (photoevidence[112] ). You are repeating advocacy of the website, not the other way. Also, timing of the commercial cover-up [113][114][115][116] is the most incriminating of evidence. It is consistent with your changes in ID on Wikipedia to apparently attempt avoiding association with the now covered-up neuro-linguistic programming promotion/search engine optimization company[117], Comaze.com. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have too much drama in my own real life already, my ADHD provides me with too many distractions, and now I'm to worry about being shown to be a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet? :snort: This should be interesting. htom (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged disruption by User:122.x.x.x/122.108.140.210

There has yet to be any recent credible evidence that I (using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x) have engaged in disruptive editing. Show me some recent diffs (in the last 6 months) where I, not an alleged sock or meatpuppet, have been supposedly been disruptive or engaged in promotion. Please see my discussions and edits in the context of the Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming talk page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: "(using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x"). GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

He is now admitting the link, it would help if he would acknowledge the links to the two previous IDs but you make a good point GoodDay. Otherwise 122.x.x.x shifting between identities and reopening the same issues that were resolved with your previous manifestation is clearly disruptive. There are also multiple examples provided of your disruption above. You are not responding to those, just opening up another section and making statements again (which is what you do all the time on the NLP page). --Snowded ^TALK 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see from the logs that 122.108.140.210 is my permanent IP address that does not change. I would rarely log in from another IP address unless I am on my mobile device but I don't recall making any edits not logged in. I used the name User:122.x.x.x so that there was no confusion that I wished to remain anonymous but wanted to continue from my previous edits and contributions under that IP address. Except for make initial accusations against one user as being a a HeadleyDown reincarnate, I tried to remain civil and engage in reasoned discussion. On the balance of edits, I think I was neither promotional or overly skeptical. I did ask for help at the NPOV noticeboard at one stage. The advice to compile a list of reliable sources and engage in a reasoned discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the long history at Wikipedia, edits of IP 122... User122.x.x.x appear deliberately disruptive: Asking for evidence using different identities [118], adding material when no consensus reached [119], [120],[121], attempting time wasting debate or original research [122], as IP adding edit without consensus [123][124][125][126] disruptive tagging [127], and many others.

Disruption is related also to the off-site activity: [128]. Comments “Looks like Scott and Inspiritive are doing a pretty good background check on Snowden” indicate some connection with the neuro-linguistic programming community. This in the combined with recruit site [129] appears to have bought the severe disruption to the neuro-linguistic programming article in addition to the meatpuppetry and NLP link promotion on related articles. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lam Kin Keung, I am preparing a reply to your allegations below. In your post you said that here are many more. Are there any more important diffs you want to add before I make my reply? --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am as interested into your denial or confirmation that you also edited as Action Potential and as Comaze, and if you edited that off wiki page giving guidance as to how to edit here. Also your response to the edits made to cover up off wiki links identified above. You are being very very selective in what evidence you choose to respond to ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes 122.x.x.x, reply to all points above and account for the subsequent sudden changes to the commercial Comaze.com site on 30th January 2012 [130][131][132]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant, are there any more allegations or supportive evidence specifically related to disruption of the NLP and related articles using IP User:122.108.140.210 or User:122.x.x.x. I can deal with other allegations in a separate section. If not, I will prepare my response. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All the above are specifically related. Your apparent reluctance to give the answers is noted. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Point by point reply to Lam Kin Keung (work in progress)

I will be updating this section as I prepare my response.

Lam Kin Keung claim 1

"Asking for evidence using different identities"

• diff 1a

Lam Kin Keung claim 2

"adding material when no consensus reached"

• diff 2a
• diff 2b
• diff 2c

Lam Kin Keung claim 3

"attempting time wasting debate or original research"

• diff 3a

Lam Kin Keung claim 4

"as IP adding edit without consensus"

diff 4a

• diff 4b
• diff 4c
• diff 4d

Lam Kin Keung claim 5

"disruptive tagging"

• diff 5a

--122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cease and desist notice

OK, everybody stop! This board is for situations requiring immediate administrator attention. The only immediate administrator attention I can forsee is that I'll block the next person who posts here.

• If certain editors suspect certain other editors of sock/meatpuppetry, the correct course is to open an SPI. Not keep making accusations here, there, or anywhere else. I don't see a sockpuppet investigation started by one of the accusers, I see allegations being tagged onto editors and IPs without that courtesy [133]. Can someone either endorse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/122.x.x.x (which he filed himself, so theoretically can't be investigated) or else strike all the allegations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and remove all the tags that link the 122.x.x.x account to anything but his own static IP. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK then help out, I asked right at the start of this which is the correct forum for meat puppetry and got no answer. My understanding is that SPIs were for socks, not meat puppetry. ALso its not just meat puppetry, its a combination of issues that have been building over two/three years. When 122.x.x.x first came here I and others brought that evidence forward. I expected some response to investigate those issues or suggest in which forum the issues should be raised. Just to be clear no one is saying that this is sock puppetry case. The issues are:

1. Meat puppetry, through identified off wiki web sites and the presence of multiple SPAs repeating material from those web sites
2. Creating serial IDs in order to raise resolved issues again and again, and associated disruptive editing
3. Using wikipedia to promote the commercial interests of a particular approach to NLP

So where does this get resolved? Most of us have shown extreme patience over the years on this article and we just want to know how to deal with it.

---

Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble was, this thread was disappearing under what looked like a content dispute. Let's pick out the problems that can be dealt with by administrative action. You reckon there are meatpuppets connected with an organisation wanting to promote a particular NLP product? Have I got that right. In that case we should focus on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with your comment. You have it right, the original intent (if you look at the talk page) was to assembly the evidence and make a report here. 122.x.x.x then brought the case here so the report was made in bits and pieces rather than as a coherent whole. Its probably time to assemble the evidence in a summarised form without all the noise and start again in a more structured way. Maybe close this off, let things calm down for a day or so and start again. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Block: a year: Help me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing anyone can do here. Calabe1992 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My edit rights have been removed in Finnish Wikipedia for a year in my opinion based on my edits without any prior discussion of them [134]. [135] In my opinion blocking a person does not help anything if the other party has no understanding of its reasons and discussion is blocked. Finland has ongoing presidential election 2012. In my opinion I have hardly any permanent edits during the last month time and all my Wikitime is stuck to discussions. I ask: Does Wikipedia really allow political sensor in its pages before the elections? Repeted removals of my additions based on opinions, including my arguments in the talk pages, notability disussion of more than a year old articles and blocking before the elction date, make me feel to be subject of Wikihounding. In my opinion Finnish Wiki violates the guidelines by excluding me. Guidelines should be same for everyone. Blocks without discussion do not help to reach consensus. I have no email and if I had I would not give it to persons or organizations I do not trust. Help me. Who protects Wikipedia? Watti Renew (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't deal with the Finnish Wikipedia here. Calabe1992 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit on what Calabe1992 said: This is the English-language Wikipedia. None of the various languages have any control over what goes on at any other language Wikipedia. In other words, no one at the Spanish or Russian or Hebrew or Korean Wikipedias can give you any help either. You're going to have to work within the Finnish Wikipedia to get this resolved. --Jayron32 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion everyone is responsible for human rights. Common sense is that the responsibility does not disappear by saying: I do not take the responsibility. For example, as I understand in the Enron case the top leadership was responsible for the book keeping even if it was done by the third parties. If Wikipedia blocks me during the elections based on political opinions in my opinion it does concern the English Wikipedia unless an acceptable good intention can be found. Watti Renew (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

People can only be responsible for things they can control.The English-language Wikipedia has no control whatsoever over the Finnish-language Wikipedia. You are wasting your time by asking us to do things that we cannot do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddily enough though, non-english is forced on English Wikipedia. Go figure. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement – User:Skyeking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok, odd issue here: I'm not sure about how to deal with Skyeking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For background, I re-wrote our article on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement last month and accidentally stirred up a hornet's nest. Skyeking had been the primary editor of the article but hadn't edited at all for five months or so (I assumed he had retired). To make a very long story short, he didn't like my changes and has been discussing changes to the article at length on the talk page. For the past five days or so, I have disengaged and another user has been working with Skyeking on the talk page. Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an interesting read, to say the least. I am glad that Skyeking is discussing things rather than edit warring, but at this point I think talk page guidelines are being violated to the point that collaboration is difficult. Skyeking has now began posting "Legal Opinions (by Skyeking’s legal advisors)" to the talk page. This seems to be unhelpful to collaboration, in my view. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"The group was founded by Les U. Knight"??? Are you sure this article isn't a hoax? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I recall reading that he changed his name after becoming an activist or something. It's not a hoax, but there's not too much of a real organization. Kind of like Anonymous I guess, except without the cool masks. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It obviously worked for the Shakers. I'm waiting for a punch line of some kind, such as, "Due to his busy personal-appearances schedule, Les has delegated many of his day-to-day responsibilities to his sons and daughters." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit looks like a legal threat to me. WTucker (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--thank you for deciphering the gibberish. User is indef-blocked by way of WP:NLT. They may ask for an unblock, which would include a retraction--in English, in a format following the regular conventions, and without typographical fancy. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, there are more reasons for blocking. I have been trying to read that talk page--they did their own GA review (or tried to, anyway), for instance, and the other comments on the talk page can really be called trolling. Why Mark Arsten hasn't taken a shotgun to his computer screen is beyond me. Maybe there's gun laws where they live. Reading that talk page is purgatorial: read only small portions at a sitting, please. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"...translating one word at a time for greater safety. One editor read two words by mistake, and had to spend several weeks in hospital." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Strewth. Looking that over, I'm reminded of Andy Loeb and the hive mind stuff from Cryptonomicon. Colonel Tom 05:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Voluntary Human Extinction Movement"? I'm tempted to found the 'Nobody is Stopping You' movement... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "If people don't want to have any children, you can't stop them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the legal threat, there are other reasons that Skyeking should remain blocked: he or she is clearly an SPA, and it's probable, given their talk page comments, that they have a serious COI in regard to the VHEM article, which is the only article they have ever edited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick question. Upon reading that rather difficult to decipher statement, there is a disclaimer that "This Declaration not, repeat not, to be construed as, or interpreted as, etc. (and so on) any type of implication that Les U. Knight would file a lawsuit against Wikimedia or its Editors (i.e. Skyeking, others – volunteer contractors)." Is the entire thing to be interpreted as "we're not intending to sue you nor should we be seen as threatening to sue, but in the event that legal action is taken over the VHEMT article, you may be subpoenaed and have to cover any associated costs"? Or should I go ahead and be admitted into some sort of asylum? Blackmane (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. A clear case of threatening to make a legal threat if 'not making a legal threat' doesn't result in the same outcome as the legal threat would have done in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to threaten to sue. Cute. Vaguely reminds me of a line from National Lampoon's Vacation, where Roy Wally complains to his staff, "If someone doesn't start explaining things to me... there'll be some explaining to do!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I removed NLT (without posting between "Closed" markers :D) Bulwersator (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think NLT is the primary problem. Skyeking's editing style (being a "gatekeeper" for any change to the article, huge patchworks of copy & pasted lines from other people's comments and policies, moving discussion to their own talkpage &c) makes it very difficult for other people to work on the article; it consumes other editor's time and goodwill. The ownership problem used to be more explicit but they have learned to avoid being so explicit; now they merely say stuff like "I'm not going to be online for a couple of days so don't edit the article in the meantime". It's not the usual form of disruptive behaviour - I don't think Skyeking has malicious intent - but if it prevents other editors improving articles...

(disclaimer: I got involved as a mediator at MEDCAB, after skyeking brought a disagreement there. Try reading through the case. Note that some of the apparent comments by others have actually been copy & pasted from elsewhere by Skyeking.) bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe NLT is not the primary problem, but it's good enough. The verbosity (which is unparalleled, and I should know--I have worked on Tachash) and those other issues that I can't even decipher make it, as you say, impossible for other editors to work on the article. Disruption and incompetence both. But I don't think we'll see an unblock request, and if we do, I wonder if we can read it. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Skyeking did post an unblock request, in his/her typical style. MaxSem declined it on competence grounds. Looks like we're done here then, thanks to everyone who has helped with this. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Skyeking not post “threat”"...Me Tarzan, you Jane, this over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Action to safeguard policy at Wikipedia:Consensus, please

I draw admins' attention to this edit at Wikipedia:Consensus. As he made that edit, User:JCScaliger simultaneously raised the contested issue in a current case before ArbCom, with this edit. The matter is therefore now before ArbCom, so in good faith I reverted the edit to a key policy page, put a discussion tag in place (and an inline note). I also left this note at the talkpage for the page.

I request that an admin urgently protect the page to prevent abuse of it for pointy polemical purposes in current action at ArbCom; I request that the protection be lifted only through a motion at ArbCom; and I request that JCScaliger be counselled not to do this sort of thing during the conduct of a case in which he is a party.

Noetica^Tea? 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of edit warring over the policy, I don't think it's necessary to protect the page. And even if there were a contentious edit war, you can probably have faith in the arbitrators that they won't take a single revision of a policy as the community's will. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Noetica I believe you forgot to notify JCScaliger as per the orange box. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll notify JCScaliger now. I'm not used to this sort of thing! But I do know that when you're making allegations such as he is making in an ArbCom case, it is unhelpful if you also (provocatively) edit a page you are discussing without also noting that fact. It is not a question of what ArbCom will eventually rule in the present case; the page in question is not even within the rather vague ambit of the case. I just don't like to see that happening to a policy page.

If someone now reverts me (after I protected defended the policy provision in question, which was subject to editing in December and discussion and editing in early January), is it then considered an edit war? I don't want an edit war! I don't appreciate being dragged into anything (sheesh, ArbCom is bad enough ☺).

Perhaps the situation can be monitored here for a little while. It is not appropriate that it be discussed on the policy talkpage, now that it's before ArbCom; and ArbCom itself should not be expected to deal with mere incidents.

Noetica^Tea? 05:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Already in 2012 there are almost 100 policy page edits and over a dozen talk-page sections on edits to this important policy page. It's obviously an edit war, and JCScaliger was obviously trying to give himself more leeway to edit policy pages without consensus. Something needs to be done. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the turmoil early in the month was caused by User:Collect; relevant to the present issue, in this edit by Collect, the idea that changing policy is special was removed; he changed this:

Village pump

For disputes that have far-reaching implications—mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes—placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.

to this:

Village pump

Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

which left no hint of special consideration for changes to policy and guideline. Key changes without consensus are the problem that caused JCScaliger (and some others) to be included in the current ArbCom case about other policy and guideline pages. He should be warned not to dig himself in deeper. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And note that almost all of my edits, which were made to make the policy clear, have been accepted. Your sideways attack on me notwithstanding. Changes to policy were, and are, subject to the same policy of CONSENSUS as any, else we are examples of Janus-editors. Collect (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Village pump: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Was my actual proposal - which , I submit, is not properly shown by Dick's claim that I used a single line replacing the section. Such inaccuracy leads, at best, to accusations of misunderstanding, and at worst to deliberate errancy in presenting material on this noticeboard. Collect (talk)

Amazingly enough, I suggest that WP:CONSENSUS should use the consensus procedures it, itself, advocates. Either the system works, or it does not, and that is independent of what page is being discussed. Indeed, it may be more important here. Collect (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear what those last comments from Collect are supposed to mean. Collect was the one who introduced the disputed text into policy without discussion (and without an edit summary that showed what was happening), in December. In any case, the instability triggered by an edit apparently motivated by action at ArbCom continues: History of recent edits.

If this politically sensitive disruption to policy cannot be addressed through action here, I will now seek advice from an ArbCom clerk about moving for an ArbCom injunction.

Noetica^Tea? 11:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dicklyon not only grossly misstated my edit, you now also seem to ignore the fact that the CONSENSUS has ended up supporting my edits. And I would appreciate your noting that none of my edits had anything to do with any ArbCom stuff whatsoever. And that WP:CONSENSUS worked on that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to see a reason to pay close attention to a policy which keeps changing. Policies do need to change at times, obviously, but how can editors be expected to keep to a policy subject to an edit war? Or to even know what it is? Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the gist of the policy has not changed. And also note that setting the wording of a policy in stone is contrary to the Five Pillars <g>. And lastly note that the edit ascribed to me by Dicklyon was egregiously elided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate forum for this discussion is Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. Nobody Ent 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, given that you've been accused in that Arbcom case of reverting without discussion/stonewalling to maintain the status quo, I find it curious that you felt the need to revert without discussion to maintain the status quo in the middle of the case, instead of allowing the other editors actions to speak for themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, I will address that comment more directly at your talkpage, when I can find time to do so. Here I act only concerning an incident that threatens the stability of policy; and that necessarily involves mention of ArbCom. If no one else will act for that stability, there is little I can do: a non-admin, in particularly difficult circumstances right now. Thanks to you, in the first instance (though I took the trouble to show my appreciation of your motives at your talkpage). Be sensitive to this please. You must understand the distress and disruption these things can cause in real people's real lives; I cannot act with a perfect appearance of propriety by your unpredictable standards or anyone else's. No one could do that. Let's remember: all actions and comments of all parties to the present ArbCom case may be under scrutiny, and may be used as evidence. ♥☺ Noetica^Tea? 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not a "real person", then there's no need to respond at my talkpage, is there? And regardless, I'm not interested in holding policy discussions at my talkpage, instead of the proper venues.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noetica unilaterally added language to a policy page.
• This language serves to defend his position in a controversy, then already underway, and now before ArbCom
• The new language is the following addition to a long-standing sentence: Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid.
• The sole discussion of this change is WT:Consensus#Noetica edit, begun after the edit. Two editors commented, besides myself and Noetica. Both disagree with the change. This is not "wide consensus".
• Therefore, the addition condemns the process by which it was added.
• Noetica has now restored his own language; Dicklyon also reverted to it after it was removed by another editor; it was then modified by uninvolved editors and Noetica reverted again to his own original wording.

My action was hardly subtle or secret; I announced it on the talk page, and at the ArbCom workshop. I presume this is how Noetica and Dicklyon, his shadow self, know about it. JCScaliger (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

we had long discussions on this several years ago, where some people tried unilaterally without prior discussion to split articles they considered too long. The operation was strongly condemned, and the present practice, stated in the policy above, was that each article must be considered individually. Since then, changes have on the one hand increased the ease of handling large articles for many readers, but simultaneously we have expanded our reach in areas of low-speed internet coverages, and the rise of portable devices has required the development of a special interface. (I think the general policy requiring consensus good, but all this needs to be kept in mind.) DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish that more of you had taken the time to look at the disputed content, which has had zero talk page support since it was first added. Noetica changed a sentence so that it reads:

Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy.(emphasis added)

Noetica added the text I've marked in red and has multiply reverted to it, and is now claiming that an ArbCom discussion somehow prevents any changes to this nonsensical statement. (Why? Does Noetica believe that the arbs don't know how to read a diff, so if it's not in the current version, then they won't know that Noetica believes helpful edit summaries on policy pages are unnecessary?)

Now perhaps your experience is different, but have any of you ever encountered a situation in which an edit summary of "no consensus" ever helped a user understand exactly what was wrong with the changes they made? I've never seen it. The idea that an edit summary of "no consensus" is an unhelpful edit summary on an article, but that the same phrase magically becomes a helpful explanation on a policy page, is just nonsense.

Please take a careful look at the content of that sentence: it doesn't say that you can't revert anti-consensus changes. It only encourages (but does not require) helpful, explanatory edit summaries when you do so. (The previous sentence encourages helpful, explanatory talk page discussions when you revert anti-consensus changes.) Before Noetica's anti-consensus change, it encouraged helpful edit summaries on all pages. I cannot imagine the community ever supporting unhelpful edit summaries on policy pages. Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing

Resolved

 – warning issued, IP under observation.Manning (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, the Wild Kratts article has a problem editor (IP 74.127.219.8) who cannot WP:DROPIT. The edit in question is whether or not Martin and Aviva are in some kind of non-platonic relationship on the show. The edit has at least 4 problems, with WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEASEL being just the beginning of it. The problem is there are no sources within the show that has stated that they are or aren't. So, if I were to edit the article to say that they're NOT in love, that would be NPOV on MY part, so it's not like any of the editors are reverting because they disagree with the statement (however, the user is reverting because they disagree with our stance that they AREN'T, based on what they present as "proof"), and the best thing is to just not even mention the shipping war at all on either side of the fence.

This user was warned twice (and a previous time about another article), by two different editors, and that was before I found out they edited this into the article 30 times in 6 months. These recent edits make numbers 31-33. There was an edit war about this before (sad to say I didn't realize it was a war until it was already over), and I'm not even going to touch it, not with edits, reverts, or templates. They will only continue to revert and edit war, and I'm going to let the admins handle this.

It states clearly in the talk page why this edit is not Wikipedia standards, but of course the user is pulling WP:IDHT. Given the nature of this outside of Wikipedia, it's safe to assume the edit is not in good faith (aside from WP:POVPUSH and WP:TE). I won't say the user is trolling, but I can say it is not good faith, and this is no newbie who's confused. They've been here long enough, and know what they're putting. The diff's start when I came into the picture; the user started editing way before that.

First time I reverted that user's edit: [136]

They put the information back after I reverted another user's edit: [137]

User's last edit (until now): [138]

Most recent:

[139]

[140]

[141]

Here is the article's talk page: [142]

Here is the article's history: [143]

And here is the user's contribution history: [144]

Any thoughts anyone has on the matter are welcome. I will be notifying the user of this discussion; if the template is not on their talk page, please give me time, because it took me two hours just to figure out how to diff. I'll eventually get it up there. Thank you for your time and attention. SmallCheez (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've done well, if all issues were logged this thoroughly our jobs would be much easier. I'll start looking it all over and get back to you. Manning (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No recent warnings, so I've given a nice friendly one to get things started. Drop a message on my talk page if things don't improve. Manning (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Much thanks. SmallCheez (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Gothic Forest

User:Gothic Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am reporting this user because of some of regular editing activity of his which consists of changing genres on band or album pages. If (s)he even adds sources, the sources are usually of questionable value or are not at par with WP:IRS (for example edits, see this and this; all four sources near the genres were added by the user, as seen in the respective histories). And then there are edits such as this and this, from the Somnium Obmutum article, which don't even bother dealing with sources. Despite many warnings on his talk page to cease such activity, the user has continued to make unconstructive genre changes. This user has also only barely communicated and worked with other users on the issue, maybe using invisible text within the article (for a relevant article history, see the history for Where Lovers Mourn). I even posted on the Where Lovers Mourn article talk page, and requested him/her to state their reasoning for such edits on the user's talk page, but the user has not responded after several days. Gothic Forest's talk page reveals that on August 1, 2011, (s)he was blocked for 48 hours because of similar activity, so that means that (s)he has received consequences for this in the past. I'm sick of dealing with genre warriors, and I feel that since the user has disregarded so many warnings, it is appropriate to report it to this noticeboard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought the username looked familiar; apparently I issued their previous block. It's regrettable that it didn't have the desired effect so this time they're blocked indefinitely. A talk page full of warnings and increasingly frustrated requests to discuss their edits, coupled with zero talk page edits on their part, is unfortunately not something we can allow to continue. I would be amenable to an unblock request on very specific terms—namely that they undertake to communicate constructively with other editors, respond promptly to concerns, and use proper sourcing—but that's up to them. EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive new troll needs a block

Resolved

Could someone please block the troll who had this to say on my talk page? Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing at an AfD

Yesterday I nominated an article created by Edvini (talk · contribs) for deletion [145], and today, a large number of "Keep" votes by users active on the Albanian wikipedia began materializing. This is because Edvini canvassed on the Albanian wikipedia [146]. One does not need to speak Albanian to see that he tells them to vote "Keep". This is disruptive in the extreme. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have given one of the commenters an WP:NPA warning, but my time is limited today so I hope other administrators can take a look as well. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In that posting i was discussing the creation of the most historical moment in the Albanian history, as this year is the 100 anniversary of the Albanian independence. If you check thoroughly, you will see that at least 3 voters are not Albanian at all, nor do they speak Albanian. And, all those voting against are Greek speakers or Greek nationals with one exception. Why don't you put a new rule if you are so concerned in deleting this article: Only votes of non-Albanians, non-Greeks, non-Macedonians, and non-Montenegrins will be counted. (Edvin (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

Does canvassing in an AfD really make a difference? The closing admin is supposed to look at the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't make a difference - I've tagged it with {{Not a ballot}} to make others aware of that. GiantSnowman 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If canvassing in AfD didn't make a difference, WP:ARS would not exist. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The justification for ARS exiting is that any canvassing that may be a byproduct of their activities does in fact not make a significant difference, but that the sourcing and other improvements that their work sometimes generates does make a difference, just as it ought to. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that because "good" members of the ARS do good work rescuing some articles, we should allow otherwise non-notable trash to be kept due to the canvassing of their "not good" members? Interesting. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it shows disruptive intent. At the very least Edvini should be strongly warned by an admin to refrain form doing so in the future, and if he does so again, he should be blocked. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So if i start an article, i put sources and other people start editing it, i should be blocked? Is the aim of this encyclopedia to enrich information or to limit to the tastes of a small group of people? If so, you don't need to block me, i can leave myself and contribute to less hostile encyclopedias.

If you follow the article you have nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong, and the people talking or commenting see nothing wrong except enriching it with more materials and sources. Since yesterday, you started attacking me, threatening to report etc. For what? For citing some books and writing an article....This is not fair! (Edvin (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

WP:CHILL. Calabe1992 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very strange, because I never "threatened to report you" yesterday, I only notified you of the AfD. On the other hand, I did warn this guy [147] that I would report him if he removed the AfD tag. Sockpuppetry, anyone? Athenean (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go. Calabe1992 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, they are  Unrelated. Calabe1992 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

it clearly does. I can't count the amount of AfDs I've been involved in on stuff that has failed notability but which happened to be some kind of internet meme, joke, or other than that may have been relevant to a few people here, but produced no real sources that ended up being kept because no admin would close against the "vote". I've found very few admins who will truly discount WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually close to the arguments, this applies not just to AfD, but any remotely controversial discussion on Wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, before jumping to conclusions on Sockpuppetry, you should know that Athenean is well known in the Albanian community of Wikipedia, and on every article on Albania, he tries to push his POV and if other people edit, he threatens to report them or reports them. That's why I said that. And that's why I am not related to Olsi, and you should also know that this article is also visible in WikiProject Albania. Athenean is not following the talk page on the article, and the arguments given there, nor he is following the discussions. he only tries to impose his POV through reporting first. Does the one who reports first win in this Wikipedia? It is pathetic! (Edvin (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

User Edvini, although being warned not to continue this dirsuptive canvassing pattern has now initiated a strategy of recruiting users to increase his edit war firepower. Another thread was posted in sq wiki [[148]] and soon new single purpose, revert only recruits showed up. In a similar fashion he filled a list of users that, according to him, pose a threat to his national views [[149]], also asking other users to expand his list of potential enemies. This behavior seems too problematic, while any discussion initiative until now is in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

There's a long backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Someone should take a look when they get a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably under control at the moment. —Dark 11:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture delist discussion needing closure

I tried posting this at AN, but it was archived without comment. There has been a discussion on the featured picture candidates talk page over the last few weeks about how "delist" discussions should be dealt with. It would be good if we could get some closure- there have been no comments for some days. Can I request that an experienced editor who was not involved in the discussion close it, and post any conclusions reached? Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Overturned delisting. If there is a more appropriate place for this request, please point me to it. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive link additions at Pakistan Railways

I have a user - Adnanrail (talk · contribs) - who continues to add unsuitable external links to the page and doesn't seem to understand the talk warnings I left with him/her. I'm doubting some of the other links on the page should be there either. I get the feeling this user is really acting in good faith, but the links (one is Facebook) can't be tolerated. Calabe1992 15:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Opps, I just nominated one of their articles for deletion and then saw the notification for this thread on their talk page. The facebook ones cannot be tolerated, I agree. There may well just be some competence issues that a kindly mentoring attitude might fix. Are there any language barriers? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

no discussion history thought which is worrying, and several warnings. Probably a competency issue and I don't know how receptive the user will be to advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure on the language barriers. I didn't want to jump right to the idea of blocking since they do seem to be editing in good faith, but rather unsuccessfully (I saw they also previously uploaded a copyrighted file). Calabe1992 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

201.24.29.84

Resolved

Death threats and profanity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:31Julho1985&diff=prev&oldid=474829761 Translation: "Fucking Coxa-branca (Demonym for supporters of Coritiba Foot Ball Club)" "I know who you are, 'cabrom', you're gonna dye by my hands, I know where you live."--31Julho1985 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP for 31 hours, let an admin know if it happens again. feel free to remove it from your talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it.--31Julho1985 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ottawahitech block review

• User_talk:Ottawahitech#Username_sounds_like_an_organization

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · count) has placed Ottawahitech under a softblock because Ottawahitech's username appears to represent an organization (specifically a yahoo group). Ottawahitech registered their name in 2007, briefly had a promotional userpage that was g11'ed, and has edited since then in a productive manner (at the very least, no blocks until today). Now, as shown on that talkpage section, our policy against promotional usernames didn't come into effect until at least 2009.apparently I was mistaken, tho my linked discussion showed at least some uncertainty regarding promotional names as late as 2009 Further, while the editor may have been not forthcoming in their answers to Todd's username concern template...I can certainly see how a more courteous non-templated request could have been better received. I am requesting a block review. I could lift the block on my own, but I'd rather we (1) have a consensus that Toddst1 handled the matter badly so he knows how to handle issues like this if it happens again and (2) have a consensus that usernames put in place before a policy is amended are grandfathered (ala RMS@hotmail). This is not asking for any sanction on Toddst1, who I am confident was acting in good faith. Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors (well Ottawahitech and Toddst1) notified. Syrthiss (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn block as proposer. Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This should be the version of the username policy that was in force when Ottawahitech created his account. IMHO, a case could be made that his username was indeed a uvio even back then; however, the best practices currently followed by UAA admins suggest – I believe – that when a user has been editing for some time without having his username discussed, he should not be unilaterally blocked. A discussion at WP:RFCN should be started, instead. I think the user should be unblocked and a RFCN thread started. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Putting a template that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the talk page of an editor who's been around since 2007 and has over 4000 edits is not the best way to approach something. Under the circumstances I don't think a unilateral block was appropriate, and would agree with an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn largely as a procedural, hand-made (i.e. non-template, personal) version of the Template:username concern message could have been appropriate here, or at least some further form of discussion. If the user's career has been largely on-track there's no time limit really required for a reply. But I agree that Toddst was happily acting in good faith. S.G.^(GH)_ping!
• No sense dragging this out. These comments, combined with similar comments of others on User talk:Ottawahitech, lead me to think that (a) an immediate block is not preventing significant harm, and (b) there's possibly a complicated username issue here, best discussed at RFCN. If someone has an issue with the username, I suggest they open a thread there. Until the issue is resolved, I'm unblocking Ottawahitech. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Orfeocookie on Talk:Clavier-Übung III

• Orfeocookie (talk · contribs)
• Clavier-Übung III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over a period of six months last year with over 1,000 edits, I created the article Clavier-Übung III, considered Bach's most important single collection of sacred organ music. It was carefully sourced, with history, musical analysis, audio midi files for all the music prepared by me, new images and a long section on the reception and influence of this seminal work. The material was written in a similar way to other articles I've written (e.g. Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Canonic Variations, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel concerti grossi Op.6). The work itself is large and complex, often considered either inaccessible or unplayable, and there is a considerable literature. It is made up of 27 individual pieces.

Orfeocookie has made 11 article edits to wikipedia so far, with an extended series of edits in user space preparing a sortable list. 3 days ago Orfeocookie arrived on the talk page of this article and demanded it be split up into bits. He has suggested titles for bits of this work which do not exist in the Bach literature and are thus WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. They happen to be titles of sections of the article that I invented myself, following the sources, but they are not suitable titles for wikipedia articles.

At no stage has Orfeocookie discussed any sources. I explained that if he wants to edit music articles there are plenty of gaps, one being Clavier-Übung I. He did not take kindly to being told about these gaps and in this diff[150] more or less told me he was retaliating for these suggestions by going ahead in actively dismantling the article Clavier-Übung III to chop it up into parts with names from the arbitrary section headings I had invented myself. He has had no prior experience in editing articles on music on wikipedia (apart from two lists).

I had already explained that a new article on the reception of Bach's organ music, the last and longest section of the article, could be written incorporating parts of what I had written. But I added there was no point in splitting up the musical analysis (which is unusually detailed because it uses several sources). Creating a new article on "Bach reception" would be a lot of work (3 or 4 months). Orfeocookie did not respond to that suggestion. Graham87 has helped with the article for a long time now and is one of the main people with it on his watchlist. He agreed that, although long, by its nature it could not easily be divided into pieces.

From my point of view, Orfeocookie appears to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. This is a carefuly written article which cannot be split apart in this way, except for the section on Bach reception. That could only be split off once a new version had been completely prepared. Orfeocookie's current attitude, which has not involved engaging in calm discussion based on sources, does not seem at all helpful. He has in addition referred to me as having "slaved" over the article,[151] which is another indication that his actions are not being conducted in good faith. I am not quite sure what to do in the current circumstances. Orfeocookie's actions seem unduly aggressive and verge on harassment: a sort of luddism. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying that you "invented" those section headers sounds a bit own-y to me. But (T)the only piece of advise I feel qualified to offer is that advising an editor leave "your" article alone, and suggesting other places on Wikipedia where he/she might be more welcome, is, perhaps, not condusive to a collaborative environment, and invites a bit of push-back. I would personally be insulted by such a sugestion. But I'm not an Admin so what the heck do I know? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, at its core this is a content dispute. Have you broached the idea of an RFC if Orfeocookie feels this strongly about the proposed split? Especially if, as it seems, there are not a lot of eyes on this article? If nothing else, that would (hopefully) provide a relevant consensus if the issue arises in the future, as it seems like it might, since you even admit (and I agree) that the article itself appears overly long at first glance. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are the titles I invented myself and were tailor-made for the particular context in the article, given the lede and introductory sections. As such they are not recognizable outside that context and are not in usage in the literature as titles. This is not a question of WP:OWN. I have already suggested a way of shortening the article, which would almost halve its size. That is in fact something I have thought about for quite a while. (Incidentally one part of the "reception" stops more or less at 1920: there is material on the use of Bach organ music and the choirboys of Bach's Thomaskirche in the Nuremberg rallies. Hitler had a monster organ built with 5 manuals.) Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted. After reading further, I take your point and will retract my statement referencing WP:OWN as a mistaken interrpretation. I see that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still maintain that this is not the correct forum, and advise you to strive work with Orfeocookie in efforts (radical as they may seem) to improve the article. I feel like there is potential for compromise to be made here. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I don't think this is anywhere near ANI level ... nothing here requires administrative intevention. It might have been better to get a third (or fourth) opinion? Graham87 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham87 03:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Music would be the normal way. The wider issue of articles on Bach reception would be a sensible matter to discuss there. Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I sought opinions on the topic of splitting by the method suggested on WP:Split, which is adding banners that automatically place an article in the category of articles for which splitting has been suggested. After I had done this, Mathsci said that I ought to have gone to the Wikiproject on Classical Music. I have looked at it and did not find anything that seemed pertinent to the issue. I accept that people in the know might think that that is the 'usual' method, but I didn't just make my method up off the top of my head. I acted on suggestions from Wikipedia's own pages. Again, I fail to see how this qualifies as 'disruptive'.Orfeocookie (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly did not demand anything. If I was demanding it I would have gone ahead and started modifying the article instead of raising an issue for discussion on the talk page. I certainly did NOT expect, given the pleasant history of the last few weeks when raising points for discussion, to be flatly told that my opinion didn't matter because I was new. It is also a mystery to me how placing a suggestion banner at the top of a page constitutes 'active dismantling of the article'!!

The constant requirement for 'sources' seems to come from a basic misapprehension that I am challenging the quality of the content of the article. Not a bit of it. I am raising a query about whether an article well over twice the size of the guideline in WP:Split is the smartest way to present that content so that it can be comprehended by readers. The issue isn't the quality of Mathsci's research, the issue is readability - and I did provide a page with some sources on that issue. How this material is presented in a book is not the only relevant question for presenting it in the online medium. Mathsci appears unwilling to even discuss the notion of daughter or sister articles that enable users to come into the content from several different directions. The whole reason for raising this is that I came looking for information on Duets (Bach), followed the link to the article on the Clavier-Ubung, and was totally overwhelmed by what was there. The same information could be presented in a different way so that a person who 'just wants to know about the Duets at the moment' is not daunted by over 40 pages of other material first. The beauty of hyperlinks is that they provide different routes of discovery, so that a person can learn about the Clavier-Ubung III either 'top-down' or 'bottom-up'. Mathsci appears intent on requiring everyone to accept 'top-down' as the only viable way of learning the subject.

Mathsci has neglected to mention that as well as removing my move/split suggestion banners twice, he has previously removed a 'very long article' banner only 5 minutes after it was put up by a very experienced editor. So I find the idea that I am a disruptive newcomer to really be a reflection of a deeper reality, that Mathsci believes he 'owns' this article, and that no-one, be it an editor of many years standing or a person familiar with Wikipedia policies on article size or readability, should be allowed to even to question Mathsci's decision as to the 'right' format of the article.

It is perhaps also worth mentioning that I sought help as to how else I might seek the opinions of others on what is going on and how to resolve it, but Mathsci has saved me the trouble of deciding by bringing the topic here.

And finally, I have already indicated to Mathsci that the word 'slaved' was not intended as derogatory and merely meant that he had worked very hard. But apparently this has not been accepted as an explanation of my intent. Orfeocookie (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The main issue in writing articles about music is not about providing hyperlinks. A glance at Clavier-Übung I shows that it is at present very little more than a list with some unsourced and misleading commentary. On the other hand there are plenty of sources out there and the main effort is usually to locate them. I'm sorry that you don't like discussing sources, but that is the way we edit on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that treating this as a behavioral issue is the best approach. I brought this up at the Classical music Wikiproject where in my opinion this would be better handled. I think you both would get some good opinions there. (Excellent article, by the way.) Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that, all else aside, this is a fantastic article as it stands. Very well written. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources are required for content. I am not proposing any new content! Orfeocookie (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure that this rises to the level of an administrative incident yet, but it easily might. Orfeo's edits are certainly POINTy, as are their talk page comments. It is a mystery to me why they would want to pick this argument over this article in their first one hundred edits--unless it is to make a point or, of course, if they've been active here before. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand WP:POINT correctly, it involves making edits elsewhere for the sake of 'consistency'. Which is actually what Mathsci instructed me to do with another article on the piano music of Faure!! (Unfortunately I have not yet learnt the diff technique to show you exactly where this was said). So no, my edits aren't POINTy in that sense.

I have not had an account here previously. What I do have is years of experience in relation to the topic of how to organise, structure and present material for an audience. Readability, basically. This is not an issue which is exclusive to Wikipedia so I somewhat surprised that the length of time I have been on Wikipedia comes into it. I am happy to take advice on the content of Wikipedia policies, on the method for raising discussions and seeking additional opinions, and I am in fact quite content to defer to Mathsci on factual questions about Bach's organ works. But none of that was what I was hoping to address when I first wrote on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orfeocookie (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

My two cents I don't have much to say regarding this dispute, but it was brought to my attention by Orfeocookie. This article is far too long—at 246,150 bytes, it should be split. Wikipedia:Article size says amongst other things "Articles of about 200 KB (~30 pages) are not uncommon for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles." and that articles in excess of 100 kb (again, this is 2.5 times that size) should "almost certainly" be split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Koavf was canvassed by Orfeocookie (talk · contribs).[152][153][154] He has canvassed in other places too.[155][156][157] Orfeocookie has proceeded in this way after consensus at Wikiproject Music was clearly against him and several experienced editors had made positive statements about the quality of the article. This kind of tactic of Orfeocookie seems therefore to be more attempted disruption. His posting at various user pages indicate that the content of the article or its quality have no significance for him: what seems important to him is winning what he perceives as a WP:BATTLE for his rights. Since January 20, Orfeocookie's only edits to wikipedia have been about dismembering this article into four or five articles (not about shortening it). His edit count still stands at 11 in article namespace. Drmies has also mentioned that he has made just over 100 edits on wikipedia. Of those about 40 have concerned this article.

Koavf has not participated in the discussion on the talk page of the article or at Wikiproject Music. Instead he left a WP:POINTY message on Orfeocookie's talk page,[158] commenting about new users being disenfranchized. If Koavf wishes to comment he should (a) read the article and its talk page (b) read what has been written by music editors, including me, at wikiproject music and (c) comment there. Disenfranchizement does not seem to be the problem here. This is a new user playing WP:GAMEs. Normally WP:BITE applies to new editors, but in this case a new editor is spending all his time on wikipedia trying to harm excellent content on wikipedia. Orfeocookie (and Koavf) should listen to what experienced editors write at Wikiproject Music, instead of continuing to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. As some administrators have indicated, that could lead to his editing privileges being restricted if his editing continues in this way. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to follow the trail can clearly see that I asked an administrator a question of etiquette (having been invited by that administrator previously, as a new user, to ask questions if I wanted), followed the advice given by that administrator, notified Koavf accordingly and made absolutely no attempt to tell Koavf whether or not to support me. I have made clear repeatedly that if the consensus is to leave the article as is I have no intention of touching it - and despite your repeated claims that I am dismembering it, I haven't altered a single word! I think you are just upset that I didn't doff my cap and accept your insulting advice (see Quinn's first response to you here) as expected. That doesn't make me disruptive, it just makes me independent of you. Please stop trying to control me in this fashion. Orfeocookie (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course you are independent. No one is trying to control you, just as you should not try to control the article (consensus on the article talk page is against you). That article is in excellent shape and worrying about its optimum size is rather pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci has engaged in a wide range of behaviour that appears to be based on telling me that my job is to agree with his opinions and do what he says, and that I should consult him on how to behave on Wikipedia rather than seek advice from the help pages or from administrators. I am supposed to instantly know all the behaviours that he views as appropriate, regardless of whether they are written down and regardless of whether they contradict the material that IS written down. Frankly, it is bullying and intimidating. I am beginning to lose count of the number of things that he has said or done that contradict the advice on here about ownership of articles, not telling newcomers that their opinions are less valid when new, not threatening people with consequences just for disagreeing and so forth. He treats putting up a discussion template, as suggested by help pages, as dismemberment of an article. The only reason he is not in breach of the 3-revert rule is because I only bothered trying to put up the template twice. He removes DISCUSSION templates (not just mine!) unilaterally within 5 minutes. He raised an incident here which appears to be generally regarded as a complete overreaction. All of this BEFORE any consensus on the article talk page. At no stage did he make an effort to create a discussion (that was done by others after the incident was raised) or do ANYTHING other than convey that because he wrote the article, his was the only opinion that should count. It was I who tried to seek other opinions, beginning with raising something on the talk page to begin with. That is what I was foolish enough to think talk pages were for: talk! Even if he expected that others would agree with him on the original topic, a sensible response would have been to help me obtain other's input so that I could see that for myself instead of the repetitive instruction that I should go and edit what he thinks I should edit. And you think he's not trying to control me? Orfeocookie (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard sees far too many differences between editors to arbitrate on the merits of individual cases—only blatant badness gets a reaction here. Since each side has had an opportunity to express their views, the matter should now be dropped, but bear in mind that no one has a duty to mentor new editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21

Resolved

 – blocked, and handling on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21 wants to be banned for life (see his talk page), and is now engaged in a fit of teddy-throwing to get this done - his recent edit summaries alone [159] should provide sufficient evidence to oblige. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Andy. Hope this works: 137 edits? Gosh! Surely not in one day? Is there a sock-puppet? 137? That's what some so-called editors do in one afternoon, jumping from site to site, leaving their scent marks everywhere, leaving e.g. some newbie editors in total confusion. Re: Teddy-throwing: My mother always said (and I remember it well) I was good at tandrum throwing. Never got me anywhere with my mother, but here in the frienldy WP environment it may just work. A life ban please! Reinhard 'Dick' Wentz, aka sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you no longer wish to contribute, then the power is in your hands to logoff and simply not log back in again. We're not your mommy or daddy, so please, own your own actions. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth21, that "137" simply means that it's link number 137 in this page. You actually have 656 edits[160]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 31 hours to end the disruption, and will increase it to indef if they really want me to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A case of "Suicide by cop" "account termination by admin"? I still don't understand what Sleuth21 is so upset about. He proposed a replacement to the lede of Homeopathy - and it's being rationally discussed and getting some measure of support on the talk page. His views on the topic are widely those of the vast majority of other editors - so this isn't an argument about content so much as one of how the lede should summarize that content. He already said he was upset and would no longer be working on this article - which was an entirely reasonable response if he's upset. But then we see this almighty flame-fest. WP:NPA violations left and right. What gives? Well, he's certainly violated enough rules to warrant an indef block - but IMHO, I'd suggest giving him a week-long block to cool off - 31 hours isn't enough, indef is too much. SteveBaker (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"We don't do cool-down blocks blah blah" - but an indef is not a permablock, if cooler heads prevail he can always apologise and request unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I too share Steve's confusion. Sleuth is a rather eccentric editor who acted a bit oddly at times, for instance by continuing forum like discussions after having been told of NOTAFORUM, but I honestly didn't expect this. I guess when it comes down to it people either blend in here or they don't, and when they don't they stick out like a sore thumb. N^oformation ^Talk 01:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More phone numbers

Resolved

No admin action needed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

A variable IP in the 108.39 range has added phone numbers at Plaza Middle School. All three of their versions and the first revert by me are affected. Calabe1992 00:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying phone numbers for the school are revdel'able? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who the numbers are for. I'm guessing the one that's been there is probably the correct one. Calabe1992 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The school's website here lists 757.648.4900, within the blue bar. Dru of Id (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This pdf from 2007-2008 gives the 757-431-4060. Dru of Id (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why we list phone numbers in the first place? This is exactly the kind of sneaky vandalism target that is hard to detect and that can cause harm to real persons. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think providing the site link should be sufficient; I doubt people have difficulty finding the phone numbers on websites despite the format variations. I specifically chose the pdf reference as it was, presumably, not a mirror site. :D Dru of Id (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We used to have a guideline of not providing phone numbers IIRC, it is now a field in Infobox school I think. Talk:Infobox school is probably the best place to discuss the general issue. Certainly it's not rev-del time. Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

You mean Template talk:Infobox school. I cannot see any "phone" in {{Infobox school}} (good—clearly Wikipedia should not provide phone numbers as a substitute for the official website). Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by item 3 of WP:NOTDIR? Deor (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I can see no reason why phone numbers (or even addresses for that matter) should be included in any infobox. – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; it would be far too easy for someone to sneak in and change a phone number maliciously undetected. GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also 100% in agreement - website, yes, phone, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:68.120.85.164 (bot?) making rapid, unhelpful edits

Resolved

 – Never mind. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:68.120.85.164 is currently making rapid, unhelpful edits to highly visible templates and pages. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

68.120.85.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lets add this to make it easier for admins to see what you are talking about. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So that's how you do that! Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong, and it's definitely not a bot. The IP is trying out formatting, spacing, adding refs, doing other stuff, probably without previewing -- am I missing something? (Note: also editing as 68.120.71.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything with either IP. Calabe1992 22:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes it's IP 68.120.71.9. I saw that they were rapidly changing the colors in all those templates without comment. All the templates had nice, consistent colors and I saw that the editor was changing each of them to various, ugly colors. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Libertarian_Party_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=474859291, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Constitution_Party_(United_States)&diff=next&oldid=472303388. If you think it's okay I guess I'll just put a note on the talk pages or something. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he's trying to change them to the parties' respective traditional colours. Don't libertarians generally use black as part of their "brand"? Either way, these edits don't look bad faith to me; it looks like the IP isn't used to the Wiki editing system and is doing multiple saves instead of previewing. --NellieBly (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a may have jumped the gun here. I went ahead and rv'ed the edits (assuming good faith) and tagged his (her?) Talk page with a Template:uw-editsummary. And I tagged my own Talk page with a Template:Uw-agf1 :) Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just noticed two pro-Jesus usernames created in the last hour or so... coincidence? (doubt it)  7  00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where have you reported them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

May be this is WP:BEANS and I don't know what specific usernames 7 is referring to but I looked at all user names with Jesus going back over a day and none of them have any edits so it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs - I didn't report them because at this point their names are non-vios and I have nothing other than a gut feel that they may be pointy in response to the discussion above. Nil Einne is correct that they haven't edited yet.  7  01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mindless Editing by User:Arunsingh16

Resolved

 – no evidence of improper editing, could be better choices of edit summary however Manning (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this user User:Arunsingh16 who has reverted constructive edits as test /vandalism using the STiki tool. I just had a glance at his contributions and picked up edits randomly to cross-verify. I found out that this, this, this are not vandalism. This is a very crucial piece of information and a very constructive edit, which the user has tagged as vandalism.

He has been in Wikipedia for an year, but almost 90% of his edits has been in the last month. I can see on his talk page that many people have notified him that he was reverting constructive edits as vandalism and he has replied that he is also a human and asked them to relax. He has also received many notifications regarding falsely tagging articles for deletion. I can see on his talk page that he has discussed with admin Salvio giuliano about getting rollback rights on 4 January 2011 (here). The admin told him that he is an inexperienced editor. In the next 3 days, he has done 1500 edits using Twinkle and STiki. He has been awarded rollback rights on 7 January 2011 by admin Fastily. I do not understand how admins grant rollback rights without even noticing this kind of behavior. He has continued to use Twinkle and STiki till now and done approximately 6000 edits in the last month. I can notice that at one point of time, he has done nearly 400 edits per hour. All these tells only that he is hungry for edit count and he is accumulating edits mindlessly. I have notified on his talk page to stop using STiki and review all his previous edits.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 04:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of the edits may not be vandalism, but are inconsistent with policies (verification issues, original research etc) and can be rightfully removed (using a personalised edit summary) The vast majority of his edits have been constructive and I do not believe this needs administrative attention. I recommend dealing with this issue personally with him, rather than posting it on ANI as it is an overreaction. —Dark 04:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've randomly surveyed about 30 of his edits and they were all valid. I'm certain if I keep looking I'll find one or two that were maybe a bit too harsh in my opinion, but frankly I can do that with anyone. There's nothing here needing admin attention. In contrast, your assertion "he is accumulating edits mindlessly" doesn't seem to particularly fit with WP:AGF, and is not reflected by the evidence. The real problem seems to be his choice of edit summary, so I'll drop him a line on that front. (It could be a limitation of STiki, I've never used it). Manning (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As the author of STiki, who quite randomly stumbled across this thread, I will note that this user is utilizing the default edit summary which [[WP:STiki|STiki] applies. If desired/needed, the operating user is able to modify it via the GUI interface. Moreover, if someone can suggest a more reasonable general-purpose default summary, I have no objections to changing it -- although it has already been tweaked, modified, and discussed a couple times in its history (see the archives). Anyone interested in this discussion should continue it at STiki's talk page. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dear All. Thanks for your time and efforts. What surprises me is the talkpage of the user who reported me; check this. User had several warnings and violations himself. It appears to me that the user has some personal grudge against me and this "complaint" is more of a personal attack. Dear Anbu121, if you have any issues with me, then please discuss with me to resolve it before taking it to Administrators' noticeboard and waste their time. In good faith, I am not putting a complaint against you for several warnings you have received for uploading several files (and it is a trivial issue). Interestingly you have quoted an incident about me (rollback rights). I had very bad exchange of words with another user (who was blocked earlier for revert war) and this behaviour of mine put me into bad light whilst I had requested for rollback rights. What is more interesting is that I can see that you too know that user. Let’s ensure that we assume good faith and that our actions are not driven by personal choices and opinions. Cheers AKS 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Anbu121 on his Talkpage about the accusations he made against me. AKS 09:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To All: I apologize as I overreacted a bit. I was not aware of the fact that the software STiki automatically identifies edits that might be potentially vandalistic. I thought the user himself chooses the articles and edits. Also I apologize for bringing this issue here. The warnings on my talk page are mistakenly put by User_talk:Dipankan001. Please refer User_talk:Dipankan001#Images of IIM Lucknow

To Arunsingh16: I am really sorry to have caused this inconvenience to you. I totally mistaken you as I have not seen any person who has edited at such pace. Please do not take this as a personal attack. I initially thought to have a personal conversation with you. But after seeing many people on your talk page saying that you have tagged constructive edits as vandalistic, I thought to bring here. I am extremely sorry to have used harsh words against you.

--Anbu121 (talk me) 09:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Your message on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as my reply has little to do with ongoing discussion. Cheers AKS 10:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• As follow-up and learning from this incident (and as suggested by User:West.andrew.g); I have opened a discussion on STiki talkpage (Wikipedia talk:STiki) under section "Flexibility". Thanks a lot everyone for your time. Cheers AKS 11:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I also apologize for passing comments about administrators. I was not aware that there is a collective process of fighting vandalism and as a result of which these kind of edits may happen. I did a serious mistake of thinking that these edits are purposely done. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:76.192.36.167 using unauthorized bot

Resolved

 – Blocked, as bots must be run while logged in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

76.192.36.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making rapid and widespread edits with a bot, which is probably not authorized. The edits are removing excess digits in coordinates, e.g. [161], and [162]. Rm1271 ^talk_contribs 00:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a 10-minute block to get their attention, as WP:BOTACC is pretty clear about logging in to use a bot. The edits look reasonable otherwise... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It didn't get their attention, so 24 hours instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, it looks to be FeedBot; I messaged the operator. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Bot edits on IP may accidentally occur." (from User:FeedBot) Bulwersator (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll look into that.~Feedintm^Parley 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia

Yahialatif (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Latif Yahia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many problems with this newly registered user and his user page, not the least of which is a legal threat: "I have asked Wikipedia several times to remove this page without success, until my legal team have dealt with this situation in the form of a court order this page is here for all to see.".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Bbb23 is referring to Yahialatif (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), who does indeed claim to be Latif Yahia. NebY (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note here his userpage is a WP:FAKEARTICLE. I think it would be best if an admin fixed this problem. JFHJr (㊟) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've indeffed, deleted and pointed the user to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Hopefully s/he will email the foundation and they'll take it from there (unless they're too busy lobbying congress). Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch, that was a good idea but in the circumstances will probably just cause annoyance. We have a 15 day old untouched OTRS ticket 2012012010008591 which is a complaint from a representative of his about his page. I can't comment to the rights or wrongs of the situation, but editor Perrynio (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries are part of the complaint, and see this edit. We need to sort out the BLP issues (if they exist). Toodst1, the Foundation will deal with any legal action if it comes to that, but that's all. Responding to the complaint and sorting out the article if it needs sorting is up to us. And sooner than later as it would be nice to be able to respond to the OTRS ticket. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've also protected the article as it's been quite the edit war lately (of course, the wrong version :). The OTRS crew is very capable and I'm confident they'll sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Todd, what do you mean by "wrong version"? Do you think the current state of the article is the wrong version?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's always the m:The Wrong Version. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've done a fair amount of work on the article, but it's an unusually difficult article to craft in a balanced fashion. Even while adhering to sources, it requires judgment as to what to include, what not to include, and how much. No matter where the sources stand on Yahia, there's no doubt he's a colorful and controversial figure.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this article and its editors, does this edit summary by TVNEWS11 (talk · contribs) contain a legal threat under our policy? JFHJr (㊟) 17:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Fred dealt with it appropriately at User_talk:TVNEWS11#About_your_edit_summaries. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right on. Sorry, I missed that. Thanks again! JFHJr (㊟) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a WP:3RR situation, as stated here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Was WP:AN/3RR offline? :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but apparently my personal knowledge-base was offline. I did not even know it existed. I will post there. Please delete this one to avoid duplication. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with User:Harizotoh9

Over at WikiProject My Little Pony, we're having a few edit warring, and editing stalking issues relating to User:Harizotoh9. I've looked over his contributions, and he seems to have quite a few relating to the project, which would explain his interest in it. However, if you look over the history, he is repeatedly reverting minor edits, which gives me the impression of edit stalking.

The larger issue being his failure to assume good faith with other users. I don't know what kind of vandalism/trolling has happened here in the past, but his accusations against User:Murdox over a userbox that predates the project seems to be a bit much. I've looked over Harizotoh9's talk page and it appears he has a history of this behavior. Is there any policy against such actions? I'd really just like to get over these meaningless edit wars on the project and move on to improving the wiki. User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised that several policies somewhere discourage me from saying this, but I would say the troll correlation index is so close to 1.00 for anyone with overlapping interests in GNAA and MLP that it should result in an instaban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Like WP:AGF? Mythpage88 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, that's an example of one of the policies I suspected someone would helpfully blue-link for me. As it says somewhere, AGF isn't a suicide pact. You're still allowed to engage your brain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your concern Floqenbeam, but you have not stated anything that could be done to help deal with the editor in question, can we please stay on topic? User:SweetieBelleMLP 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  I really don't see the edit stalking. Harizotoh's got a history of positive contributions to the MLP WikiProject, and most of his edits to the page itself have been general upkeep based on the status of the various pages the project is responsible for. In fact, most of those "minor edits" you mentioned have been related to fixing the vandalism or mistakes of other users. While you may not think it's a big deal, having new members sign their names at the bottom of the list was a decision made by those who started the project (and is generally the norm on most WikiProjects), and if new users choose to ignore that despite being told to do so twice within a few sentences (save for following your purposeful removal of both instances of said statement), then he has the right to make that correction. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see known GNAA members everywhere here --Guerillero | My Talk 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikeriley23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm writing here because of actions by an editor that are borderline as far as issues on Wikipedia goes. On January 30th User:Mikeriley23 created the page Mike Riley (cartoonist) and did several edits that include adding the author's name to various different articles. I left a conflict of interest note on his page as well as tagged the entry accordingly, as there's more than enough evidence to believe that this was the author or someone who knew him. I've noted that since I've posted that, most of the editing was done by random IP addresses (which may or may not be him), with Mikeriley23 continuing to return in order to remove the COI tag and do random edits. I've had to repeatedly replace the COI tag, as it was repeatedly removed by Mikeriley23 without the user saying anything to show that there was no conflict of interest. I've told him that it's not against the rules for him (assuming he is the cartoonist or someone who knows him) to edit his own account, but that the tag merely shows that someone with a COI has been making major edits to the page. Since nothing has really improved and the initial edits can be seen as self-promotion, I'm bringing this to the attention of the admins so they can be aware of this situation. I hate to jump all over the newbie and I'm not trying to get the article deleted, but the user has ignored what I've written and it's just time to pass it on to someone with more authority than I have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

This feels like more of an issue for the conflict of interest noticeboard. Have you tried bringing it up there? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't even know that board existed! I'll take it there! Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by User:Radboner at User talk:DoriSmith

Resolved

 – indef'd under WP:NLT. Manning (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit looks like a legal threat, and I think Dori's in a different time zone so may not see it for a while, so as a watcher of her talk page I'm reporting it here. PamD 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with. That's pretty unambiguous. Manning (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like that editor's more than a bit clueless, but big thanks to everyone else for dealing with this before I even knew it had happened! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1.5 month old RFD

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 1#Lowest common factor. It was relisted a month ago, and seems to have fallen off the radar since then. The main WP:RFD page already has a backlog notice on it, but I thought someone might like to know that we're nearing the two-month mark here. I wasn't sure whether this belonged here or on WP:AN. AN has instructions saying it's only for general things, so I brought it here, but I'm concerned that this report isn't dramatic enough for ANI. Oh well. If anyone can close it (or something), it'd be appreciated! --NYKevin @869, i.e. 19:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I closed this as dabify. --RA (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:81.3.45.148 repeatedly reverting to unhelpful edits

IP User:81.3.45.148 has been repeatedly vandalizing the Visual Novel and Katawa Shoujo pages in an attempt to reclassify visual novels as books. No response to comments made when reverting edits. Jacotto (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This hardly constitutes vandalism and doesn't breach the three-revert rule. I suggest you continue with this discussion if consensus has not been reached already. --RA (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Katawa Shoujo and Visual Novel have run up to the three-revert rule as of this writing. The reverts are exactly the same as other IP users. The IP user discussing the issue on Visual Novel has not attempted to begin any discussion on the Katawa Shoujo talk page, despite making another revert without any comment since I first posted here. Jacotto (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In both articles, the IP has made 3 reverts. A 4th would violate the rule. You could, if you wish, post a warning on the IP's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

(e/c) Isn't it extremely likely that it was just a Twinkle misclick? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

cyberpower678 has posted an unblock request that should be considered expeditiously. My76Strat (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

A good-faith report to AIV is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Unblocked. Toddst1, appreciate where you're coming from but that was clearly a misclick. Going offline for 1/2 hour but will come to your talk too. Pedro :  Chat  19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Note: Il223334234 (talk · contribs) has initiated another move proposal at Talk:FIFA, citing the same rationale rejected last week. I participated in the earlier discussion, so I request that someone else speedily close this one. —David Levy 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Closed the second discussion. Absolutely no new argument raised. ~ mazca ^talk 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note:' Il223334234 also moved FIFA Headquarters to Headquarters of International Federation of Association Football, moved Taiwan island group to Taiwanese Archipelago while a proposed move was under discussion, and moved 9GAG, Asheron's Call 2 and Beer koozie upon prematurely closing move discussions (none of which even leaned toward consensus to move).
  All of these changes have been reverted or mitigated. —David Levy 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently, User:Il223334234 has initiated similar move discussions at Talk:UEFA#Requested move 2 and Talk:MLS#Requested move. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, please see [[163]] also for a violation of WP:UP. It's some sort of football game using information from the articles themselves. I'll be putting it up for MfD leaving a note to the user re the user page policy .It's already been noted by User:Tide rolls on their user page. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:31Julho1985 crazy fan

User rival fan club [164]. Decreasing with false matches: Clube Atlético Paranaense . -- Veloster (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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[165] the same. Anyone like to block the proxy? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:AndyTheGrump in this edit diff [166] 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: [167]. 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)

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)

(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)

@R-41: Please read Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA may possibly be the appropriate forum.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case it is not. Von Restorff (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

It does not matter, we love you. Von Restorff (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Yup. Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@R-41: Before you continue, please read WP:BOOMERANG. I recommend focusing your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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 [168].--R-41 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [169]. 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)

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)

Here is the report by an administrator, Kudpung, who took AndyTheGrump's violations of WP:CIVIL seriously: [170]. 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: [171]. The issue was never resolved and is still left open, and Kudpung went on break.--R-41 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I bought it in a garage sale. Von Restorff (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thanks Kim Dent-Brown! Should we close this now? Von Restorff (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [172], 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)

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)

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[173] as if I am a racist, although there is no such grounds. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My advice would be to ignore it, he/she did not name any names. Von Restorff (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

He's an experienced editor but not an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is there an age threshold that is spelled out somewhere?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have revdel'd the edits that included the personal information. Number 57 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the contentious information was originally added by 109.155.199.65 (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threats by Mt6617

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

She doesn't get a notification? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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".[174] He has awarded himself a few barnstars, posting a discussion thread beginning "I hate you" on the talk page of The Last Angry Man[175], and removed his barnstars.[176] Could an administrator please block the account until the editor can resolve the problem. TFD (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd pending assurances the editor is ready to make constructive edits. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

In the future, I believe AIV would give you a quicker response. —Dark 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another admin deleted the speedy deletion nomination and all the content was restored[177], 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)

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)

Also, user:VodkaChronic hirself was not notified. I've notified hir. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I regard this page as unhelpful. It represents a paranoid, conspiracy-theory based "if you're not with me then you are my enemy" approach, which is not the way that Wikipedia works. However, I declined the speedy deletion as a personal attack, because as far as I can see it isn't a personal attack. In its present form it doesn't refer to any individual person or persons. An earlier version of the page did mention an individual person, but all it said about that person was that they were "an agent of the Latter-Day-Saints-Mormons", and the page then went on to say that editing about "Latter day Saints" was biased. The editing of the user referred to is indeed largely favourable to the "Latter day Saints", and while the particular way that the user page refers to that fact is, in my opinion, not the most helpful way of doing so, I cannot see it as a personal attack. However, if there is a consensus that it is a personal attack then we can do a revision deletion on the version containing those personal references, leaving the current version, with no reference to any person, intact. I don't like this user page, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern earlier was the user page focus on another editor by trying to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream, even though the editor does not self-identify as a Latter-day Saint on the user page. User:VodkaChronic has now removed this reference to another editor from the user page so that concern is removed. The remaining content still is not constructive, but does not appear to be a personal attack IMO. 72Dino (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cybercobra & User:Ism schism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• TODO list edits in question. I also have another TODO list on my userpage: User:Cybercobra#TODO. Here's my prior conversation with JahSun. He seems a promotional WP:SPA. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• 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

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)

• Comment The removal of the Afd tag [178] 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)

• Comment Given that JahSun has recently created articles on himself, a neologism he's created, a company he founded and has unhelpfully edited Userpages, I would say it is he who should be receiving attention from administrators for blatant, unrepentent spam. The editors named in this "incident" are guilty of nothing more than helping maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and freedom from self-promotion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that last part was just JahSun accidentally confusing User and User_talk pages. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs)

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)

There are at present about a dozen references to independent sources mentioning or describing our work and speaking to its notability. As I understand the rules here WP:ABOUTSELF, the sources you find unreliable are actually in the category of Questionable which as you can see, are sources that can be used in various circumstances. The rules for WP:NONPROFIT are clear. We must be international. This is proven in spades (70 countries of activity dwarfs many of our colleagues who have pages here). We must have multiple sources verifying our activities (check). It goes on to say that our major achievements can be used to speak to our notability... I would say helping 1 million human beings get access to clean water & sanitation counts. To this end, the hundreds of projects we have up online are valid sources. JahSun (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In your inexperience, you are significantly misinterpreting the contents of my talkpage archive. I am not going to dignify your paranoid implied personal attacks with any further response. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:JahSun

Okay, I've put up with the baseless accusations of socking, tag-teaming, and general-bad-faith, but this crosses the fscking line:

Wikipedia should not be the bastion of unemployed people without anything better to do with their time. It seems wrong to let the formulation of what is true in the modern culture rest upon the shoulders of misanthropic individuals who rarely seem to leave home. I ask that this witch hunt not be rewarded.
—User:JahSun @ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Water_Charity

I request this be redacted. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You have put up with the accusations of sockpuppeting, tag-teaming and what not because you know that you have in fact been investigated for such behavior previously. It would be ridiculous for you to act hurt over me pointing out that you have been the subject of a number ANI complaints over your career here. I stand by the idea that Wikipedia should not be the exclusive domain of people who have nothing better to do. While I didn't specifically call you a misanthrope, you seem to feel that the tag applies. The contents of your contributions list speak volumes about how much time you have to devote here. JahSun (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [179]. '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)

Indef blocked, talk page warning left. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, Ironholds did reduce the block earlier. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sounds good. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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." [180]

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)

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)

• Support a community ban on User:Mofb and all socks thereof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashoka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ashoka the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emperor Ashoka The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Avaloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

The issue has been fixed by myself. Avaloan 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the issue was caused by yourself and is still extant. ClaretAsh 07:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Avalaon just moved it again ([181]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

I blocked User:Avaloan after he tried yet another copy-and-paste move. This [182] is his response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked, arbcom email left for user. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are you sure he wasn't commenting on their edits and not on them as a person? Heiro 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

the time will, in my opinion, come at the next similar edit. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Who is the Nazi and who is the victim of Nazism, Dougweller? Passive-aggressive cliches don't help anything.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, do you want an answer here or my talk page where you also posted? Ah, I see you are also replying to me at The Bushranger's talk page, where you've written (besides some criticism of my English and my 'self-understanding', "Why not silence yourself when you have nothing good to say?". I'm not one of the Admins who have blocked you in the past and I didn't comment on your RFCU, so I don't understand why you are on two talk pages and here questioning me. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you answer here, and then strike through your histrionic (and alas cliched) passive-aggressive comparison of yourself to a victim of Nazism, on all the pages they occur. Who are you comparing to Nazis? Why don't you strike through your apparent personal attack on Malleus?

I have no concern with you, apart from your NPAs and passive-aggressive behavior at ANI (and its echoes on other pages).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comparing anyone with Nazis nor of course do I consider myself a victim of Nazism. I don't think Malleus is thin-skinned enough to take 'a bit ironic' as a personal attack and I've already explained my comments about the editor you should really be concerned about. Your interpretaion of Niemöller's quotation is clearly not the same as mine. In this context it simply means that there are times when it's imperative to speak out, and I think this was one of them, however minor in the course of human events (oops, another quote). Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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 IAR and commonsense are relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Among German Lutherans, you might consider Luther, to avoid the Nazi comparison implicit in quoting Niemöller. Phil Ochs would serve in some cases.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally something we can agree on. Phil Ochs. But I think Niemöller has a wider application than just Nazis. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Strictly a trolling account. Hard to figure why it's not blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll and POV-pusher. Unlikely to offer WP anything but drama. Ban per WP:NLT. --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Paedophile POV-pushing mass-sockpuppeeteer

• Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JuiceJuhola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 :). N^oformation ^Talk 07:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Wait, how did User:JuiceJuhola edit the pages if they are semi'd? Account was created yesterday. N^oformation ^Talk 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He edited talk, not the pages. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I thought that when an article was semi'd the talk page was as well. In the case of pages of such subject matter I don't think it would be a bad idea to semi the talk pages as well. N^oformation ^Talk 07:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting article talk pages is never a good idea. —Dark 07:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) And how would legitimate unconfirmed editors request an edit be made? We should not semi talk pages except for a very small period of time in cases of massive disruption. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can understand how it could be logistically problematic so I won't push for it. N^oformation ^Talk 07:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CET- Where the article talk page is protected, the help/noticeboards would be the default, based on situation; of course, unconfirmed accounts are less likely to find/use them, but you're right about our need to minimize that need. Dru of Id (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes we create a subpage of the talk page for anons to use. There is also Wikipedia:RFED. In either event, I believe the norm is to mention and link to the place to make edits in a notice in the talk page. However I question whether this is of use here. It seems to work at places like Talk:Justin Bieber where the problem is 'fans' and run of the mill trolls/vandals, it may not work here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• If nobody else has done it, I'll run a check to see if there are any more of them out there. Mistress Selina Kyle - thanks for pointing out this bunch of block evading socks, but could I point you at WP:CHILDPROTECT if you have concerns about more subtle POV pushing in that area, as starting a thread here with the words "Paedophile editor" could have unintended consequences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Fluttershy appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• oppose absolutely no reason to let this person back in.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Kill it. kill it with fire. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • He already is User:SweetieBelleMLP 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good. Now what's the connection between yourself, User:Roambassador, User:Princess Derpy, and User:Mythpage88? Night Ranger (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose User is invited to try "Standard Offer" or BASC. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. See WP:Standard offer. -- œ^™ 03:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this allowed [183]? How about faking the orange message bar on your userpage [184]? Night Ranger (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, no. Nor should they stuff beans up their nose. NewbyG ( talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(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)

(edit conflict) FYI Salvio, the orange bar has already been removed in the past and he just put it back later [185]. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? MFD the entire userpage? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maybe they forgot. Any reason you had a few dozen cocks on your user page? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because "you" weren't the subject. Your userpage was. English 101. Night Ranger (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Night Ranger, sorry, that's nonsense. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see any problem with Orestes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

thanks for clarifying. i think gettting MLP to FA status would be awesome, while pissing off the person accusing half the bronies on the MLP wikiproject of being sockpuppets. -badmachine 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Incognito

Upon reviewing this thread, I see you all have taken the liberty of not only removing the fake talk page message, but his userboxes as well. Last I checked those were perfectly fine, so I've taken the liberty of adding some myself. User:SweetieBelleMLP 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll accounts?

What's with all the troll accounts? User:Badmachine, User:Incognito and User:SweetieBelleMLP certainly seem pretty.. similar. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol might be of interest as well. They surely seem to have a lot of fun with this. :) --Conti|✉ 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, Wikipedia is not as welcoming of a place as it portrays itself to be. User:SweetieBelleMLP 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) being stalked by daniel brandt is not fun conti. look through my contribs and you will see that i have been constructively contributing here for four fucking years. does WP:AGF does not apply to admins, Conti? i see why casual editors who are not familiar with every single fucking policy here are run off by people like you. -badmachine 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There has to be a certain amount of doublethink involved to proclaim on your userpage to support a bunch of trolls while at the same time complaining politely about being called one. :-) --Conti|✉ 12:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

it was Night Ranger's accusation that brought me here. apparently liking My Little Pony is enough to make him think i am a sock. my hope is that the GNAAs presence on my page will make him shit his drawers, you know.. for the lulz. -badmachine 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't here for "lulz" - we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. If you lose sight of this fact, you'll find yourself in opposition to those of us who haven't. Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

yes the lack of humor here at wikipedia is evident. i stand falsely accused of sockpuppetry, and happen to believe that trolling is beneficial to the evolution of internet users into a thicker skinned variety of people, and the GNAA logo was added yesterday. i do not wish to find myself in opposition to any of you but to pick apart userpages based upon an affinity for a cartoon or any internet or other group is unfair. also, i do not believe that you were impersonated. i think you are hot and would like to have drinks with you someday. -badmachine 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

abuse of twinkle tool

Resolved

 – no evidence of any wrongdoing Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the user Andy_Dingley is using the twinkle tool to falsely revert legitimate edits and claim they are vandalism. He has been warned about this before from the administrator Ramaksoud2000 and he has continued this behavior. --208.86.2.205 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you be specific and link to an instance? You also failed to notify him of this discussion, which I have now done. Calabe1992 15:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has a long history of doing this and just by looking at his contributions you can see some examples however a recent example of note is the following edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-board_microcontroller&action=historysubmit&diff=474865202&oldid=474856736 --208.86.2.205 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And the issue there is what? On its own, the reverted edit could easily be taken to be vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it could. The edit summary of the reverted edit was also a bit confusing as it referred to the removal of the picture but the edit also removed two supporting sources and additional content - so the twinkle usage seems not to have violated anything, and there is nothing to see worthy of admin action. Youreallycan 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of personal attacks that I removed against me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed personal attacks made on me by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and Russavia (talk · contribs) here per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks...

• [186]

And was then reverted by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who then made a false comment that "Consensus is that those remarks you RPAed are not to be RPAed" (there was no consensus) and then threatened me against removing them again ... with "Please consider this a final warning."... This is all contrary to what Wikipedia:No personal attacks says, which really needs to be enforced more especially in bringing administrator behaviour up to a higher standard so there is less of a hyperaggressive, trollish, chan-like atmosphere and stop driving away so many female users who don't want to put up with this kind of stuff, I'm the rare one that refuses to be put off by this stuff but this is the main reason so many people don't want to be involved in Wikipedia when they see how so many people act towards each other all the time)...

I think the deliberately insulting/trolling comments against me (Wikipedia Review is my site) below is deplorable, not only if it was from a user but from administrators I think is incredibly unprofessional behaviour and I am surprised this is not only being tolerated - but supported?

• "LOL .. grow up"
• "blah blah blah"
• "Weekly Reader"
• "trolls and malcontents"
• "troll child"
• "Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers"
• "It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad"
• "Bitchipedia Review"

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the play-on-words was a bit too subtle: "Alas, poor Yorick; I knew him, Horatio." The most obvious "Horatio" that came to mind was Horatio Hornblower. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You know the name of the site yet you use a different one, repeatedly, apparently for no reason other than to troll... This kind of stuff being openly engaged in Wikipedia's official pages is why Wikipedia Review had to be created in the first place... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The double standard at work in terms of civility policy IS blinding. "It's okay to act like a group of immature assholes, as long as you're picking on someone we don't like" - is that in the policy somewhere? Selina shouldn't have removed those comments. But someone SHOULD have asked those parties to redact them. Wikipedia:AN/I ain't a frat party and editors shouldn't behave like a bunch of obnoxious frat boys.VolunteerMarek 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as personal attacks go, those are mild in the extreme. I wonder how much Mistress Selina Kyle is actually upset about this or if this is just an attempt at making a WP:POINT. AniMate 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, I am... and the fact that semi-elected Wikipedia officials are then threatening me for removing material attacking me - Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Making_.22no-edit.22_orders_contrary_to_policy - one of the worst things about it, it's like insitutionalised bullying ... I am really disappointed that some administrators seem to think this kind of trolling/harassment is ok on Wikipedia, least of all in the official Wikipedia "government" pages... It's the way then administrators actually defend this behaviour then threaten people that stand up to bullies that is one of the worst things about Wikipedia when it could be so much more if more good people stood up to trolling and made it an environment more people feel comfortable in contributing to rather than "who is going to insult me today" that makes a lot of people just feel "why bother"... my friends in real life think I'm mad for even botherng --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we'd be treating her differently if she weren't Mistress Selina Kyle... N^oformation ^Talk 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To provide context, my comment was (in full) "LOL. Wikipedia Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up". It might be appropriate at this point to ask MSK whether, since she describes WR as her site, she accepts responsability for the personal attacks made on Wikipedia editors posted there? Or are self-proclaimed 'internet watchdogs' immune from criticism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hardly the most calm and courteous way to make the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What administrator action is being called for in respect of this incident? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All I would like is for the policy on removing personal attacks to be actually kept to and administrators especially should not be actively supporting that kind of behaviour, this seems to on repeatedly in Wikipedia and if no one ever stands up to them then that's how it's going to be forever, most people just don't want to deal with it all the time... People replied accusng me of having "a thin skin" but really, for Wikipedia as a whole, is it good that only people wanting to weather a constant hyperaggressive environment ("A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that only 8.5% of editors are women") should feel welcome in Wikipedia...? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

While certain members of the community seem to strongly dislike their posts being edited to remove personal attacks it seems perfectly legitimate to have removed them. Mild or not, while they might be acceptable down the pub, they wouldn't generally be considered acceptable in a professional environment such as this project.

Its pretty clear the personal attacks made here fall against this principle from the Arbitration committee.

While you could argue that removing the content was only going to create WP:DRAMA rising to it and restoring the comments is certainly no better in that regard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As Risker notes below, attacks made against a person are one thing. Opinion and commentary, critical as it may be, against WR is another. Wikipedia Review is not a person and NPA does not grant authority to remove such commentary. Playing the gender card isn't going to sway that opinion either. Resolute 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, and re-reading the diff it seems most/all of the comments removed were aimed at the website rather than any specific users. However while that probably means that removing the comments wasn't appropriate, its still not exactly ideal behaviour. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• While comments directed at a specific user may be personal attacks, comments that discuss what is essentially an inanimate object (e.g., a website) cannot be considered personal attacks regardless of their content. MSK, please do not conflate the two. Risker (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They knew it was my site because I have it on my userpage though ... passiveaggressively making insults shouln't be encourage as a way to bypass the rules? The rules are deliberately not solid to stop people attempting to skip around them by doing this kind of thing like carefully not mentioning names... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a legitimate comparison. While the comments are clearly uncivil and unprofessional, they aren't making personal attacks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You may well be the person who pays the bills that keep Wikipedia Review online (nobody's put you to strict proof on that yet), but you are not personally Wikipedia Review; it is not an extension of your personal being. Negative commentary about the website is not negative commentary about you. Risker (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And I vaguely recall that MSK was disclaiming personal responsibility for the contents of that site during her recent unblock discussion. She can't have it both ways. Also, it was suggested to her to avoid engaging in exactly the kind of heated an unproductive discussion that is the meat of this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• The poster does provide some useful input, though, in demonstrating that while (Personal attack removed) "can dish it out, they can't take it." If the poster is concerned about personal attacks, they should schlepp through the muck at WR and remove all the personal attacks there. Maybe then they can come back here and criticize us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When have I ever personally attacked you, anywhere? I didn't even know who you were until this... If you have an issue with what other people say, why not take it up with them instead of attacking anyone related? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked you. In fact, I never even heard of you until 15 minutes ago or so. Meanwhile, if WR actually is your site, go lecture your constituents there about their rampant and childish personal attacks, before you come here griping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors making the the contentious comments have been treated very unkindly by your members, Selina, and I fully sympathize with their instincts. But behaving like a bunch of resentful children is hardly going to improve their reputations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSK, you state that WR is your website, and that any comment it is therefore referring to you. Can I then take it that you also take responsibility for the personal attacks posted there? Personally, I think that being called a "useless, nasty festering turd monkey" [187] is a little more harsh than "LOL... Grow up" - still, that's just an opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the connection to "Weekly Reader" because the commentary there (to use that term extremely generously) reminds me of the way kindergartners talk. Although that quote you cite, I don't think any but the brattiest grade schooler would come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, I don't think that there is any value in enshrining links on this page to what could be considered pesonal attacks posted at Wikipedia Review, even if the person posting them is the subject. If you have a complaint about the website MSK says she owns, I suggest you take it to her talk page. This isn't the place to discuss Wikipedia Review. Risker (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's entire premise is bogus, and you should box up this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, thanks for informing me about this discussion - real kind of you. GiantSnowman 20:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you value my peny's worth in any way shape or form, here it is:

With the subjective viewpoint of an outsider, what would I choose to do? Side with the Wikipedia Administrators and help them out with their endeavours or side with those who choose to monitor them and ensure that Wikipedia remains a fair and unbiased place where a neutral pov is presented? Frankly, the way things stand I'd vote for the latter. I don't care what personal attacks have been made elsewhere, this is about Wikipedia being on trial for the way it conducts itself. It should be taking the moral high ground, but instead its Administrators are resorting to petty childish insults and group ganging up. How am I, an outsider, supposed to trust the accuracy of this site and its content if I am unable to have 100% faith and confidence in those who moderate it. My advice to all: stop this petty dicussion, block the WR troll, give the childish Admins a firm talking to, and try to uphold a sense of professionalism here so that the outside world can have faith in this project.
Yours,
Bob
--94.2.240.103 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but is any administrator action being called for here? Any block, page protection, move, etc etc...? If no specific request for administrator action is made, I intend to close this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Close it. The OP is probably looking to get blocked for disruption. Don't block, just close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To me that looks like one of the people that were trolling before sockpuppetting, but I guess assume good faith and all that... I am really disappointed how people just carry on making personal attacks whilst not caring about the rules whatsoever apparently...

Kim I think the people that make personal attacks on official pages should be warned and people that carry on after being told it's against the rules should be blocked... admin or not, if no one can follow the rules they are worthless... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The offences were insufficient to warrant a block, IMO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question or two

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is in regard to Kyle's talk page:[188]

I just have a couple of questions that maybe an admin can answer:

1. By what right does an editor who falsely accused me of a personal attack, somehow get license to issue personal attacks themselves?
2. By what authority does another editor get to issue a profane attack while apparently assuming ownership of that talk page?

Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, stay off that page, and drop the subject entirely. Risker (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned. You're an admin. Are you saying that I do not have the right to defend myself against false charges? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm telling you, when someone with whom you have just tangled at ANI tells you to stay off their page, stay off their page. Risker (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I AM REQUIRED to notify someone when I am taking them to ANI. And it was ANOTHER USER who told me to "stay off" that page. Unless Tarc = Kyle, it is not his place to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing MSK to ANI? It seems it is because she told you to stay off her page, and when you refused to do that, someone else told you, more forcefully, to stay off her page. So...stay off her page. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kyle never told me to stay off the page. Tarc did that. Kyle called me "a troll". That's a personal attack. Why is Kyle being allowed to get away with personal attacks like that, as well as falsely accusing me of making personal attacks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bugs, this one wasn't necessary. She read your first one, and removed it--you know what that means: it means she read it. So she calls you a troll--big deal. You've been called worse, and what's more, I will say you're not a troll. Look, the Superbowl is over, but there's still college b-ball to watch; we don't need more ANI drama. Oh, as for your question (the first one): by the license of "we can't just block everyone". Tempers have flared; let's let them cool down. Please ask Mrs. Bugs (on my behalf) to make you a nice dessert. As for the mistress, well... Drmies (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought it was necessary, as the comment suggested they didn't realize that I am required to notify someone. However, it's becoming clear that there is no possibility of reasoning with this Kyle. The question below begs an answer: Why was the user unblocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, my posts on Kyle's page assumed good faith on the editor's part: (1) that they did not know what my "Weekly Reader" reference was about and hence misunderstood; and (2) that they did not realize I am supposed to notify about ANI postings. I apologize for assuming good faith. I won't let it happen again! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi after the previous discussion was closed (RE [189][190]) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started attacking me on my talkpage comparing me to a children's book[191][192] then attacking me for saying he's trolling[193][194] (after his many insults to me before mentioned previously) - he is now continuing to revert war on my talk page after I made it clear I don't want him leaving me "fan mail" there...

Apparently he has was previously blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: repeated personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedians; incessant verbal attacks, despite warnings; incivility; disruptive editing habits" then only in October last year for making sexist jokes and similar harassment against a female user ... and banned indefinitely in December due to "disruption" but allowed to return on some condition it doesn't mention

If you read the previous ANI it was about a legal threat someone else made against me/my site Wikipedia Review, that is why he was posting the "Weekly Reader" insults here then moving onto my talk page[195][196] when admins apparently gave him the all clear that what he was doing[197][198] was ok --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment on talk page by user:Baseball Bugs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi after the previous discussion was closed (RE [199][200]) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started attacking me on my talkpage comparing me to a children's book[201][202] then attacking me for saying he's trolling[203][204] (after his many insults to me before mentioned previously) - he is now continuing to revert war on my talk page after I made it clear I don't want him leaving me "fan mail" there...

Apparently he has was previously blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: repeated personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedians; incessant verbal attacks, despite warnings; incivility; disruptive editing habits" then only in October last year for making sexist jokes and similar harassment against a female user ... and banned indefinitely in December due to "disruption" but allowed to return on some condition it doesn't mention --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have NEVER EVER personally attacked the editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious WP:Boomerang here.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the admins here have given this Kyle a free pass to issue all manner of falsehoods without reproach. I never insulted Kyle, and I never compared Kyle to Weekly Reader. I merely provided a link to it, as I suspected Kyle did not understand why I called WR by that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Miss Kyle, he wasn't comparing you to a children's book, he was letting you know that what you linked to in a diff in the previous ANI referred to a children's book. I've never interacted with you nor Bugs (although we may have bantered somewhat here) and thus I'm definitely a neutral party. Please do not look for offense where none was intended and escalate this unnecessarily. Also, do not see this as a sign that I'm supporting Bugs in any way, but merely as a comment from a bystander--Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Kyle argues that any criticism of WR somehow equates to a personal attack on Kyle. Apparently, WR is supposed to be allowed to rag wikipedia mercilessly, while WR is not supposed to be criticised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the previous ANI it was about a legal threat someone else made against me/my site Wikipedia Review, that is why he was posting the "Weekly Reader" insults here then moving onto my talk page[205][206] when admins apparently gave him the all clear that what he was doing[207][208] was ok --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This user ( User:Mistress Selina Kyle ) was unblocked - Why? - diff to who or why did that please - Youreallycan 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: "Youreallycan" was actually in that discussion... This seems more attempts at trolling to try get me to say something that will break the rules... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was actually indef'd 6 years ago,[209] but somehow the block didn't "take" or something. So the user was re-blocked and immediately griped about it and got unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Miss Kyle, I'd really, really recommend you just avoid ANI. Forever. It's not healthy. Either there is no cabal, everyone disagrees with you, and you should stick to editing articles; or there is a cabal, it's out to get you, so you should just go back to editing articles. You can choose whichever reality makes you feel better, but nothing good is going to come from you hanging out on this board and trying to police incivility. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Stop it: stop this thread. This is getting ridiculous. Mistress, if you wish to complain, do it in one of the already existing sections. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

It's clear that these two editors (Baseball Bugs and Mistress Selina Kyle) are misusing Wikipedia for their two-way drama (see this thread and the one just above it), so I propose an WP:IBAN between them mostly for everyone else's benefit. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Clarified who the two are, and gave link. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Who, pray tell, are you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Insane amount of edit conflict) - Agree and suggest a topic ban from AN/I for a week for both them. This is some weak shit. You got one editor baiting another and the other one playing along with it just for the sake of drama. That ain't the purpose of this page (though a casual observer may be forgiven for thinking otherwise).VolunteerMarek 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And who are you? No, let me guess... you're a WR contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mistress Selina Kyle has now been indefinitely blocked so we can close all these discussions - Youreallycan 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fucking A'. Congratulations Baseball Bugs for being the supreme shit of this page. Do you actually do anything else on Wikipedia except grief people? This whole thing is a disgrace and perfectly illustrates why sneaky little creeps whose sole purpose is to engage in baiting and harassment rule Wikipedia these days. And why this place sucks so badly. It worked. You baited Selina into getting reblocked. Accolades. You're still a pathetic nit.

Off2riorob, I would like to say that I'll be laughing when the shoe is on the other foot and you get the same treatment - cuz given your history, I am *certain* you will, sooner or later. But I'm not the kind to laugh when bad things happen to people, even when they deserve it.VolunteerMarek 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken with all the eloquence and maturity of the typical WR contributor. And you wonder why I call it "Weekly Reader". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

VM, the taunting isn't necessary. Knock it off. BB, I'm with you on this one, but just drop it. Buffs (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An overall concern about AN and ANI

(relocated to AN - Manning (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

RPP backlog

There's a backlog that must be cleared by an admin at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jasper, are you blind? Can't you see we're busy here, insulting each other and blocking left and right? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • AN got no response. Surely there's some admins not involved in the messes that occur on the drama board.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well that wasn't so bad. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You still get a beer :).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You know, a couple of hours ago I seriously considered full protection for ANI. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Androzaniamy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closing comment: As Blackmane says, Atama has summed up the situation pretty well. Androzaniamy is advised that there are many things that more experienced users can help him/her to learn. It is to be hoped that he/she can move forward and begin to learn how to fit into the way Wikipedia works, so that blocking will not be needed. At present there does not seem to be anything else to be done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#User:Androzaniamy

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 ([210]), to which Androzaniamy declined ([211]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Then please refrain from asking for evidence when it is clearly here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Pointless complaining again. Three days after your last time posting a case here [212] 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 [213] 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. N^oformation ^Talk 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not the same thing as GOINGOUTOFTHEWAYTOOFFEND, which is what "huge part of the English fucking language" clearly is in the circumstances. Surely part of living in a community, as we are, involves not trying to cause others in that community distress? I think you stepped over the line there, Noformation, and in the process ensured that the subject of this discussion will feel unable to participate, which is not clearly to the benefit of the community. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize this discussion, and anyone please correct me if they disagree on any of these points.

• Androzaniamy has not done anything at this point that warrants a block.
• Wikipedia isn't censored. There will be images and language that could potentially offend an editor, and we don't remove such things simply to avoid offense.
• Androzaniamy is new to Wikipedia and by admission doesn't have a strong grasp on policies and guidelines.
• Androzaniamy has been resistant to instruction in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, due to a desire to not be mentored, but also to avoid language considered offensive.
• Androzaniamy has shown a desire to mentor another editor, but given her lack of policy knowledge she should be discouraged from doing this.
• Androzaniamy has edited others' comments in an attempt to censor words she finds offensive, which is not allowed.

I think that seems to cover things. I've said before that if her behavior continues as it has, and she continues to ignore attempts to help her, we may be forced to block her, but that is my opinion only. For now I think it's fair to give her a chance. -- Atama頭 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Atama has summed up the situation pretty well. Would an admin kindly mark this as resolved with the WP:ROPE caveat Blackmane (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Hipocrite threats

Resolved

per above thread and withdrawal. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

User: Hipocrite has unilaterally decided to remove my page because he doesnt' like it without any consensus on an ongoing issue. and he cites it as "disruptive" then he complains/threatens that i should be "blocked" [214] because he thinks a page is "too large" and "disruptive" to him (note: without saying anything as to why it i s so in order to generate consensus by discussion, but he seems to simply wants to have it his way as demonstrated by the 2 links in this section). WP works by consensus and there was none whatsoever for him to vandalise my page and then call for my block! He doesnt seem to be aware of WP guidelines despite his talk page notice

Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing him of vandalizing your page when he didn't is against the rules. CityOfSilver 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. The userpage in question has been nominated for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um blanking a page without consensus per IDONTLIKE is vandalism? its not contructive at all, and if it s not constructive then its vandalism. Or do you digress with that? Please see your own words "has been nominated" that means there is a consensus discussion? BOOMERANG?

Furthermore, above on this page the said user has again made unconstructive edits and the same NPA "why is this user allowed to edit?" Thats his preregoative to make a call without due reason on consensus building? Or is that too a constructive edit? VCalling someone a nazi on an own whim and starting a NEEDLESS ANI is not npa?Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"that means there is a consensus discussion?" There is a discussion and the page has not been deleted in the meantime. Consensus is leaning heavily against your page's existence, though, and using personal attacks in edit summaries ("thin skinned") isn't helping your cause. CityOfSilver 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Lihaas, I said WP:BOOMERANG. Upon examining your complaint I found the individual you accused had made a single edit which you promptly reverted and given an opinion in an XFD. I do not personally agree with User: Hipocrite wiping the page and I do not think you should be banned. But the point stands that neither action equates to harrassment/vandalism requiring admin intervention. But by the act of reporting it here you drew a spotlight on the fact that your userpage is currently being discussed for deletion as possibly being inappropriate. That was my meaning. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Im not personally attacking anyONE, im making a statement on my personal page.

Converserly, this users actions were not done by consensus which has ben criticised elsewhere as well. Furthermore, he has at least twice called for my block for no reason whatsoever. Thats a threat/attack.

dont think were "heavily leading to 00a delete" per the pahe discussion.

but ill withdraw it if yall think its better? although you didnt say why its boomerang because he did perform said actions as unilaterally unconstructive.Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean withdraw this complaint? I find it very difficult to read some of your comments and to discern the overall structure of your argument. It should be clear (to you) (now) that the page wasn't blanked because someone didn't "like" it: it was blanked because a number of users thought it highly disruptive. In other words, this isn't the kind of thing that requires admin intervention. I've been involved in this mess so I won't close it, but if I read Lihaas's comment correctly and they don't protest, perhaps someone else can close this. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets take this as withdrawn, then. The XfD will run, the users will avoid one another, and everyone will be happy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

Agreed and I told the user as such to aboivd each other.

Just a pt though per Drmies, thats what consensus is to discuss not to arbitrarily rmove whats deemed consensus.

above user resorted to more threats and a sustained personal lobbying campaign off discussion avenues to block me. and again without reason or notidficationLihaas (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was not notified of this thread by Lihaas. I still wonder why the intrepid (well, intrepid when blocking literate english content contributors like MF), has done nothing to prevent the disruption that a 220kb userpage consisting mainly of a bunch of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) designed to anger users causes. Bravo! Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Grundle2600 sock

Resolved

Would be grateful if an admin could deal with this situation please, see User talk:9c47#Wind power. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnfos does have a good point. Based on past experience, I'd say that that is definitely a sockpuppet of Grundle2600. Good call on spotting it! 9c47 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as self-admitted sock of banned editor. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Baseball bugs block review

Resolved

 – Unblocked per consensus. The vast majority (23) disagreed with the block saying overturn or reduce - 6 endorsed at time of unblock + 1 sarcastic block everyone Toddst1 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• - blocked for one week - User:Risker has blocked Bugs for one week for disruptive editing - imo - it seems a bit excessive - Youreallycan 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn No frickin' kidding. Buffs (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Seems fine to me given that the other user was indeffed over similar behavior and BB has a block log for similar past misdeeds. I would have preferred that this drama ended with an IBAN, but I guess people like to see the big guns in action on ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• 'Overturn - the other user should never have been unblocked - a disruptive user was mistakenly unblocked and disruption occurred - good faith users should not be punished unnecessarily for that mistaken unblock - Youreallycan 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• No, this isn't ready for archiving. I think one week is too much. I think a warning of some sort should have been made first. FWIW, I also don't agree with the other's indef. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly? Given that the other user embroiled in this mess was indeffed, and that BB was the clear instigator of all this drama, he's getting off easy with a one week block. Extend the block to indef until he promises to stop pouring gasoline on every fire that shows up on AN/I or topic ban him from it all together. Risker was being nice. Keep that in mind.VolunteerMarek 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)might even work :-)

I can't keep that in mind since I don't agree. Note also that Bugs wasn't the only one involved in the earlier thread and that his ANI thread has some merit to it. Well, at least in my opinion it did, and he closed it. I commented on the Mistress's talk page as well. I don't like this tit-for-tat ANI-ing, but tit-for-tat blocking doesn't make it any better. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes I agree , both restrictions seem unnecessarily punitive and we can do better. Youreallycan 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn as excessive for the actual violation. Collect (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• It's a shame, but Risker had clearly warned Bugs to stop, so nobody should be too surprised that she blocked when he didn't. Bugs is very visible in this "kitchen", and occasionally getting singed by the "heat" is probably an occupational hazard when that's where you play. Begoon ^talk 01:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Imagine if I said, "You shouldn't post on ANI or your user talk page any more"...and then I blocked you for violating that "order". Truth is, no admin can/should do that. Buffs (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's not what happened. Anyway, I don't want 2 bans from Floquenbeam, so I'll leave it at that. It's a shame. Begoon ^talk 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Then I guess we agree to disagree. If Floquenbeam can start their own dictatorship and enforce such a block, I'll take three such blocks. Until then, Admins don't get to make up their own rules. Buffs (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, we don't really disagree about much. I haven't said anything really except that it's a shame, and I'm not overly surprised. A reduction or overturning would not be something I opposed, either, with community support. Begoon ^talk 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn poor block, excessive and no explanation to the "disruptive editing" in the block summary. The block itself seems to be also punituve. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Block everyone who has posted in these 4-5 related threads today (including me). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that might even work :-) Begoon ^talk 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • • No, insufficiently punative. Block everyone who's read the threads as well ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Shut down AN/I for a week and see if WP falls apart. (I'm guessing "no". :) Manning (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn 1) block is obviously punitive and not preventative especially since MSK has been reblocked. 2) Considering the blocking statements here [215] MSK should never have been unblocked in the first place and Bugs block is just giving justification to MSK's trolling. MarnetteD | Talk 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• (double e/c) Overturn - Unnecessarily punitive and excessive general block where an interaction ban would have sufficed.--WaltCip (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock I don't why the frick MSK was unblocked in the first place, but their agressiveness certainly proved that their block was valid. BB got caught in the overall stupidity of that unblock, IMHO. For God's sake, it's time to community ban MSK from this project for good if this is the going to be the result (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the aggressive here was BB. Yes, this is something that should have been forseen. An editor who was potentially unpopular with some people (who have been critizied by WR) gets unblocked. And the moment that happens a whole bunch of these people, led by BB (who honestly - can someone point me to some actual contribution to the encyclopedia itself rather than continuous participation and fueling of pointless drama?) set up upon her. Now, these folks are obviously much better skilled in how Wikipedia works and so they were successful in baiting Selina and getting her reblocked. I don't understand why this kind of bad faithed, "let's get her cuz she's an easy target" behavior should be condoned. However inappropriate Selina's response may have been, it really is the people who started this whole pecking party that deserve a sanction slapping.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by blocking admin: Bugs most certainly was warned, right here on this page: "Bugs, stay off that page, and drop the subject entirely. Risker (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)" In addition, he is a longstanding contributor who has repeatedly run into problems with continuing disputes unnecessarily and provocatively. Bugs knows better. There was baiting going on from both sides here, and I'm not willing to give Bugs a pass just because the other party was also poorly behaved; the block is to prevent him from continuing this behaviour, since he did not stop his baiting behaviour even after the other party had been blocked. A week is reasonable given his history. Risker (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, I didn't see that--my apologies. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus does not appear to be in favor of this unpopular block. Even from reading the above logs, I have seen unchecked incivility and drama of far higher magnitude than what Bugs engaged in. His long-running status does not give carte blanche to block without a more clear and present warning on, say, his talk page (which I do not see). Telling someone to knock it off in the midst of a messy dispute does not subsequently entail bringing out the big guns.--WaltCip (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it time.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems more like that you're clutching at straws. Bidgee (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Excessive and punitive block. Edison (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to a day or two: unless MSK or Risker shoots an elephant in their pajamas Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wow Really?. must I say more?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't like Respect my authoritah blocks, which I think this was at least in part. A solid trouting would have been sufficient. And no, BB, I don't participate at WR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn or reduce This seems excessive in the circumstances. The experiment of unblocking MSK did not work. Mathsci (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse, but recommend only one or two days His actions in the above sections was insulting to others and he wouldn't take the hint when told to stop, but then started insulting the users telling him to stop. Kyle was definitely in the wrong here, but Bugs placed himself in the wrong by abusing other people throughout the discussion. He's done this before and he really needs to learn to stop or he's going to cross the line one day and get indeffed. Silverseren^C 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that actually, he did cross the line here - enough to get a week. Perhaps after a week, he might possibly realise that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. MSK's behaviour was not acceptable either, but simply because she's been indeffed doesn't mean that we ignore unacceptable behaviour on the part of an AN/I regular. Risker (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the latter part of what you said. Bugs definitely needs some sort of reprimand so he'll stop doing this in the future, but I just think a week is too long. Silverseren^C 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. BB certainly wasn't helping things when he jumped in to the mess, but the tail end of his involvement, what ultimately earned him the block, was actually justified in context, in my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't just helping, he instigated the whole sorry mess.VolunteerMarek 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Diff? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support the intention but no objection to time-served Regulars from the satirical site Wikipedia Review are leading us a merry dance, insofar as we chose to go along with them. Whether MSK was constitutionally incapable of remaining unblocked, or was doing it on purpose does not really matter. BBB should know better than to let them get to him. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
  
• Reduce I like Bugs, but it does seem like he had really crossed a line by the end. That being said, a week seems a bit excessive to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn. BB's reply where he implied that Volunteer Marek was less than mature (the edit Risker cites as the blocking reason [216]) was in response to being called: (1)"...a pathetic nit, " (2)sneaky little creep, and, wait for it. . .(3)"...the supreme shit of this page." [217] The response seems measured to me. R. Baley (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, a block resulting from that diff comes across as entrapment. I don't know about anyone else here, but I admit that I'd have a hard time measuring an even-tempered response to that.--WaltCip (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe reduce - No, wait, let me guess; following my removal of Bugs' stick-poking on Selina's talk page a few hours ago, he went on another spree, was reverted again, then posted in torrents to another half-dozen ANI threads about it. Bugs' shtick here is like that SNL skit that was really funny the first few times then grating on the 20th. A week away would do a world of good, but a reduction wouldn't be completely unreasonable either. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, recommend reduction to three days. Bugs seems to like dancing close to the flame, have a bug in his ear on certain topics, and cede the last word in any thread at vanishingly small frequency. But he does learn and slowly modifies his behaviour after heavy sack-beatings, so I think three days is enough to prevent him revisiting the topic. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce - The block was justified, Bugs went overboard, something I believe he's now aware of, but the length seems excesssive to me. Although some would like to paint Bugs as a "drama monger", I find his comments on AN/I to be generally trenchant and frequently humorous without, usually, being too pointed. His instincts about sockpuppetry are, for instance, usually dead on. He's also done yeoman's work on the Help desk. I won't pretend that I wouldn't be happier if less of his edits were to Wikipedia space and more were to articles (and I think Bugs would be better off for that as well, as he'd have a more balanced Wikipedia experience which might take he edge off his cynicism), but, considered overall, he's an asset to the project. That doesn't give him a free pass, of course, but I do think it merits re-evaluating the length of the block, especially considering the track record and attitude of the editor he was in dispute with, who is most definitely not an asset and should be banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Reduce Selina Kyle's to a week as well, and have an interaction ban between the two. --JN466 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block but reduce to three days, per Franamax. Bugs seems to enjoy the role of agent provocateur and over time he seems to have become more bold about pushing the bounds of civility and etiquette. The bottom line here is that he was warned but persisted anyway, perhaps under some misguided belief that the warning he received didn't apply to him. I have other concerns about ANI and its 'regulars' but those are endemic to the way ANI is set up (possibly related to NYB's thread on the topic below) and not relevant to this particular case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce to two or three days, but endorse the block. This kind of behavior is nothing new. Baseball Bugs immerses himself in any and every noticeboard drama he can, and more often than not he inflames rather than helps the situation. I would support an interaction ban, but wouldn't mind seeing him restricted to the number of posts he can make to noticeboards either. AniMate 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block but not opposed to reduction, even to time served, following usual unblocking procedures. Begoon ^talk 03:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reduce block Behavior was ridiculous, but a week is a bit excessive. --Rschen7754 03:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. I like BB, but he went on a fishing expedition here. And quite frankly, we should not be encouraging editors whose primary purpose at Wikipedia is to encourage drama. Resolute 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy unblock'. Selina Kyle's unblock inevitably led to this. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - Time served. The editor he went after is indefinitely blocked and has a horrific block log, which is ironic considering she brought up Bugs' log. There is clearly no consensus to uphold the week-long block, and it should have been reduced at this point at the very least. This should not be about what some think about BB, but instead the circumstances of the particular case. Doc talk 04:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So it's okay to behave egregiously if one is going after someone more unpopular? Risker (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I would think you'd know that by now. That's always been how ANI works. If you can get the mob focused on someone they dislike more, you're scot-free. Surprisingly, it looks like we're close to even this time. Silverseren^C 04:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of Selina until today, though I certainly have heard about the Review. So I can't speak to who is more popular between Bugs and Selina. But shouldn't the fact that Selina is currently blocked indefinitely be considered? In any case, there seems to be no consensus support for keeping the block at a week even among those who think he should remain blocked. Doc talk 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - I think this is more a matter of "the straw that broke the camel's back" rather than simply this one incident. The statements regarding BB's long-term behavior are accurate (but avoided mention of his often off-topic comments), and as he was warned here already, and I'm sure he has been warned in the past, then this might be a message that the behavior has finally exceeded its limits. Conversely, it might have no effect at all. That's up to Bugs. If he really cares about what he does here, a week off might give him time to reflect. what is at stake is the principle of the matter; poor behavior is poor behavior, whether the community at large agrees with it or not. If we become entirely subjective in passing judgment, then we prove our detractors right. MSJapan (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock: at this point it serves no purpose and I'm not sure it was warranted in the first place. Toddst1 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments made after unblock

• Strong Endorsement this block is overdue. Bugs continues to engage in disruptive and uncivil behavior. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I know I am late to this party but this is what I have to say. I would have indefed BB for bating and general drama causing. He subtracts more to the pedia then he adds --Guerillero | My Talk 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - He's already been unblocked. So now we would be at "reversing the unblock", I think. Perhaps a separate section or thread should be started if this is the next step. Doc talk 05:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: out of 34 unique contributions to this discussion, 14 (41%) agree with an immediate unblock. Toddst1, since you unblocked BB based on 'consensus', could you explain how the minority represents consensus here? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:His adversary was even less popular I'd wager. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Obviously harassing a fellow editor based on their links to Wikipedia Review. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• His conduct is disruptive, and if nothing else, he needs to take a good long break from the AN pages. I'd unblock him contingent on him editing nothing but articles for the next week. Everyking (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So what are we voting on at this point?

Bugs's block, the reversal of the block, the reversal of the reversal, or the reversal of the reversal of the reversal? --NellieBly (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. We do need something new to vote on, eh? Well, as I said, I like BB, but he spends a little too much time on the drama boards, and not enough building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I propose that he be topic banned from all AN boards (unless an issue deals specifically with him) until he writes one FA or five GAs or brings ten Stubs to (legitimate) B-class status, whichever comes first. (I am, of course, joking... kinda) Resolute 06:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, even though I probably would have supported the block, Toddst1's above assessment is accurate. So please, no more discussion on whether consensus was achieved. If you want to start a topic ban discussion, start a thread on AN. Manning (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, why not just flip this whole thread over to AN, where it should have been in the first place, and then we can continue. There was most certainly not consensus for an immediate unblock; there was consensus developing for a block reduction, but it wasn't there yet. Risker (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done... Manning (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Baseball_Bugs_-_Block_review_and_topic_ban_discussion

"Consensus"

Edit conflict with Bartlett above, whom I disagree with I see Toddst has pretty much unilaterally unblocked Bugs and closed the discussion. Reduce is not the same as overturn. Trying to combine the two is insulting to those of us who believed that Bugs should do some time, but that a week is too long. Silverseren^C 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

'Bartlett' is me, for those who don't know. And Silver, I am probably guilty of just trying to dampen rabble-rousing here, as both you (and Risker) raise valid points. Regards Manning (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my comments at Toddst1's talk page: *Sorry, Toddst1, but this is not resolved. I have been watching this discussion very closely throughout its course to see if consensus would develop, and it most certainly has not. Why are you closing this discussion after only 5 hours? Let's try 24 hours before you do this. Sorry, but this isnt' consensus, it's you imposing your own preference. Please reopen the discussion now. There was consensus developing for a reduction in the block, but certainly no consensus for an immediate unblock. I am surprised that an administrator of your experience would have this much difficulty discerning consensus. Risker (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised the block was removed entirely rather than reduced. But calls for Bugs to "do some time" help illustrate the difference between punitive vs. preventative. As Manning said, a new thread for a topic ban needs to be started. Or a RfC/U, if that is what is thought to be needed to prevent disruption. But hurt feelings between some good administrators should not get in the way of the next logical step. Doc talk 06:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that this is meant to be preventative in regards to Bugs behavior. Just letting him get away with attacking others isn't the way to go. Having a short block should, hopefully, though I wouldn't bet on it, be preventative in his future actions. Silverseren^C 06:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that the next ANI thread will be about Todd's inappropriate unblock of Bugs and/or Todd's fitness as an admin. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is being called a trolling sock appropriate for an admin? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, it's not. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great. So now heads are going to roll? Over this. (Sigh) Doc talk 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully ArbCom gets on with its Civility case. Wikipedia as it currently stands seems to take delight in irritating dynamic IP contributors, waiting till they go to ANI or a similar project page on a fresh dynamic IP, then accusing them of sockpuppetry. Toddst1 should have filed an SPI or shut up to put it bluntly. Would you be pleased with me if I roamed around undoing edits I disagreed with, but with inflammatory edit summaries like "Trolling", "Vandalism", "Drama mongering"? No. You'd block me. The same rules need to apply to all editors. --81.98.21.251 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

They'd specifically roll over comments like that. This is entirely inappropriate unless toddst can provide proof. Heads need to roll a little more often here to be honest--Crossmr (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of proof however, the accused IP gets banned for "trolling" and "drama" without any links to what policy is being enforced... --81.98.21.251 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's egregious! Unblock the IP - it will help everything calm down. Doc talk 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, grammar please: dangling modifier. An admin called someone a trolling sock. How is this not trolling? Or, at least, hounding? One wonders who this is, this editor that seems to have it in for Beyond My Ken and Todd. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Baseball_Bugs_-_Block_review_and_topic_ban_discussion

Todd's inappropriate unblock of Bugs and/or Todd's fitness as an admin

Per WP:SARCASM, WP:HUMOR and WP:IAR. Amazing foresight by the IP...

Most were against the block and/or for shortening it. In short, let's just drop it and move on. Nothing to see here. Buffs (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I much appreciate the humor in the title of this subthread. :) 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured article on the Main Page

Wrong venue. Please go to WT:TFA/R or Talk:Main page if you wish to discuss this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone else not think that the featured article on the main page is highly inappropriate for the fifth most popular website in the world? We are not censored, but we should recognize that a significant portion of the consumers of our content are underage, school-going children. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC) While I may agree with you somewhat (and think the image down below is worse, personally), the proper place to discuss this is at WT:TFA/R or Talk:Main Page, not here. Admins don't choose the articles. --Rschen7754 09:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC) That would be my channel of recourse under usual circumstances, but at this point of time I think the matter requires urgent attention from administrators. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC) The featured articles that go on the main page are selected by the Featured Article Director, User:Raul654, or his delegate, User:Dabomb87. They have only changed the featured article while it was being displayed once or twice; the last time was on Halloween 2010 for plagiarism. You're welcome to leave a note at their talk pages, but don't expect them to change it. --Rschen7754 09:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Why exactly? No admin with their head still attached (or mostly attached) is going to remove this from the main page without community consensus to do so. They will most likely shout WP:NOTCENSORED with great aplomb. No admin action needed. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I have not proposed any drastic measures. The reason why I am here is to initiate discussion on an issue which is not getting the appropriate attention on other pages. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Plenty of attention being given to it at Talk:Main page. This is not an admin issue, nor an "incident" which requires admin intervention. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I find the picture far more offensive than the article, but for purposes of false realism - her hair would never stay that dry. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Has anyone produced any genuine evidence as to our reader demographics? In any case, my personal experience of school-going children on Wikipedia is that they sure like to boast about their homosexual acquaintances... and such upstanding individuals are unlikely to be corrupted by a work of fine art and an article on a TV show they've been watching since they were in kindergarten. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Definitely not appropriate for the mainpage. That we're not censored does not mean that our most viewed page has to flaunt it - there's no excuse not to have an article about the episode due to the fact that people who are searching for south park episodes can be expected to expect a certain level of obscenity. Our mainpage, however, is directed to no one and everyone in particular. We need to use WP:COMMONSENSE here. Let me quote from a recent arbcom ruling of which I was part (and on the side of opposing censorship, btw): "Principle of Least Astonishment 6.2) The "principle of least astonishment" articulated by the Wikimedia Foundation in this resolution is one relevant principle that editors should take into account in deciding what images are appropriate for inclusion in a given article." While this was regarding images, the principle of least astonishment is wholly applicable here. Further, WP is built on consensus and policy, not on authoritarianism. Being a featured article director is an earned privilege that does not confer hierarchical advantage above commonsense or consensus, nor does it put their actions beyond reproach. If there is reason that an article should not be on the mainpage then it needs to be addressed. In a circumstance like this it should be temporarily removed until a consensus develops that it's in the interest of WP to feature it. Noformation Talk 11:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I see no consensus to take any action here. I see half a dozen or so editors across two or three locations here making a fuss about it, but really, no consensus to "temporarily" (or otherwise) remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I see a number of editors who have concern about this and I see your main argument is "no consensus." Consensus is not a vote, it's a discourse of reasoned discussion and I have given a reasonable argument - appealing to an arbcom ruling - as to why this is inappropriate. "No consensus" is a red herring. It's also ignorant of WP:DEADLINE. If there is truly a consensus that there is no issue with this article being featured on the mainpage then it's not a big deal if it's today or two days from now. If, however, there is consensus that this article is problematic, it can't exactly be dealt with retroactively, can it? Noformation Talk 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Please also note my appeal to false authority, Jimbo's talk page. Noformation Talk 12:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Note that this was selected for mainpage inclusion on 26 January so there have been two or so weeks for people to comment. In any case, it's not an "admin incident" so needs no further discussion here. If you wish to continue the discussion, I suggest you join the lengthy debate at Talk:Main Page. As for the plea to Jimbo, his opinion is interesting but is just that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTCENSORED - end of discussion. GiantSnowman 12:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC) You definitely have not been following the Muhammad/Images arbcom case. If you have been then you would certainly not have phrased your comment as such. Noformation Talk 12:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Not really. Nothing about that case challenged the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. As far as the main page goes, we TFA articles on merit, not on what might upset easily offended people. This isn't even the "worst" article we've run in the last four months. Resolute 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I don't suppose for a moment the majority of those complaining have even read the article which, in my opinion, is very good. They got as far as "anal probe" and were clearly too upset to continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I support having this article on the main page today. Regardless of mildly vulgar title, it's there because it's an example of our finest work. Should we really have some "featured" articles that never get the opportunity to be featured at all? I believe that would undercut the incentives that support the improvement of articles on these culturally important topics. Dcoetzee 12:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC) You know what's REALLY offensive! NAKED LADY ON THE MAIN PAGE. We must all immediately attend to File:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Wave_(1896).jpg, today's featured picture. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I too thought it was a bit daft, though I don't object enough to suggest doing anything about it, because I am a firm believe of WP:NOTCENSORED and the article is of high quality. However don't think it's right to scream WP:NOT CENSORED!! and "end of discussion" and all this as above and think that invalidates the concerns of these users, because it's fair to say that having this as TFA makes the site appear a bit unprofessional. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR x 20 Urgent reaction needed

Look at this. diff --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IP was blocked even before you posted this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor has jumped to a new IP address. I reverted the edit but semi-protection might be in order. SQGibbon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. Overrule me if you think I'm overexaggerating. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a few days is very reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Volunteer Marek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Warning left for Marek, no further action required at this point.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Excuse me for being brief, I was in a hurry when I wrote this). Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks directed at users participating in a debate about Wikipedia Review. [218] [219]. I feel that this needs admin attention. (I will write more when I get home later today). PaoloNapolitano 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned neither of these is actionable. this on the other hand would have been, in my view; the language and sentiment is much more extreme. However as far as I can see Marek later struck these comments. I will ask Marek to tone down the rhetoric, but that's as far as it need go, IMO. I would tend to now close this but you said you wanted to write at length when you get home; if you feel a warning from me is sufficient thejn perhaps you don't need to write much more and we can close this? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Volunteer Marek As I said, I was in a hurry when I wrote my post. I saw the two edits and in my opinion they were uncivil and impolite. I understand your warning and I will take it into account the next time. As for the edit you presented me with here, go ahead and block him if you want to. I agree that the edit is even more incivil than the other two. PaoloNapolitano 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that he "struck" his comments now. (Didn't understand what you meant). He is still responsible for his edits even if he takes it back, reverts it, etc. It is all about thinking twice before editing. PaoloNapolitano 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)''

I would love to close this and get it out of the way, but I am concerned about Marek's editing, which is clearly influenced by his emotions and not thinking twice. PaoloNapolitano 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment has been struck, the issue is closed. Let the sleeping dogs lie, and focus on constructive article editing rather than discussing others. Dramu is not needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for clerking/moderation at this board - discussion here

I have made some suggestions here about the possibility of moving towards a system of clerking or moderation here. Please join us at that page (don't discuss here...) if you would like to express an opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cluestick needed for repeated BLP violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Hopefully someone who actually has a cluestick will see the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you search her name in Google Images before talking --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Silver Seren.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. N^oformation ^Talk 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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 (th ough 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 :). N^oformation ^Talk 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, if I came across her story on a blog, I would probably think "How bizarre" and maybe even have a laugh. I might find the tiger image clever and funny. That's not the point, though, we're not a blog, we're supposed to be here to make a serious popular reference work, and even our supporting pages are supposed to maintain a certain standard. We routinely block people who cannot understand that their user pages are not their personal fiefdom, to do with as they will, and we've set up standards to follow. Some of them are only applicable to articles, etc., while others are applicable everywhere. BLP is one that is applicable everywhere, and that means that we are not free to make derogatory remarks or denigrate celebrities on our user pages at will.

Obviously, this is a rule which is honored more in the breach than otherwise -- I suspect that many nasty things have been said about famous people in talk page discussions, and I'm not advocating a search-and-destroy mission to weed them out, but when an instance comes to light and is reported, there really is no option except to follow through on policy and remove the offending remark, or, in this case, image and caption.

There is a constant tug of war on Wikipedia between being a reference work, and being an online community. Obviously, the community aspects are necessary to support the people who do the work of making an encyclopedia, but when push comes to shove, we're only an online community to that degree, and no more. When the blogging starts to override the serious part, it's got to give. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

You forgot to put your caps lock on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people in this discussion appear to be under the mistaken impression that Ms. Wildenstein is the victim of some horrible surgery gone wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. She WANTED the surgery that she got, she LIKES the surgery that she got, and she INTENDED to look like a cat (caps added per Carbuncle's above request). But don't take my word for it . . . let's check a few of the references from the article:

1. [220] - Jocelyn Wildenstein "may hold the world record for undergoing cosmetic surgery, having even persuaded doctors to help her achieve the cat-like look she craved."
2. [221] - Her husband claims that her surgery 'was engineered to make her look "like a cat."'
3. [222] - Her husband claims that 'she wanted to look "like a cat"'
4. [223] - Jocelyn Wildenstien "took her husband's love of cats a little too far when she had her face surgically transformed into a catlike mask in an effort to keep him from leaving her"
5. [224] - "Jocelyn realized that Alec loved his jungle estate, and the cats that inhabited it, more than anything else in life. So, armed with this information, she returned to her plastic surgeon with an unusual request: She wanted to be transformed into one of the giant cats that Alec loved so much. Though surprised at this unorthodox request, the surgeon did his best to comply."
6. [225] - "her eyes were artificially widened to make the outer corners of her eyes curl up to give them a feline aspect"
7. [226] - "Lizard Man, Stalking Cat, and Jocelyn Wildenstein all of whom have,through various surgical, tattooing, and piercing techniques, attempted to look more animal-like."
8. [227] - "Jocelyn Wildenstein, a New York socialite famous for her feline-styled cosmetic surgery"
9. [228] - Jocelyn Wildenstein is "ecstatic with her work. She feels beautiful. She looks in the mirror and she loves what she sees. She got exactly what she wanted."

Now, in light of this . . . how is putting an image of a big cat next to her name on a user page in wikipedia a violation of WP:BLP? It's like putting an image of a car next to Mario Andretti on a talk page. Something he's associated with and proud of. Where is the insult? The only insulted party here is the person who is miffed that he couldn't get the Jocelyn Wildenstein article deleted . . . Delicious Carbuncle. --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I'll take any of your three cats over this one. Brrr. I also see that this discussion isn't over yet; I wish it were. I don't have much of an opinion and I am not comfortable yet closing this thread. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Always good to see chivalry in action. Are you quite sure you’re a neutral party in this, dottore? Don’t make me regret I voted for you ;) On a serious note, could you please initiate a deletion review for the article on Ms Wildenstein? Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder, but this socialite has not done anything noteworthy other than subject herself to a number of surgical procedures. I tried and failed to find any involvement in charitable organisations or business ventures. If you compare her achievements to those of Diane Latiker, whose biography was recently deleted, I see a clear bias in favor of a rich person famous for her looks over a lady of modest means notable for helping vulnerable youngsters. Whose biography would you rather read? Best – Draco^E 13:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the image is to mock her. As such it violates BLP. It is certainly possible to use an accurate description in a context which is mockery. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, since now I'm being tried on the assumed intent of my actions on my user page. In keeping with the spirit of the Hammurabic Code, I'll remove the image of the tiger from my user page as soon as Delicious Carbuncle removes the image of the 'no sign' from the box on his user page indicating that he is not Pauline Berry. The 'no sign' is clearly as much of an intentional slight against Dr. Pauline Berry [229] who is referenced next to it as the tiger is next to Jocelyn Wildenstein on my user page. For those of you who claim that this is a ridiculous demand . . . I wholeheartedly agree, but when in Rome . . .

What do you say Carbuncle? :P Or would you prefer that I simply edit your user page as you did with mine? --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not the Pauline Berry who I am not. I prefer not to comment on whether I am that Pauline Berry. You seem to think this is about you - it is not. I would have the same reaction to the image regardless of where I found it. I will, however, take you up on your offer - I will remove that userbox if you remove the tiger image. Deal?Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Tiger image gone and will stay gone (assuming that your user box disappears in the next 24 hours). An eye for an eye and all that. --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Hammurabi's Code, but let's pretend that this is in some way "an eye for an eye". You want me to remove my eye, but you have only half removed yours. I am perfectly willing to remove the userbox from my page if it gets the matter settled, but I ask that instead of having File:Censored rubber stamp.svg, you simply have it blank. Other entries have no image, so it won't make that much of a visual difference. I think this would show goodwill on your part. Do this and I will remove the userbox from my userpage (or feel free to remove it yourself once you have removed the image). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You modified my user page without asking me about it, then raised this ANI without discussing anything with me, and now you're asking for goodwill? All that you've done is tried to bully me into doing what you want. We're far past the goodwill stage. You're asking me to censor my page, based on your interpretation of what I'm thinking about an image . . . but not to indicate that it has been censored? Nope. I've been more than polite and accommodating with you. The very fact that you're arguing this shows that you don't care about the image of the tiger next to Jocelyn Wildenstein at all (since it's now gone), you're just playing out some wiki power trip. I'm not jumping through any more hoops at your behest, 24 hours take it or leave it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to remove something from my userpage if that was what it took to get you to remove that image, but you don't seem interested in a win-win situation. I continue to believe that this is a violation of WP:BLP and that you should be blocked if you put that image back up. Ultimately, I am confident that this will end with the article redirected and the image removed from your userpage, so enjoy your win while you can. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I couldn't give two craps whether someone wants to illustrate their talk page with a tiger picture, but how the HELL did that close as a "Keep" at AfD? She's known for having been married to X, receiving a divorce settlement, and having had "extensive facial surgeries" — and that's IT?!?!? This doesn't need to be at ANI, it needs to be at Deletion Review or back at AfD. This is a You've Got to Be Fucking Kidding Me™ BLP... Carrite (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • She's notable, and not just barely. What people are known for, beyond ONEEVENT, is irrelevant to judgements of notability. Get over it. Fences&Windows 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus. And you didn't ask me, but if you had, I'd say she's known for being a socialite, and the things you mentioned (marriage, divorce money, and surgery) enhance her notability. Right or wrong, people pay attention to stuff like that. CityOfSilver 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pattern of disruption by User:HuskyMoon at Phillipe Kahn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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: [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236]

The editor also removed {{POV}} and {{Like resume}} tags: [237] and has been removing other editors comments on the article talk page at Talk:Philippe Kahn: [238] [239] 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)

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)

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)

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)

That is one crappy article. You'd think that the PR people would hire a decent writer. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

still 1962—French Wikipedia: fr:Philippe Kahn [240] (Google Chrome can translate) Wbm1058 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good find. It's possible this has snowballed from one vandalism edit 2½ years ago. The original change from 1952 to 1962 on English Wikipedia was in the only edit ever made on Wikipedia by IP 195.3.166.104 with this edit on 8 July 2009: [241] with an edit summary of "Typo correction". It's quite possible that this was subtle vandalism. A year later, it looks like it was changed from 1952 to 1962 on French Wikipedia by editor Philippe.petrinko on 25 july 2010 at 16:14 with this edit: [242], when he added an infobox. It's possible he made the date change after viewing the article on English Wikipedia. Is there a Francophone editor that could make the changes to the article on French Wikipedia (and add the refs from the English Wikipedia article)? Mojoworker (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat on the Village Pump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

LOL. Wikipedia Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. N^oformation ^Talk 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

I think you're right in the literal interpretation but wrong in the interpretation of the spirit. If I threatened to sue say...Coca cola no one would bat an eye because it doesn't have anything to do with WP and it doesn't have a chilling effect on editing. Again, I didn't read the background here so I don't know if this meets those qualifications, if it has a chilling effect then it's certainly a policy violation. N^oformation ^Talk 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a WP:NLT violation as well, and it could (would) get you blocked (seen it happen). The problem is that these kinds of threats - however empty they may be - can potentially create legal problems for Wikipedia. That's why they're banned outright. One more time: it does not matter whether the person or entity being threatened has anything to do with WP or not. Or think of it this way; pick a politician or an actor, at random. Chances are that politician or actor "doesn't have anything to do with WP". You still cannot make legal threats against them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just NOT a place to post legal threats. VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "legal threats against Wikipedia or Wikipedia's editors or blah blah blah" is definitely implied (and considering that someone went and misinterpreted it so badly, should probably be added explicitly) since only a legal threat of that sort would have the chilling effect that NLT is intended to stop. WP:COMMONSENSE, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the "blah blah blah" in your comment is more or less an explicit admission that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Please stop contributing negative value added to the discussion.VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it means I'm not going to give your nonsensical interpretation any more thought than it deserves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Though I will reiterate that repeated discussion of legal workings can simply be considered disruptive without appeal to NLT since it's not helping the encyclopedia any. N^oformation ^Talk 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He's right, the page doesn't even mention the WMF, it seems to be talking about legal threats to other users (MANY people from Wikipedia also use Wikipedia Review...)? If that's ok, then ok, but it didn't give that impression to me... --

And what is the theory behind how a threat to sue WR would stop Wikipedia editors from making edits here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking any kind of action against Weekly Reader would only boost its visibility and credibility, and reduce Wikipedia's credibility at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think, Bugs? I dunno about that. How about this scenario instead: WR gets sued and loses, and disappears from the scene, and we no longer have to deal with their b.s.

Incidentally, I'd be more than pleased if WR was truly an "Internet watchdog" which help to keep Wikipedia on the straight-and-narrow, an outside ombudsmen to keep us and the WMF honest, but from what I've seen of it, it's got far too many trolls and malcontents contributing to it, whose only aim seems to be to cause trouble, whether or not it's justified or necessary. It my opinion, it's totally worthless, and an impediment to true oversight. I've certainly never found anything there that justified, to me, it's existence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A good fantasy: Weekly Reader gets sued and disappears forever. Reality: They would just pop up somewhere else, with an even worse attitude - and maybe offshore where we couldn't touch them (thanks, in part, to our opposition to SOPA and PIPA). In fact, every time their very existence is acknowledge on wikipedia (including this, for sure) it feeds that troll child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, one can dream... Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To dream, perchance to sweep (or mop); eye, there's the rub, to shuffle that mote of coal off the internet, or to at least to give them a pause, to refresh ourselves. Alas, poor Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers; especially in the Biblical sense. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Why would anyone sue WR? It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad, but really up to them. In any case, the "legal threat" is not credible. Maybe WR haters should set up a new site "Wikipedia Review Review"? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could simplify it simply to "Bitchipedia Review" :) Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for clarification - if someone comes here and vandalises the Skoda article threatening to sue their local car dealership, then that's just tedious, and they would probably end up blocked for disruption (not legal threats). If they threaten to sue the editor who reverts them, that falls under NLT. If they discover that the owner of the car dealership edits here, and threaten to sue him, that falls under NLT too - pursuing an off wiki legal action onwiki. Paolo would have to threaten to sue Miss Selina for it to be a blockable legal threat. Note: I am not recommending anyone do this. If Paulo wants to pursue this, he should contact the WMF, although I don't think he would get anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, unlike in regard to some of the others involved in this discussion, I actually have some respect for you. So let me just say that your interpretation (the Skoda example) is NOT how WP:NLT has been applied/enforced over the years. WP:NLT doesn't specify that only legal threats directed at Wikipedia editors are prohibited, but rather than in general legal threats are prohibited. And with good reason. A policy against legal threats in general actually protects Wikipedia.VolunteerMarek 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Marek, I can't personally think of a single occasion where an editor has been blocked under NLT for threatening to sue an outside organisation, without in some way threatening to involve Wikipedia editors in the lawsuit. Blocked yes, under NLT no. There has to be a threat agains a wikipedia editor or editors - Acme Foocorp sell defective cars, and I will sue anyone who takes this information out of the article; I have started a lawsuit against Foobar Records to prove that Ron Jones played guitar with the Flailing Hairnets. Editing this information will make you a party to the action - these come under NLT. Paolo's actions come under the heading of "Plum Stupid".--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have just Removed numerous personal attacks by administrators user:AndyTheGrump, user:Beyond My Ken, user:Baseball Bugs and user:Russavia directed at me and other users (including other administrators!) who visit Wikipedia Review. This is extremely poor conduct for administrators, who should be acting to a higher standard than users, not acting any way they want because they think they can get away with it or whatever. I'm really disappointed by the lack of professionalism and maturity... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted you for refactoring other's comments. GiantSnowman 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman beat me to it. I'd have undone the refactoring first if I'd been quick enough. There was impoliteness and impatience but no outright attacks. I don't know you personally, Mistress Selina Kyle but I suspect that your editing style here may need you to develop a thicker skin. Bugs and Malleus to name just two would laugh off those "attacks" as fleabites. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to reverted this too, but was beaten to it. If you consider such comments 'personal attacks' then I suggest you raise the matter at the appropriate place - though how anyone defending WR can have the gall to complain about 'personal attacks' is beyond me. And by the way, I'm not an admin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Mistress, either you are saying those editors are Administrators at WR, or you don't know how to tell which editors here are Administrators. Which is it? Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Mistress Selina Kyle is unblocked less than a week, and teh drahmahz ensue. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Drama is the mainstay of AN/I, come on, if it wasn't this, it'd be something else. People like Baseball Bugs need something to do here. And this particular episode was generated by somebody who thought it wise to start making legal threats. Sorry, can't turn this one around on Selina.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you see #Restoration of personal attacks that I removed against me? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a little silly. First of all, my VP proposal was posted to get people's opinions on WR and the fact that they possibly might be posting libel and slander on their forums. Ironically, this was about Wikipedia suing WR, not me or anyone else suing Wikipedia, which obviously is what the NLT policy is about. I do feel AGFing is hard to do in this case, there is something POINTy about it. PaoloNapolitano 12:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jamieclaymore edits and stubborness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:JamieClaymore has made alot of edits in the Claymore (manga) related articles. Editing featured list articles into her/his own format he believes is best. These edits got me stressed however kept my cool and reverted most of them and brought up some tips in the talkpage in which ignored and reverted. i asked for justification and wanted me to answer a rather uncivil and irrelevant question in which i did but instead of an answer the editor ignored me per previouus discussions in my talkpage not relating to the topicand continues to revert without any justification. Also warned him/her that this is potentially cheating the system and could be banned. Person claims that it was my intention from the beginning. Imm getting stressed and the articles are being vandalized as we speak for no justification at all. So forgive me if this is not where it suppose to be posted but the editor will not listen anymore.Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't settle content disputes here at ANI because those are for you, the subject experts, to work out between yourselves. However I've left Jamieclaymore a note on their talk page. I think you too need to be reminded that edit warring gets editors blocked (four reverts from you on Claymore (manga) today) and does nothing to help to resolve these disputes. I notice that Jamieclaymore seems to have accepted your advice about using IMDB as a source, so clearly you've been able to help them there and they haven't ignored you. Hopefully you'll find that if you stop reverting each other and calling each other's edits "vandalism" (which they are not), you'll be able to cool the atmosphere down enough that you can come to some sort of compromise. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What happens when its reverted? Ive seen this before though on here. Dispute is looked against both parties regardless of how the situation is brought up. i havent called it vandalism yet. I have assumed good faith and attempted to fixed it by iscussing. I didnt come here so you can side with me with content dispute, but the issue lead me here because the editor didnt want to discuss. So i brought it here to see if it was potentially cheating the system (avoiding discussions and making his/her own edits regardless of revert)Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk :) EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review request: User:SweetieBelleMLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just blocked SweetieBelleMLP for 31 hours for harassment and attempting to impersonate me be using my image on his user page. His edit is an obvious response to my removing a sexually explicit image from his user page per wp:userpage. I'm requesting the review for two reasons:

• I'm personally involved
• I'd like the block extended to indef as the user is obviously here to disrupt rather than contribute to Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reviewed, approved, and extended. I point your attention to PP4L, a somewhat puzzling redirect that can only have been created in reference to this sort of thing. A Google search is insightful. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - That the user has a history of disruption is an aggravating factor for an extended ban.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the only suspect redirect. I'd like to suggest that an editor review all of this user's contributions for disruption remediation. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty obvious troll account, so yeah, good block. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block. As a side note, I have just declined an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; they had no intention of contributing positively here. GiantSnowman 17:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular account is part of a larger, more sophisticated problem we could loosely describe as related to the GNAA which also involves various other sock/meat accounts. We would do well to go backwards and look at this account's interactions with and ties to other accounts - especially those accounts which have actively worked to defend them as there is no reason to believe active sock/meat puppets still exist. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol has a list of accounts that are most likely connected in one way or another. --Conti|✉ 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support blocking this account + socks + ban Bulwersator (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comming out of the retirement to address another issue, I like to add that the user Fluttershy who is one of the sockpuppets of the GNAA attempted to blackmail me through email into providing administrator access on Rainbowdash.net through an account connected to "Ghost" which is part of the GNAA's troll podcast "Capitalist Radio". The reason was that I wanted to edit MLP articles under this account, and keep my main account separate from those edits, which is perfectly within policy as long as I reported myself to ARBCOM (which I have done, + reported the Blackmail) but this user threaten me with checkuser, plus thought I had no idea how policy worked here, and tried to leverage that to get admin access to the site. I have no idea what GNAA's interests are to MLP, but add blackmailing users to that list. Cabal-of-rdn (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pretty obviously part of a recent trollfest here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack on the premise of a wrongful assumption, refusal to communicate further

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As can be seen in this diff, I was told the following: "You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game." I would like a clarification and an apology from Viriditas. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WMC is User:William M. Connolley - and frankly unless you edit in his preferred areas, you are quite unlikely to remember his initials. You "intersect" with him at such major topics as 1.Al_Gore, 2.Asperger_syndrome, 3.Jesus, 4.Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute, 5.Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian and 6.The_Soup_Nazi. Noteworthy topics, I am sure, but not ones where I would expect you to remember his initials. I think Viriditas should emend his comments thereon. Collect (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know what WMC stood for and I am well aware of who William M. Connolley is.--v/r - TP 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the full username, as Collect pointed above. My problem is with the way Viriditas communicated, refusing to post further replies, as if he is trying to make a point, which I'm still not getting. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas has one of the most aggressive styles of editing I have experienced anywhere on the en wikipedia - imo if you are expecting an apology from them you will wait forever. I advise you (and anyone else for that matter) to take his account, and any article you have encountered him on, off your watchlist . Youreallycan 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the exact words of my response to Hearfourmewesique's query on my talk page, explcitly and very politely declining to engage with him: "Heh. I think I have to pass on this. When I go on a Fox News bender, it usually lasts several weeks, and I really need to focus on other things right now. But please keep me in mind."[243] Please point out the "aggression" you see, Youreallycan. The user was asked to go away, refused, and continued to harass me on my talk page. I think the aggression is obvious here, and it's not from me. Hearfourmewesique can't take no for an answer, so he comes here to continue his dispute. Pretty transparent if you ask me. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you were politely told that I had no wish to discuss anything with you[244] and you were also told where to find the answers you were looking for.[245] After you were informed that I had no wish to discuss anything with you, you deliberately ignored my wishes and continued to try to discuss the topic on my talk page,[246][247][248] and harass me.[249] This thread title should be changed to "Harassment of Viriditas by Hearfourmewesique" and Hearfourmewesique should be informed that when a user politely declines to engage in a discussion with him, he should accept it rather than hounding the user for answers over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how Viriditas here did anything improper. The diffs above seem clear enough. The complainant is urged, simply, to stay away. Case closed. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow... now you've gone ahead and changed the thread title to make it even more suitable to "the hunter becomes the victim" agenda (not cool). This is not what my original complaint was. You actually continued the discussion as if nothing happened, and attacked me on the premise that you thought I was playing some kind of game with you when all you needed to do is say "WMC is William M. Connelly" and that would end it all. This is called being a dick, and it has nothing to do with the other thing that's been brought up. Please, deal with the specific sentence that I referred to in the original complaint. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivalo2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can someone take a look at new user Ivalo2 (talk · contribs), which I am sure is a troll account. The very first three edits by the user were unconstructive reverts of edits of mine on three separate articles (two of the articles are in a similar topic area, one is completely different: [250], [251], [252]), and the user has continued in this pattern, clearly revealing their agenda in their edit summaries: [253], [254].Rangoon11 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think trolling is putting it a bit strong here. Unproductive, certainly. Vandalism, not yet, IMO. Edit warring, yes--and they will be blocked for that if they persist. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I use the word 'troll' purely to convey that they are clearly singling out a specific editor for their unproductive behaviour - i.e. myself - the account's first three edits have no other explanation within the realms of probabilty. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seemed to be the case, yes. Problem is, it takes a couple more edits, IMO, to make that case convincingly. Any editors you've had trouble with recently? Drmies (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I initiated an SPI recently (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive) which led to a large number of socks being blocked and it did cross my mind that this might be connected, particularly as the sockmaster in that case and Ivalo2 have a similar writing style (and spelling issues). I have no definitive proof however.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivalo2 has only made 2 edits aside from the reverts to your edits. They were to ESPN (UK) and Bournemouth, and while they don't seem to be articles that Edinburghgeo has edited in the past, they're not so far off the topic area that the sockmaster was interested in (UK-related articles). Not a slam dunk but it does lead credence to the possibility that this is yet another sock. It might be worth asking SPI to check. -- Atama頭 01:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. A comparison of edit summaries clearly points at a duck the size of Edinburgh. I am blocking for evasion and will add to the SPI, for the sake of completion. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Rescue Squadron again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a blatant case of I didn't hear that, a day after the rescue tag got deleted because of overwhelming concerns about its use for canvassing, User:Northamerica1000 created a list that essentially does the same thing in a more covert manner. Had I not seen editors like North and User:Dream Focus jumping into a recent deletion discussion I initiated I probably wouldn't have thought to check for ARS involvement in the discussion. I certainly would not have noticed the delsort linking to the list included there since they are generally small and easy to overlook. Again, just like with the rescue tag, the effect has been that ARS members jump into an AfD and start voting keep. What is particularly troubling is that North apparently doesn't seem to care about the concerns raised here at ANI about canvassing that led to the deletion of the template. Instructing people that it is not about casting votes is meaningless if they are free to just cast votes anyway without making any significant contributions to the article, presuming they make any contributions at all. It is essentially like telling people to not shove beans up their noses. Seems North just refuses to get the point and other members of the ARS are apparently not bothered by this behavior at all. While it is easy to act like North is the problem editor here as a way to preserve the ARS itself, I cannot see how anything short of restrictions on ARS involvement in AfD or eliminating the WikiProject altogether is going to stop this behavior from just being repeated by other editors with a similar agenda.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The closing administrator specifically did not mention canvassing as a reason. In the deletion review he specifically stated it wasn't because of canvasing, but for other reasons. Dream Focus 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the list was mentioned in the DR, and wasn't really considered an issue there. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How else are they supposed to notify one another of which articles might be worth saving? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want an article rescue nomination to be more obvious, then maybe the rescue template shouldn't have been deleted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are certain deletionally-inclined sorts that are unhappy that AfD isn't quite the abattoir that they envision in their fondest dreams, so the pretense (unproven) that there had been "canvassing" with the rescue template was used in a more-or-less successful attempt to kneecap the ultra-inclusionist members of the Rescue Squad. It was one of the worst Wikipedia decisions in the last 12 months, up there with ArbCom whacking Cirt. Now there is tension over Rescue Squad trying to reestablish themselves on a new basis, as is their right. So it goes. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I suggested creating similar list as a solution of problems with rescue template Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? AfDs are not votes, so I don't see a problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many see it as a political thing. Not really sure. They also blocked me for a week the day they erased it. Anyway, I have just posted a message at the top of the list of this discussion, since it involves people on that Wikiproject. Dream Focus 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this'll perhaps a bit surprising considering the source, but I don't know... If they wish to discuss articles to save within their own wikiproject, pretty much as many others do via WP:DELSORT, is that really a problem? Tarc (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See "I don't think additional keep votes without sourcing backup are going to help." This sort of behavior seems to convey to me that this page could be used as a staging group to collect "keep votes."

See also "Can some help me with this please?" "I de-speedied, will take a look at it later today!" This really does look like ARS members are canvassing to get each other to do things they can't do themselves and not disclosing their combined activity when working on each others' behalf. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That article is perfectly valid, so what's the problem? Anyway, there is a tag used in all AFDs to inform people it was mentioned there. There is nowhere to place that in speedy delete removal bit. Someone thinks an article has merit, they can ask for help with it. Additional sources were added, although at the time it was nominated for speedy delete it already had two references from the New York Times in there. We improve and prevent the erasure of perfectly valid articles. Dream Focus 20:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz I get that, but that's getting into actual editor misdeeds, whereas I saw this in generic "can a project do this on a project page?" thing. If all you do is stomp on another ARS anthill, they'll just pop up another one a few feet away in short order. Either squash the project or squash the editors (figuratively) at this point.

MBisanz - that oddcast example you use is a perfect example of what the ARS is doing right and what you are doing wrong. I would not have de-speedied that oddcast article unless it was valid to do so. Indeed, what happened to that article is really ridiculous. Why don't you nominate it for deletion if you think its not notable?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no issue with the list itself. If ARS wishes to collaborate to improve articles so that those which are notable can stave off deletion, that is a fine and noble goal. If such a list is used for the sole purpose of canvassing for keep !votes, then that will become obvious soon enough (not to mention pointy, and consequently, blockable). Resolute 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the template is better than the list as it makes it clear to everyone that ARS is involved. But the template was deleted. It would be nice if folks added a note to the AfD about the ARS listing (just to keep the issue fully disclosed). SnottyWang was doing this for a while. SW, if you are reading this, could you make a bot that handled doing the AfD notice? Hobit (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe every single thing AFD ever on that list, has had a notice placed in the AFD. We function just like other wikiprojects do. Dream Focus 20:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the notice placement is part of indicated practice with the list. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c)The distinction, as far as I can tell, is that the list sparks conversation and actual improvement, whereas the tag was (sometimes) more of a drive-by flagging with potentially canvass-y effects. If you look at the list, when articles are added to it the adder generally provides some sort of rationale or discussion, and people respond in kind. I also note that, accusations of cabal-ish behavior aside, NA1000 invited me to join the ARS shortly after I posted a comment to the ARS list board indicating my suspicion that one article on the list was not worthy of inclusion. I bring that up to point out that they don't appear to be out for blind inclusion blood, at least not exclusively. Or maybe just NA1000 is a good level-headed chap, I have no idea. Regardless, the List was raised at least once as a solution during the many discussions around the former tag, and I don't recall any objections to it. I was adamantly opposed to the Tag, voted for its deletion, and am now an interested and active participant in the List. It's more well-considered stuff, less drive-by.

  Basically, I think if you remove this List, you really do have to start considering whether you want any kind of ARS to exist at all. You'd be removing their only on-Wiki means of collaboration. Indeed, you'd probably drive collaboration off-Wiki, which I doubt is a desirable side effect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated this list for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

oh god no. *runs away screaming* ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's not going to fly, and quite rightly. This farce isn't going to be fixed until a number of editors - not in any way the majority of the ARS, but a few - are given AfD topic bans. 86.169.214.4 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Why did this go straight to ANI? People who write articles are scarce here though my many thanks of you who do, or who care about us! (I have substantively commented at the MfD).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Um, I'm not really seeing the point...a project that does nothing but fix articles. Everybody on Wikipedia fixes articles. Most of them without the drama ARS creates Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a discussion about WP:Manual of Style wording, at WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. As usual any time this issues comes up, it turned into a huge debate with WP:BIRDS at the center of it because of their insistence on capitalizing the common names of bird species in Wikipedia articles because ornithology journals do so. The debate is actually about tightening the MOS language, to indicate that WP:BIRDS insists on an exception to MOS's general rule (adopted in 2008, after consensus favored the idea at WP:VPP in 2007). KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived early in the debate and has engaged in a constant pattern of obstructionism and disruption, especially a) "I didn't hear that" refusal to recognize the points actually being raised and always returning to the idea that the wording changes are an attack on her and her project (they're in fact the opposite; they're a concession; I can get into that later if anyone asks); and b) continually couching the debate in terms of violence ("kicking us in the ass", "attacking us", etc.). I warned her against this four times, in the page and in edit summaries. While once or twice is just a verbal tick, doing it every other time you post is a pattern of not-so-subtle suggestion that those who disagree with you are have dark, violent motives, a gross assumption of bad faith; and after four warnings it takes on the shape of a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. I can provide diffs of all this if deemed necessary, but this is background, really, not the main issue, and doing so could take a couple of hours.

As further background: KimvdLinde's issue seems to be that she does not believe, or rather does not want anyone else to believe, that the capitalization of bird names on Wikipedia ("Bald Eagle") is controversial, when it has been one of the most controversial idea here ever, for seven years running. The proposed tweaks to MOS would take MOS's extant recommendation to use lower case for the common names of animal species, not that WP:BIRDS prefers to capitalize them in ornithology articles and that this is controversial, and advise no to do this in other categories of articles. Very simple and 100% accurate. Noting when something within its scope is subject to serious controversy is standard operating procedure. I have been entirely open about the fact that I oppose the birds capitalization as imposition of a strange specialist practice in a generalist encyclopedia (the same main argument others have raised for seven years) but that it is far more important to "firewall" WP:BIRDS and stop the strife, while ensuring MOS makes it clear that people need to quit taking the birds example and going and capitalizing things like "Lion", "Bottlenose Dolphin", "Mountain Dog" and "Przewalski's Horse" (real examples), except where proper names appear in them ("Przewalski"). MOS should arguably not mention birds at all, just the default that it recommends and let WP:BIRDS do what it does under a claim of WP:IAR, but MOS regulars have attempted to compromise. And been rewarded with personal attacks and a canvassing campaign of tendentious, hostile chaos.

The first main issue is blatant canvassing by KimvdLinde, here, leading to this thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Caps warriors at it again, a blatant violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It contains a direct personal attack on me here, by Kim. I was not notified by anyone of these accusation either. The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles.

The second main issue is that KimvdLinde has launched this pseudo-poll, where she is deciding who is and isn't in favor of (her intentionally skewed misrepresentation of) the proposal and essentially voting for people, based on her assumptions about their statements and intent (wrong in several cases), and then proceeded to manipulate the pseudo-data to indicate that her opposition was divided. I could go on.

Kim has essentially totally derailed, through a campaign of tendentious histrionics and a drama-mongering, what was once a sane conversation about which version of a mnior tweak to a guideline paragraph to use, after a long and stressful debate finally wound down (coming to no new conclusions about birds, only about how to clean up the MOS wording on animal names). She has made a massive WP:SOAPBOX of the issue, and generated a WP:FILIBUSTER and general chaos by canvassing. She is now questioning clear consensuses, demanding that they be "re-consensused", an obvious form of "asking the other parent" and wikilawyering, and seems to be unaware that consensus does not require unanimity. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we just reached the next step in the "codify-in-the-MoS-that-WP:BIRD-editors-do-it-wrong" war that User:SMcCandlish has been waging for several weeks now. The facts at the page speak for themselves, and I am sorry that I busted his proclaimed consensus for codification that does not exist. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it is obvious to me that the issue is controversial, we just disagree on WHY it is controversial. So, that claim above can be thrown into the trash. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the end of that debate then. It is standard operating procedure for MOS to note that something like this is controversial; it is not the guideline's job to blatantly lie or hide the truth just to make a particular group of editors feel better. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are deciding for me that this is then the end of the debate. That is actually the problem here, because you are trying to push your point though using heavy handed techniques such as proclaiming consensus when there is not and starting polls based on that with limited choices. Furthermore, there is no controversy in the bird literature about this; the controversy is with the editors who oppose the bird literature. And as such, if anything about the controversy is codified, it should be about those editors. But you keep insisting that the BIRD editors are generating the controversy, which is false. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been arguing all week that there is no controversy. Now you've conceded there's a controversy after all. That automatically means that the debate about that has ended. Basic logic isn't pushing anything through heavy handed whatever. Please stop re-re-re-re-raising your perennial straw man that "there is no controversy in the bird literature, so you must be wrong". Not one party to the debate in seven years has ever, ever, ever suggested that there was a controversy in the bird literature, and you know that full well, and you know full well that is not what the debate is about. Cf. the article Handwave. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is indeed a manufactured controversy that is maintained by some editors at WP:MOS. That does not mean that it should be codified as if the bird editors are the problem. They are not. It would be nice if you get the point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing manufactured about the controversy; it's raged for 7+ years all over the place. Your pretense that all evidence handed to you doesn't exist, followed by simply re-re-repeating the same arguments you've made before and which have already addressed is is the very definition of tendentiousness. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Another point. Yes, I do not trust SMcCandlish because of his repeated proclamations that he will keep battling about this. He is not in the discussion to solve this in a good way, he is in it to eventually change the practise at WOP:BIRD. So yes, I have good reason not to trust him and to assume good faith. Here are some diffs of the proclamation Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it., I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically. Another piont why I don't trust him is that he already has drafted a ArbCom request-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and feeling compelled by you to continue disagreeing with you, and to say so, is not acting in bad faith, and no grounds for personal attacks by you. I have no need to try to change practice at WP:BIRDS; many, many other people are opposed to your inappropriate-in-an-encyclopedia typographical practice. I'm far more concerned about people capitalizing things like Horse and Goldfish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel compelled to continue disagreeing with me, that is your problem, not mine. I do not appreciate that you try to make me responsible (feeling compelled by you) for your behavior. I would suggest in this context to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as going after a whole wikiproject because you disagree with me is exactly that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting out of context. I was obviously being arch. The passage you're treating as if it were a smoking gun is immediately followed by "But I'm about as tired of this as Sabine. I just want to firewall your project so others stop emulating it, and in way that makes it clear that MOS is not acting as ArbCom ... it's more important to compromise for the good of the 'pedia than for me to get my way." The rest of this I've already addressed. I've never engaged in an actual WP:POINT violation in my entire 6.5+ years here. Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not me who stated: Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it.. Yes, that is a thread to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't think that is silly, I think that is childish and if executed, bannable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To use your "it's not my problem" dismissiveness: It's not my problem if you have no sense of humor and cannot understand when someone is being ironic and exaggeratory to get a point across to you about your behavior. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the issue is whether the MoS should codify when they deem something controversial. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS is just a guideline; it doesn't "codify" anything. MOS routinely notes when something within its scope is controversial (a.k.a. does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus). It is effectively bound by policy to do so, since to not to do would be to assume WP:ARBCOM's role and declaring the debate over and in whose favor. The other alternative is to not mention the issue at all, which is my preference. I would rather that MOS simply stated that we do not capitalize the common names of species, and if WP:BIRDS wants to keep doing it, they can defend the practice against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a WP:IAR basis, since they believe their position to be a strong one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When checking WP:MOS, the claim that WP:MOS regularly codifies that things are controversial is a hoax. Please check yourself. Just another claim that does not hold true. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I said that MOS does not "codify" anything; it's not a policy, much less a law. What are you talking about? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I use codifying a bit wider than just law, like it is explained here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There isn't anything at all bad about "the process of precisely formulating a statement", so I'm not sure why you use it in a pejorative sense. (Not the definition I'm used to, but it's actually applicable here, in a good way.) Anyway, this "hoax" claim of your is another great example of your playing the WP:IDHT game. In the very first paragraphs of the debate, and to you directly, I cited a pile of examples because you demanded proof that MOS regularly does this. Below, in a new outdent, I've given them to you again, and there are many others.

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) PS. this comment was disconnected from most of the post it was a reply to because of refactoring after the reply was posted.

Oh, and if notifying the wikiproject that is under discussion for special treatment is canvassing, I will plead guilty. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Issuing a call-to-arms titled "Caps warriors at it again" is not a neutral notice per WP:CANVASS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was not clear to me that you had a problem with the title. Will fix that immediately, although I think the title is factually correct. fixed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit late for that; the damage already done. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be. I think it is childish to just raise the issue at ANI, while there would have been multiple locations you could have solved the issue just as easy, like my talk page, or per e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on MOS and amending text. See WP:REDACT. I am not sure if changing a heading is consistent with MOS. Perhaps, as MOS suggests, that it would be better to put a "strike out" through the original heading and put in the amended heading below, with a "~~~~" to indicate clearly when the amendment was make. This is because there is a lot of text under the heading, and I would have thought that the original heading needs to be visible to avoid changing the context in which several editors comments may have been intended. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as a procedural matter, but I don't personally care if KimvdLinde sweeps it under the rug; page history exists for a reason. However, it should at least have a {{anchor}} with the original title, since I think it was linked to at the original title from this debate. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and why do we have such a problem with this. In the Bird Literature, names are caped. Here is a just a short list. Just seconds ago, SMcCandlish proclaims that it looks illiterate and childish to the average reader. This kind of labeling of the work of one of the more prolific wikiprojects really does not help, especially considering that Capitalized Bird Names are the norm in all the relevant literature for all these species. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An exemplary case in point of WP:IDHT. Kimvdlinde has been provided with the answer to this question too many times to count. It's because this is a general encyclopedia for a general readership, and capitalization of bird name is a specialist practice by specialist writers for specialist publications read by a specialist audience. I didn't "label the work" of the project, I pointed out what typical perceptions are. I'm hardly the first to note this. Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago criticized the practice on the same basis. But this is not WT:BIRDS. This ANI is about canvassing, intentional disruption, poll falsification and personal attacks, remember? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this ANI is about not asking someone to refractor a header that is perceived as non-neutral, proclaiming you have a consensus when you have not, starting a poll to codify a dispute in the WP:MOS using a false dichotomy of options based on the previous, filing a ANI report on the editor who exposed your false claim for consensus, threatening to disrupt a whole wikiproject because you are fed up with me, using ancient literature you make your point (Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago), ignoring WP:RS, and more. All because you want to have your claim that the Capitalization of Bird Names is controversial included in the MOS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

• Comment: "The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles." <- that is the crux of all this nonsense. A false argument that assumes bad faith beforehand from highly active and productive WikiProjects that normally do not get involved in the superficial wikilawyering going on in the rest of Wikipedia at all. It's also the reason why SMcCandlish's proposals have been met with such hostility by not only WP:BIRD participants, but WP:TOL members as well. All the accusations leveled against Kim are exhibited by SMcCandlish, particularly the part about being tendentious. Truth is, everyone but the MOS-people are already extremely tired of this discussion being brought up again and again. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that I haven't brought the issue up in ages, and even when I did last time (at WT:MOS), it was about rampant capitalization all over the place, of things like Lion and Ball Python, not birds specifically. You're barking up the wrong tree. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deets: The last time I brought the issue up at MOS was here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#Capitalization_of_animal_and_plant_names_now_rampant, five whole months ago, and it wasn't about birds in particular. The last time the WP:BIRDS practice was raised as the major subject of discussion at MOS was at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Bird_names on 25 January 2011, in a discussion I wasn't party to. I brought up animal caps generally at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#Dispute:_Life_form_capitalization_run_rampant way back in May 2010. The two post of mine shown here are what has led to the current proposal; I've shown that that capitalization of animal names, willy-nilly, has become a massive problem. I was not the first to note this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_94#Animal_capitalization, in which I barely participated, dates to December 2007, and seems to be what led to the MOS consensus for a solid default in favor of lower case. The idea that this is some personal campaign of mine is absurd. I was barely present, and made a single passing comment. I did bring the issue up earlier, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_87#Common_names_of_animals in July 2007, but again not about birds in particular. Only a month earlier, the WP:BIRDS practice, however, was the focus of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_81#Capitalization_of_Common_Names_of_birds, in which I didn't participate at all. And so on. Yeah, that's a real damning pile of evidence of tendentious anti-WP:BIRDS behavior on my part. Can we get back to the canvassing, attacks, and false polling issue now? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Kimvdlinde has again WP:IDHT'd, having demanded evidence that MOS routinely annotates disputes that affect its guidance, been given the requested evidence, the conveniently "forgotten" it; above she claims that such cases don't exist. Here they are again, word for word, from my original reply to her. And there are many more:

  ...the MOS has quite frequently contained "it's controversial" or "it doesn't have consensus" statements when they were pertinent, and various guidelines still (and always) do at any given time. E.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece", as just one example. It's quite routine, really. ... Here's more: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes." And so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  I found those in a matter of minutes. It's not my job to do your research for you. It's ironic to me that all of the chaos of this canvassing, attacking, I'm-gonna-quit-Wikipedia, poll-manipulating tirade of yours, on the basis that MOS can't say that something is controversial, could have been avoided by five minutes of reading that would have shown you this isn't true.

  Actually, it's not ironic, it's just inexplicable, since I already provided all of this to you, word for word, at your request, at the very beginning of the debate. There shouldn't have been a debate (not that kind of debate anyway, but a calm discussion). You generated one. Then left in huff, but came back when things were calm and generated another flamewar. Then when things weren't going your way, you canvassed an entire WikiProject to come to your aid. And then manipulated data about what their actual opinions were, subverting the actual poll. And even editwarred when I tried to undo some of your data manipulation. Please explain.

  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It's pure accident that right this moment all the disputed stuff happens to be on subpages; MOS changes all the time. Subpages of MOS are as much a part of MOS as the main page; MOS just gets split into subtopics when it gets too big, just like WP:SUMMARY style for articles. The proposal's specific, because you and other bird editors insisted that it be so (my original wording said "some editors" not "WikiProject Birds".) Yet more WP:IDHT selective memory games. Whether there's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at some project is irrelevant. That policy was created, after various ArbCom cases, precisely to stop projects from going off and making their own rules and ignoring site-wide ones. You don't understand the policies, nor the guidelines, nor even the proposal language, which protects WP:BIRDS far more than it should. You're thrashing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this up at WP:DRN if you are; I don't see much of any other way that further discussion between us can be productive. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter that could be better resolved at an appropriate dispute resolution forum, rather than ANI. I do not see any personal attacks leveled against SMc, yet I do believe the canvassing that has occurred is regrettable. I strongly urge Kim to stop using the phrase "cap warriors" as it is unnecessarily provocative. I do not believe any administrative action needs to be taken at the present, although I do urge the parties involved to cool down with the accusations. I believe an RfC will be more helpful than posting this at ANI. —Dark 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DarkFalls, I think it is customary that when a specific wikiproject is singled out for special, especially negative, treatment, that it is notified. That was not donw by SMcCandlish, so I did it. That is not canvassing. As for DR, I agree, it should go there. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Just for the record, the personal attack was a direct public accusation of bad faith, posted at the WT:BIRDS thread: "There is NO good faith at SMcandlish side" — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. It's just plain bad faith. —Dark 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I've taken it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested, and Kim accepted the DRN moderation which is (slowly) underway, though I'm being talk page stalked by her now, which seems inappropriate at least while DRN is ongoing. But whatever, I'll live. I didn't care all that much about the alleged personal attack; I was more concerned about the canvassing and false polling (the latter of which was never addressed here) attempting to derail the discussion; they actually succeeded, in spades, so it's all moot now, and disruptive editing wins again. This discussion can be closed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. This dispute seems closely related to the ongoing arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. So, I doubt it can be solved at ANI or that is even appropriate to bring it here at this late stage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not. I got dragged into that case as a party despite no connection to the events at issue, and started to try to include the MOS/BIRDS issue as an evidentiary example of what seemed to me to be the issue, but have actually deleted my evidence post, because I don't think it would be helpful to the case. KimvdLinde isn't involved in the case. I've asked to be removed from the case as a party, since I'm not actually involved. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• If either SMcCandlish or KimvdLinde want responses from other people, they both need to stop posting to this thread. Creating a wall of unpleasantness is not going to encourage helpful responses.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages might be of interest to people who haven't read it before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SMcCandlish stated above that the issue is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. Others disagree. So, there, there is no consensus even on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:94.174.169.73—Article ownership, COI, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure how to address this issue: User:94.174.169.73 appears to have a dispute with article Maria Rubia. The user appears to represent the subject and has claimed that further edits to the article are disallowed (see the middle of the article). Since I'm new to this project, I thought it best to let somebody know. NTox (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the article and its talk page to earlier versions. However, we should keep watching it and take further action if more disruption occurs. Bazonka (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep watching. NTox (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP looks like they are making legal threats as well (in the article and on the talk page for it). SQGibbon (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This and other edits, right? I don't see a credible threat here, but the NLT experts may disagree. I've blocked them (for 31 hrs) anyway for being not nice. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That qualifies as a legal threat, just from what little of the diff I see in my popups. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup - that is, absolutely, positively, 100% a legal threat - pretty much as explicit a threat as one can get. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fear of Flying Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First, please excuse me if I am not familiar with your customs and procedures.

I have enjoyed the use of Wikipedia for many years. And all those that have been a part of Wikipedia I thank you.

I come here to ask that you improve an article that needs serious attention. This is not just my opinion, but appears to be others as well. (Please see talk page).

I do own a non-profit website, with forums titled Takingflight that I started when I was battling my own phobia.

I did put the website in the "External Links" and it has caused some discussion.

As I have "stumbled" and made mistakes, I have decided to make no further edits. I will however be more than happy to provide information to whoever wishes to take on the task of editing this article. But as my experience here, trying to do it myself has been.... less than favorable, I do not want to be directly involved in the actual editing of the article.

This is important to understand. I do not think my purpose here has been understood. I sincerely wish to see this article improved, or removed if it can't be. I do not care what links are placed, or what references are made, as long as they are reliable.

I have spent the last two weeks begging for help, only to be met with roadblocks, rules, links, redirects, etc. I hope that Wikipedia is better than this.

So again, so that we are perfectly clear, I wish for the article to be improved, accurate, and factual. I AGAIN do not care what links and references are presented as long as they are accurate.

Can someone please help with this project?

At this time I would like to acknowledge those that HAVE been helpful, and understanding.[255] [256] [257] [258] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mt6617 has a conflict of interest with this article and has attempted to add links to his own website to it. He's been asked to post specific recommendations in the article's talk page, but he hasn't done so. He's primarily complained repeatedly about the how bad the content is. Mt6617 did find one useful source and was commended for it. He was encouraged to use it and find more like it. However, when pointed to WP:EL for an explanation of why he can't link to a forum in the external links section, he responded by seeking out some other article that had one. Unfortunately, when I pointed him to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, some nimrod had nominated it a 2nd time (in five years) for deletion, and Mt6617 didn't read it through to find the link to the correct article. I do admit to getting testy with Mt6617's constant complaining, and I highly encourage other editors to try and help Mt6617 out. And good luck to you. Rklawton (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is what I am speaking of. Again, again, and AGAIN... don't use Takingflight. Use something else. I don't care. Just publish an accurate article. Is that really too much to ask? --Mt6617 (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's what I'm speaking of. Running around and telling us to publish a better article doesn't accomplish anything unless you have specific recommendations. We're all volunteers here. We edit what we like when we feel like it, so getting your shorts in a bunch because we're not jumping at your command isn't going to make you any more comfortable or pleasant to work with. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested numerous sources, resources, articles, etc, that seem to be more than acceptable everywhere else. You say I have a "conflict of interest" then by that very reason I should not be allowed to edit this article. Fine... Please publish an accurate article. Again, way before I came along this article was noted as in bad shape, by editors, administrators, etc. I am just asking that you fix it. Rklawton, frankly I suspect that you don't care about the quality of this project, just your own position. Regardless... just back off since you are unwilling to help. Thank you, good night, and good bye. --Mt6617 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested numerous sources, resources, articles, etc, On the contrary. I read the talk page thoroughly some days ago, and you've made very few constructive suggestions. You've mostly complained about how bad the article is without providing the specifics needed to fix it, or fixing it yourself. In fact, I still don't have a clear idea of what you think is wrong with the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, how about starting small - pick one sentence from the article that is inaccurate and suggest an alternative onTalk:Pteromerhanophobia. Hopefully you could collaborate with the other editors to make it accurate (with reliable sources to support it). I've seen this process work well (but slowly) on Talk:The Beatles. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mt6617: GoingBatty's suggestion is an excellent one, why not give it a try? There's nothing to lose and everything to gain! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to close this. Further interaction can take place on editor's or article's talk page. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dealings on my user page...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...which is usually a friendly kind of hangout. Mostly. Anyway, I'd like someone to look at User_talk:Drmies#I_didn.27t_understand_your_reason_for_undoing_my_changes and see what kind of message, if any, should be sent to User:Baristha--aka Barry (doesn't sign their name). I don't mind being called "intellectually incompetent" (I've heard that before) but "supremacist tendencies", that's something else. Oh, and bigot, and I'm abusing my admin position (I've only acted as an editor with this person). I don't wish to tell this person what they can do with their insults and their opinions, since I'm involved, besides incompetent. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd offer my opinion, but since it would involve a violation of WP:NPA, I probably shouldn't. 'Barry' is clearly a <- pre-redacted ->, who needs to <- pre-redacted -> his <- pre-redacted -> with a blunt <- pre-redacted -> a half-brick, and a rolled up copy of <- pre-redacted ->. Have you considered simply deleting this <- pre-redacted -> <- pre-redacted -> comments from your talk page, and ignoring him as the <- pre-redacted -> he clearly is? It is your talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, You're are the one who has threatened to block me if I don't shut up, remember? What is your problem with me? You didn't approve of the modifications I made in an article. You didn't let me do it because you didn't understand what I was actually doing. and now you're asking others to malign me, why? because I expressed my critical view about you! Aren't you abusing your position as an admin this way? Why don't you just block me and get it over with? Your sanctimony and putrid superciliousness amaze me..Barry 06:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baristha (talk • contribs)

If you are accusing Drmies of administrative misconduct, we'll need to see some diffs. They came here to ask others what their opinion was and to ask others to take whatever action they deemed appropriate. That's what an involved admin is supposed to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I hereby cite WP:IAR as a valid reason to ignore WP:CIVIL, and respond to this shit-stirring troll: Fuck off, moron. We aren't going to let you spread you ignorance here. We understand very well what you are doing, and we'd rather you did it in the privacy of whichever festering cess-pit has the misfortune to have you as an inhabitant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"this shit-stirring troll: Fuck off, moron." goodness gracious me!!!! Where is your civility administrator? You should be ashamed of your unmannerliness!--Barry 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Andy for the above comment for 12 hours, with no prejudice to the original complaint posted above by Drmies. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off, buddy! 212.64.151.251 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has not used any of his administrative powers here as far as I can tell. I am not an administrator and am just as capable of coming to this board to ask for more opinions as he has. Also, andy makes me giggle. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. I am NOT officially accusing him of exercising his administrative powers against me. but he has threatened to block me. He has come here for others' help in ridiculing me, Impugning me! people are mostly helping him..That's a shame ---Barry 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. AFAICT, he's acting in an entirely appropriate manner in the face of unreasonable and abusive behaviour. So, he's come to the right place to get some jerk off his back because he's acting in his personal, not Sysop, capacity. Now get lost! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah whatever! Barry 07:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SandyGeorgia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – The OP has withdrawn the complaint. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Two days ago, User:SandyGeorgia removed one of my DYKs from the main page and posted at WT:DYK [259] and in several other places [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] accusing me of being a serial plagiarizer and copyright violator. Her explanation at WT:DYK also included the accusation that my articles were each copies of a single source "with a few words juggled", which is simply, factually false (See, for example, one of the articles she named, which has significant content from at least nine different sources), and some gratuitous complaints against DYK as a whole.

Though I responded to her concerns on each article within minutes [265], SG refused to engage with me directly, pointing me instead to her post at WT:DYK [266] which denounced me in the third person, offered no specific examples, and no constructive suggestions of any kind.[267] She also denounced me on the talk page of another editor [268] before being willing to speak to me about the problem directly, dismissing the good-faith questions I was trying to ask her [269]--and which she never actually answered-- as my "continued resistance".[270]

After a preliminary review, the consensus at DYK appears to be that my articles are fully within Wikipedia policy. (See, for example, [271], [272], [273]) Even SG's requested arbiter, User:Moonriddengirl, examined one of the articles and found that while it could benefit from minor changes, even in its present form, it "would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern".[274] The articles in question remain untagged and unaltered by any editor who has looked at them.

I don't blame SG for having not having a full command of Wikipedia copyright policy; I'll be the first to admit that I don't either. But even if I had been found to need work on close paraphrasing, I'd be unhappy with her refusal to engage me directly and civilly as a good faith editor, and her insistence on seeing my "case" as part of a broader DYK battleground. Her focus on bashing DYK editors as a whole instead of discussing specifics of my edits was notable in every forum she posted in (review any of the diffs in the first paragraph). Even in a later post to my talk page, she said that she was sorry I was taking her accusations personally, but that I needed to see it in context of her ongoing struggle at DYK.[275]

SG appears unwilling to take this advice from anyone involved at DYK, so I ask at a minimum that an administrator speak with her about her responsibility to AGF by engaging other users directly and constructively rather than "exposing" them in public fora (particularly until she herself develops a better understanding of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM). I also ask that she stop behaving as if DYK is a battleground. I was a long-time good-faith user (28,000+ edits, 100+ new start-class articles, 60+ DYKs, a GA, etc.) and didn't deserve to be called a serial plagiarizer across the wiki without direct and polite discussion, nor did I deserve to be dragged into SG's "War on Plagiarism". I'm glad to have my name cleared, of course, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Plagiarism is a serious issue, so our first task is to determine whether or not SG is right in that plagiarism remains a problem at DYK. If it is, then she needs some backup. If not, then she needs some persuasion to back down, but since questions of plagiarism is the heart of the matter, we should address that first. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I don't mean to stop SG's plagiarism investigations themselves; she's exposed some serious violations in the past, and I would hate to see her stop working in this area. What concerns me is the way that she conducts them. No matter how pervasive she thinks the problem is at DYK, at least a part of her response should be to directly, respectfully, and constructively engage the editors she believes to have issues with citation or close paraphrasing, especially if she wants to pursue borderline cases along with the egregious. WP:PLAGIARISM suggests that "plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger", and I think that these are words SG should take to heart.

It would also help if in borderline or disputed cases, she sought a second opinion before going into full public denunciation. Had she done so in my case, that denunciation would likely never have taken place, since her requested second opinion (as well as community consensus) cleared me of wrongdoing. This solution was proposed at DYK, but SG has unfortunately already moved to oppose it.[276] 184.59.31.77 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Another example of Sandy having made a false accusation was here, where Moonriddengirl was asked here and said no problem. Sandy never did apologise or redact the accusation. --LauraHale (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy has a very high standard for copyright issues and a very high degree of certainly that her bar is set correctly. I think she needs to acknowledge that while having a high bar is a good thing, she should realize her bar is both higher than legally required and probably higher than needed (though not higher than desired!). Certainly higher than I expect of my students (as long as they cite the source). Having someone else double-check her before she does more than discuss (politely) on the subject's page would seem ideal. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So why is this here at AN/I? There appears to be no incident requiring our janitorial services. Rklawton (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::shrug:: Maybe I am in the wrong place, but three days ago I was casually and falsely denounced for a serious offense, without a second opinion or a moment's discussion; my accuser then dismissed my attempts to ask clarifying questions out of hand, implying that they were evasion and that my plagiarism was clear. It seems to me that's a breach of WP:AGF, but I've never been good with the policing side of Wikipedia. Coming from an academic background myself, I don't take this accusation lightly; I've failed a lot of people for plagiarism, and in one unfortunate case, seen it destroy the career of a colleague. Do I really have no recourse here? All I ask is that someone in authority talk with SG about what she's done here to avoid repetition of the problem; call it a formal warning, I suppose, if that's the language that's needed to get consideration here. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, SG did post this message on your talk; to me that seems to be an attempt to engage with you. Are you sure that this isn't mostly a case of you guys talking past each other? henrik•talk 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you already linked this, I must have overlooked that link. Still, I don't interpret her message quite the same way, it seems to be an effort to do exactly the sort of engagement and talking directly to you. Mistakes are sometimes made, and intentions are hard to convey over text. I'd hate to see you go over this. henrik•talk 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, while I did appreciate SG's message, she posted it five hours after accusing me at [{WT:DYK]], and after evading and mocking all of my earlier attempts to directly discuss her accusations (see [277], [278], [279]). It was only after I had posted that I was leaving Wikipedia that she made any effort to talk directly. My point is that talking to me directly and respectfully about my editing should have been her first step, not her last; instead, she leapt straight into making a serious false accusation on a project page and 4-5 other places. I appreciate your efforts to give SG the benefit of the doubt, but this is behavior that she needs to reconsider, regardless of motive. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really possible to talk directly with you when you've demanded that I not. [280] In fact, asking me not to post to your talk again-- and then coming to ANI because I don't respond-- doesn't look very good. I'm very sorry to hear about your chronic fatigue syndrome,[281] again, and I wish I could help, but if you refuse to let me speak to you, I don't see why we're here. And, for the person who asked if there is a real problem at DYK:

1. It predates but includes the time before the Rlevse resignation, and has not changed at all: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page
2. This is a list of only the ones that one editor is catching, after they are passed: Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi SG, if you'll review the above, the whole of my complaint has to do with your serious false accusation and your posting it across multiple boards without substantively discussing it with me first or seeking a second opinion. I posted here because of your initial behavior only. If you would like me to acknowledge that you behaved better six hours later, I will readily do so, but again, it took my leaving Wikipedia for you to take what should have been your first step. Other editors have already suggested that you pursue these cases differently in the future, including me; you've not agreed to do, and there didn't seem any point in pushing this further without an outside opinion that you would listen to. Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, that strikes me as a failed AGF-o-meter, particularly since I did try to talk to you and you rejected attempts. So, from my seat, it looks like you're doing what you accuse me of-- that is, spreading something across the Wikipedia, in spite of me attempting to discuss with you. And now I'm actually confused about why I'm here talking with an IP, when I'm prohibited from talking with you on your page. I asked that you wait for MRG to weigh in, but when she did, I was forbidden to discuss with you. Following a discussion across multiple pages is time consuming; consolidating it on one DYK thread made sense to me, although I see it didn't to you. I still don't know why we are here, at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SG, what you say is fair enough, and I do apologize for not continuing this conversation more directly when I was on with you yesterday; you're right that I owed it to you, no matter how you'd been behaving before. I'm willing to withdraw my complaint, then, but I do want to again urge two policy suggestions on you. First, that you consider engaging editors directly and respectfully before making an accusation as sweeping as yours was; second, that you consider getting a second opinion in borderline cases before making a public accusation on project pages, not after. I realize you're unlikely to accept these suggestions, but building a Copyvio "best policies" page at DYK as others have proposed and you've resisted [282] would be a benefit to everyone. There's no reason to have unfounded accusations like this flying around when we're all doing our best to work together. All the best, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Oh, and the IP is because I already scrambled the password to my account to remove the temptation to get to my watchlist. =) Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the IP explanation makes sense (hadn't occurred to me :) So, if we can figure out now where to carry on the conversation-- or if you even want to continue-- we can resolve the remaining. If you're really leaving, and considering what you've said elsewhere about your health issues, I'm not sure you want me to continue to take your time on this (that was the clear message I got from your posts yesterday). The real issues are at DYK, the failure there to put processes in place, and are not and should not be individual or personalized. I'll note that I didn't pull the article from the mainpage (that's not in my power) and attempted to consolidate a general discussion of the Plagiarism Dispatch on the talk page for increased awareness of the issue, and I'm sorry you interpreted that as something aimed at you (discussions about paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism et al are always sensitive). Again, I did not remember we had spoken before, and it was not my intent to single you out. It's curious that someone in this very discussion is suggesting I'm supposed to have a shorter memory, while others prefer a longer memory :) If I kept a list on Wiki of every DYK editor with whom I've discussed paraphrasing, that would be against some policy or another, and if I kept a list in my head, that would be a grudge, so again, I'm sorry for not recalling we had past interactions on this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't just an isolated incident. A couple weeks back SG came storming into WP:FAR making all sort of unfounded accusations against myself and another editor and also spread those accusations on multiple talk pages. SG uses editors' diffs to produce synthesis to make the case. There's also a large amount of snarky edit summaries. Sure ok; everyone has a bad day now and then but this appears to be trend. Brad (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean about the time you called Bishonen (talk · contribs) a Bitch during a FAR, causing her to turn in her tools and leave? [283] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit admirably demonstrates Brad101's point. If anyone wishes to propose sanctions against SG, I'd support them. Wikipedia works best when its editors keep short memories. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify what you find troubling about my response. "Accusers" give no diffs, I query and give diffs and direct responses, and Brad101 is allowed to accuse, but I'm not allowed to respond? And I can't respond on Khazer's talk, but she can come here and expect me to respond here, but when I do, there's an (as yet unspecified) problem? Please explain to me why Brad can say I "came storming in to FAR" without providing any diff to the incident, but when I diff the incident (which by the way arb Risker agreed with), that's a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not about my behavior but yours. Yet you just gave another classic example of your synthesis of events. I did not call Bishonen a bitch during a FAR and you're the one who decided that my behavior at that particular FAR is what "drove Bishonen from the project". It does seem to be true that Bishonen turned in the tools; I saw the request but there was no reason posted as to why the tools were being turned in. I am not responsible for the behavior of another. If you would like to continue believing your version of events that's fine but these accusations being spread all over talk pages is unwarranted. Anyone who chooses can go over to WP:FAR and WT:FAR and see what has been going on over there. You've attacked reviewers and the FAR admin for not carrying out things the way you want them to or think they should. As a former FAR admin you should remember that "former" is the keyword. Brad (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked Bishonen? You might do that. FAR has instructions; following them will help articles and editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't defending, you are attacking, and if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world. Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is are no apologies in the offing for understandably offended editors, so I am proposing as a remedy that SandyGeorgia stays away from DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear, preferably from a party not directly involved in this dispute (or any other with Sandy), what her involvement with DYK is before we go on to considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Does Sandy contribute to the DYK project? If so, in what manner? Does she write, review, or submit hooks? Does she actively patrol hooks for copyvio problems? Is she a regular at DYK in any fashion? Or does she pop in randomly when she notices copyvios? If she does, what is the manner of her engagement when she apppears at DYK? Is she collegial? Accusatory? Was the behavior reported on above standard for her when she's at DYK, or was this an anomaly? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing a topic ban? It appears that Sandy and the IP (former user) have solved the issue. This should be closed and archvied.--v/r - TP 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sandy Georgia" closed and archived already? I only just found out about it! :-(

Please see section above. There may be nothing for admins to do, OK (or I would have just re-opened that section, I'm not shy like that) but there's such a thing as natural justice: the kinds of accusations injected by Brad101 into an unrelated complaint can't be simply left uncontradicted to poison the air against an editor. As barenaked of diffs as they were, I wouldn't have thought Rklawton would find them persuasive, but apparently it's possible. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

I see some of Brad101's favoured far-reaching accusations and no diffs in the above section. Sandy's "storming" into FAR, by contrast, was accompanied by careful diffs. ("To produce synthesis"? Qué? That's a new one. "Editor's diffs" are a bad thing now? Because… what? You never said those things, is that it?) Here's one of Sandy's diff lists, not so much for your benefit, Brad101 — presumably you know this stuff — as for that of Rklawton and others. (Yes, I know Sandy already gave the same diff that I do, but did you click on it, Rklawton?) It should do away with any notion that I left "over one word". And I'd like to personally do away with any notion that I left over any of Brad101's fratboy talk, even though it's very regrettable that we get that type of attack on Wikipedia, as Risker said ("Is it any wonder that we have a hard time attracting and retaining female editors? I just shake my head.") when Sandy took the issue of the sexist attacks to Risker's talk in the hope of getting them, and especially the role of the admin who pretty damn much encouraged them, dealt with under the Civility Enforcement RFAR which is currently (still!) awaiting some proposed decisions.[284] I left much more over the admin The ed17's blatant partiality in defending the person he knew (= the MilHist reviewer with all the barnstars from the MilHist project, of which Ed is a coordinator) at the expense of any, even the most token, respect shown to the stranger (= me). I still, and in defiance of a lot of stuff I've seen on Wikipedia and even on this page, expect better from admins. Ed's notions of these things, and of what makes an insult sexist, can be seen in the same interesting section on Risker's page. About handing in my tools: I'd been thinking of doing that for some time, to experience life on the other side of the railway tracks. :-) (Report from the white portion of the map: as I suspected, it turns out to be very frustrating for a nosey person not to be able to read deleted pages any more.) But certainly turning in the tools right when I did was quite pointless from a practical point of view (taking a wikibreak plus, as an afterthought, a break from the tools? How does that work?), and was meant as a demonstration. Something snapped in me when I saw The ed17 discreetly redact Brad101's creative name for me ("Bitchonandon", tee hee) and simultaneously urge him not to stoop to my level.[285] I mean, if my level is something that guy would have to stoop to reach down to, it would have to be some level, right? I decided I no longer wanted to be a member of the club Ed was in: admins.

Rklawton apparently knows more about my health than I do myself. Have we met..? The truth is that my health is much better right now than it has been at any time these past five years. (Always barring the temporary glitch of a flu that's been keeping me in bed for a week.) Are you going by tea-leaves, or by Elen of the Roads' note on my page?[286] Elen wants to help, and to be nice to me, but she doesn't know. She's guessing, and not getting it right. Probably my fault for not being more open, but I really dislike publicising these personal matters, and regret having to do it now. On ANI, of all places… However. I really can't have uninformed opinions about my health used as a club to beat SandyGeorgia with ("You would deliberately deceive people here you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she [Bishonen left over a single world. Shame on you!"]). Some people know more about it than others, and Sandy is one of them. Here goes, then: I was in a fairly parlous condition right after my liver transplantation on 15 September 2011, and certainly there was a gap in my editing then. That's major surgery like you wouldn't believe. But it was five months ago! (Four months ago, when Elen wrote on my page.) By now, I'm feeling all the benefit of having a healthy liver in place of the one that had been poisoning me for years. It's sad, in a way, that that was the very moment I came to grief on FAR to an extent that put me off Wikipedia. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it's nothing. I have plenty of other things to do. (Like what? Lying in bed with flu? Most impressive.) Btw, I notice with appreciation Brad101's classic "ANI boomerang response" above: "The issue here is not about my behavior but yours." As he says, anybody can indeed go over to FAR and see for themselves, though the link he gives (WP:FAR) is no more helpful than saying "anybody can go to WP:ANI and read about it". Let me give a link that'll take you to the right part of FAR: [287] Also, though I acknowledge regretfully that' most people's curiosity about Restoration comedies and squabbles about them is rather quickly satisfied, if you want to really do justice to this, and (holds out irresistible inducement) to see me bitch on and on, this section on the article's talkpage is also very relevant: [288]. OK… I need to get back to bed. I hope this isn't too incoherent. It would be a kindness if somebody would tell Risker, Elen and The ed17 that I've mentioned them here. I'm not coming back for any more over-long chatting, myself, you'll be glad to hear; this is it. Talk amongst yourselves. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.