Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749

Odd/problematic behavior from User:Luke 19 Verse 27

I recently came across said user and find his edits to be odd enough to request some outside input. Among other things, he:

• Edit wars on multiple pages to include his at times nonsensical edits. (Rex Harrison, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Furry fandom, Kony 2012)
• Called the subject of a picture in one of our articles a "tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods".
• Demands for more pictures at Talk:Human feces.

All this gives me the picture of a user who is here to intentionally disrupt, and I'd like some input from the community about what to do here. --Conti|✉

They remind me of University of Hawaii/United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC), Fort Shafter, Honolulu, based Lutrinae/Modinyr

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Lutrinae

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (KJ, Cambridge ed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, many of his edits are disruptive and could be considered vandalism. I'd give him a warning and consider blocking him if he carries on this way. Deb (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've raised the username (with no response) and so has User:In ictu oculi, though no username change has happened. I understand what he's getting at with it, but it's still provocative. I expect he's only here to disrupt, but I haven't seen anything which I'd block for yet, he's walking the line. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Was I reading that right in that he wants more shit dumped onto that article? --MuZemike 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• The edits to the Rex Harrison & Ron Hubbard articles, and the edit notes accompanying them, do not suggest someone who is here for anything other than irritating people.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Those edits would, in isolation, be perfectly normal copyediting. In particular, the lead should serve as a full summary of the article's key points, and the current lead fails to do that. Tag-team edit warring over such with summaries like this certainly hasn't helped matters, though I would agree that at the very least this editor should be strongly advised to take editing more seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yea, if one mixes serious editing with "trollz and lulz", it will only be the latter that gets noticed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm comfortable speculating on whether this user is here to "intentionally disrupt" as Conti suggests above, but I have found them to be amiable and perfectly willing to engage in discussion about their edits. They might stand to stick more to WP:BRD, but as you can see from their edit history, they have been editing pages where there are normally more than a handful of editors willing to tango. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd noticed this editor on Furry fandom due to the, shall we say, "unique" way of expressing themselves. For instance, their need repeatedly state that furries suffer from "gender confusion." [1][2]. The latter link also includes the gems, "Don't flash your claws at me, girlfrien" and "Tits on a costumed figure, in a social group known for its gender confusion and sexual adventurers, doesn't let you label said tittied figure and use a tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods as proof that "our stupid little club is gaining more female members.""

Then there's "Not everything with tits is a lady."[3]

And "Look at the boobs, they look like socks in a bra to me. I'm kind of an expert on this."[4] (Really? An expert on socks in bras?)

And: "Regardless, that ain't no lady."[5]

I really can't make up my mind if this editor is pulling our legs, or just has some weird ideas about gender. And an obsession with breasts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The editor just removed my ANI notice on his talk page with the edit summary of "removing dumbness", just for the record. --Conti|✉ 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Because when an editor starts arbitration over a few talkpage comments, it is dumbness. All my article edits were constructive. I wrote half of Sir Harrison's lede! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a few minor brushes, mostly over inserting unsourced salacious material. I do not share his interest in fatworm penises. He has a tonne of ability, but Wikipedia is not helped by his contributions. Hollywood maybe. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, apologies to the good faith editors above, but this seems like blatantly obvious WP:NOTHERE. Look at this example of Luke's "colorful" talk page commentary: [6]. Look at his claim that a famous 1940s-60s actor is now only famous for inspiring the voice/style of a cartoon character: [7] (which, as was pointed out,he edit warred to try and keep in the article). But more obviously, look at his comments on Talk:Nishidani: blatant vandalism and a personal attack. The only reason I didn't block him immediately after seeing these is that there seems to be some concern from others above that this is fixable, and I don't want to take a first-mover advantage. But really, does anyone really see anything worth keeping? My opinion is the person is either just here for the lulz, or is too immature to understand how Wikipedia works (or both). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, upon further review, I can no longer AGF on this one. I'd Support a block for disruption on Luke. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ISuicideI

Someone has just created the above as their username. I find that slightly concerning - thought I'd mention it here. Calabe1992 18:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would work, but... not exactly a typical violation. Likely better for someone to investigate rather than just block. Calabe1992 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Minor Investigation) - User has no edits on any wiki, and was created on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A block? Hmmm, that might really cheer them up... how about WP:ROPE while you're at it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless they do anything else that is concerning, there's nothing needing to be done here in my opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to block for now and allow the user to carry on as that will help any report that goes to authorities, and per some of the guidance in WP:SUICIDE. I am actively watching it and the WMF does know about it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, citing WP:ROPE is a bit...callous when discussing a potentially suicidal user, don't you think? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not even borderline. Both commenters invoking this above should probably reconsider their black humour thresholds at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Awfully callous not to a) welcome the user, or b) advise them of this filing. I've done both, plus advised them that their name is a little ... concerning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've never dealt with a potentially suicidal user before, and didn't necessarily want to take any immediate action myself. WP:ROPE probably wasn't the greatest page to cite here, but thanks to DQ for handling this. Calabe1992 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, ya...wasn't thinking that mind frame when I did it, wasn't my intention. Modified. @Bwilkins, sometimes IAR applies to the latter, personally that's why I didn't do it. For the welcoming...ya would have been an idea to do it. @All With still no edits at this ungodly hour, I'm heading to bed thinking we aren't going to have an emergency. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, ... alas, was thinking that mind frame. Sincere apologies if an intended criticism of a "block first, think later" wiki policy was read as a joke at the expense of an anonymous suicide bid. Maybe one of the situations where one hopes an editor really is just a mindless vandal. In which case, of course, a block is fully justified. So a conundrum. I think DQ has acted very responsibly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Threat of legal action by Chrisjs60

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.

---

Chrisjs60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Threat of legal action in this edit by user working for Knights of Equity. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone that the editor was trying to remove a negative, unsourced comment? Sometimes, legal threats are issued in response to valid problems. Buddy431 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've prodded the article. I don't see any claim of, let alone evidence of, notability, and could not find any of my own. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought about that myself... although I think it's debatable. I'm going to remove the prod and AFD it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then User:Chrisjs60 needs to be unblocked until there is a consensus to block due to violating the no legal threats policy. --MuZemike 06:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of tools by this admin since he made ZERO effort to communicate with the user as to why he was blocking him, and didn't attempt to explain why there is a policy in place or give the user a chance to change his phrasing. This is exactly why people should have their tools use removed, because if you cannot achieve a positive outcome without the tools, you don't need to be using them at all. In addition, it appears that User:Total-MAdMaN also made ZERO effort to explain the policies on the article Talk page or the User's Talk page, or anywhere else. Please remind this admin and user that this AN/I page states in BOLD at the top: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Dude... I don't even know where to start. Is this really dry sarcasm? If it is... well done! Doc talk 06:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely and utterly serious. YOU SIMPLY DON'T ACT LIKE THIS AS AN ADMIN. We have rules and before people start deploying the banhammer, you're supposed to follow them, otherwise it is simply hypocrisy. New people make mistakes in protocol because they don't know any better, and admins are supposed to know better. Some attempt to communicate is the very first and most basic thing we ought to know here. I really wish I was just masterfully using dry wit, but it is strongarm tactics and lack of BASIC non-admin tools, aka communication, that really bother me. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That diff (and edit summary) is about as unambiguous a legal threat as I've seen. They have a chance to retract it on their talk page. Doc talk 06:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is unambiguous and clear. But how does adding another wrong make this right? We have a duty to inform and discuss. No one made any attempt to do so before blocking. My concern is not about whether the user deserves a block, of course he DOES because he broke a rule. But breaking other rules in order to correct behavior isn't right. We don't edit war until someone gets tired... we stop and turn to consensus. Similarly, if a new and uninformed user breaks a rule, we don't block out of hand. We inform and we discuss and we act like professionals, we don't react with tools because we CAN, we react with tools when we MUST. Do you see the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." That's usually an indefinite block (which is not infinite) when it's as blatant a legal threat as that one. They have a choice to either retract it, or they can remain blocked. It's policy. No admin misused their tools in this case. Doc talk 07:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It becomes a violation in policy because of the lack of communcation. It is a perfectly valid reason for a block, but it is a very poorly executed block. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a good example of WP:DOLT. Still, I don't think screaming at Salvio is necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anyone screaming at anyone else, but it is a very serious punishment to be indefinitely blocked, and if there were ever an appropriate time to critique an editor/admin for an action it is this. The user is still blocked, the editors/admins involved still haven't demonstrated the proper protocol in response. What would you suggest that a reasonable editor say or do in response? -- Avanu (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He's referring to your use of ALLCAPS, which is very "shouty". As far as your question: a) Don't issue legal threats in the first place, and b) If you do, and you find yourself rightfully blocked for them until your legal issue is resolved , see WP:GAB. Doc talk 07:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEGAL - "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." I see no attempt made by either the notifying editor or the administrator to 'clarify the user's meaning'. Per WP:BLOCK - "Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future." Again, not in line with policy. I realize that often there are many sympathies with the admin in these cases, after all, they didn't *start* the problem, they just 'solved' it. But this is why WP:ADMIN says "They are never required to use their tools". Kneejerk blocks don't solve problems. Discussion with poorly informed users often can solve a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, would you like to be blocked? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you? -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• shrugs* I'm not the one who's risking it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first quote from WP:LEGAL is under the section Perceived legal threats. That isn't a perceived legal threat, it IS a legal threat and so has been dealt with appropriately. I would suggest though that maybe the template {{uw-lblock}} could expand slightly on what is required for an unblock in these cases. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good block. It was a clear legal threat. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And as for the various policy requirements that weren't followed? Is that good as well? -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is no requirement for a prior warning or other conciliatory action prior to blocking for a legal threat if it is unambiguous. Along with copyright violations, legal threats have a bleed-through effect where they can cause off-wiki problems for us, and are thus special-cased. The additional problem (that the article contained unsourced damaging claims about the subject) has been resolved by deleting the material in question. All of this was concluded within two hours of this thread being started. This is a textbook example of how ANI should work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 24 April 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:70.147.72.167 making 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.

---

I met this user a while ago and he's very abusive, and makes personal attacks. He calls everyone trolls and makes joking and vandalism edits to Wikipedia. See 1st diff against Mtking; second upon me, as I gave the warning. Please put a block on this user. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And more. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dipankan stalking users, making threats. Could a real mod come and please take away this trolling mod's access. He's really only mad because of a discussion we had on a completely different website on their forums. He wants to pretend that he's known me for a long time and that I call "everybody" a troll, but "everybody" just happens to be him and 2 of his friends who are trolls. His behind is hurting and this is all he can do. Plus nobody can block me anyway lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.72.167 (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, calling Dipankan a "trolling mod" and then claiming that "no one can block you"? Knock it off. You're only supposed to comment here if you are trying to address the issues that Dipankan raised. Bmusician 13:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're looking for someone to disabuse them of the notion that they can't be blocked Blackmane (talk) 13:32, 24 April 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.

Tag-teaming and edit-warring at Shen Yun Performing Arts

Some attention may be required at some stage in the near future, as there seems to be a massive content dispute, replete with the walls of wikilawyering about the inadmissibility of certain sources very similar to what has been historically taking place at Falun Gong and other related articles. There have also been a number of reverts of well-justified and sourced material that look to me very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about reporting this Ohconfucius, you did the right thing. Now, can you give us a detailed description of the perpetrators? Desk Ref (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the unconstructive reply above, it does help to give a few more details about what action you are seeking. There has been no (or very mild) edit warring, and people appear to be discussing on the talk page. Most admins don't have the to wade through the edit history to learn the whole story for what doesn't appear to be a major issue; the onus is on you to show there is a problem. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

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.

---

On the African American article, absolutely no mention is given to the multi-racial ancestry of African Americans.

e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial_American#African_Americans specifically the 2nd paragraph and the next section on Admixture

"A 2003 study found an average of 18.6% (±1.5%) European admixture in a population sample of 416 African Americans from Washington, DC.[43]

Based on Mark Shriver's research, historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms: 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent); 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent); 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).[64]"

I find this highly racist - the complete neglection of other race's contributions to the African American population is simply sickening, as if they are somehow worse less than the African contributions. For comparison, other groups - for example, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc - have widely reported and celebrated mixed-race history. I get the feeling like certain users are trying to suppress the mixed race history of African Americans and try to keep them "pure" (which is, obviously, racist).

I feel like this is mainly perpetuated by an administrator editor, "Malik Shabazz". In reply to me, he posted this comment:

"When Italians mentions the genetic contributions of Africans to the Italian genome, we can argue about how racist it is that African Americans are defined by their sub-Saharan ancestry."

So clearly, by the above message, this user harbours an agenda and somehow resents the fact that African Americans have such a diverse racial admixture.

Please help. I abhor racism of all forms, yet this is allowed to happen, clear as day? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see that study is racist. Especially in the light of "suppress(ing) the mixed race history of African Americans," when the study is clearly about ... the mixed race history of African Americans. Given the sample size and location, it's not surprising that European ancestry dominated the findings. This wasn't a broad study of the whole country, after all.

Now, if you're saying Henry Louis Gates Jr was applying this to the whole country, that would be a problem. Context is the key, though. I'm not getting that impression from what's posted above. I'd have to find the source to double check but, off the cuff, it sounds like he was only applying this to the individuals covered by the survey. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but you completely misunderstood what I am complaining about. I apologise if I was not clear. I am saying that the omission of the mixed-race history of African Americans, in the African American article, is racist. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not making a coherent argument. The text cited about does cover the mixed-race history of African Americans. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Where, in the African American article, is an in-depth mention of the mixed-race history of African Americans? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be edit-warring to reinsert this material, which cites (among other sources) Steve Sailer (whose views on race could charitably be called extreme) and a YouTube video of a George Lopez comedy bit. Before you come to WP:AN/I and accuse other editors of racism and suppressing history, you might want to consider that you're being reverted because you're edit-warring poor-quality sources into the lead of a high-profile article. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't and this is not the forum to discuss content.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is, however, the place to discuss behavior issues. If the insertion of poorly sourced material and its reversion prompted the claims of racism, that's valid to bring up here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaf Green Warrior needs to take a deep breath and back off. With this edit [8] he labelled the two of us that disagree with him as "ignorant". He was given sound advise by other editors to cool it -- apparently he/she has decided to double down and add "racism" to his charges. The problem is not Malik -- the problem is Leaf. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Leaf It may seem obvious, and logical that conduct by an admin is admin conduct, but it isn't. This forum is to discuss admin actions such as blocks. Not ordinary edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps leaf should read racism, and truly understand the definition of the word. Not every subject relating to race has roots in racism. This situation, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with racism. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• FYI - This is also being discussed at the Help Desk: I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, I appreciate that, but I don't believe this is a normal edit concern. I believe that an admin is using his powers and weight to ensure that an article stays racist and neglecting of other races. Now, if anyone would actually - God forbid - like to discuss the actual ANI I posted, as opposed to irrelevant trivialities.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion. I will attempt to be very clear here. African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".) Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:31, 24 April 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.

Request for support - racism, improper admin conduct?

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 hope it's okay if I try this again - my other request got spammed to high hell. I will attempt to be very clear and concise.

African Americans are not purely of "black sub-Saharan African" descent. African Americans have, for example, very high levels of admixture with Native Americans, East Asians, and Europeans (I think the statistic is that African Americans are, on average, only 69% "black sub-Saharan African".)

Given this hugely significant admixture, on the Wikipedia page, not a single mention is given to any of these other races. A purely neutral person reading the article would be wrongly led to believe that African Americans are 100% purely "black sub-Saharan African". There is a complete neglection of any mention of other races, which is racist.

This is being perpetuated by certain users (Such as Malik) who are blocking any attempts to mention other races apart from black sub-Saharan African.

This is not an edit dispute.

I am requesting non-specific help (whatever you deem as appropriate). For example, blocking of the user from editing the article, a lock of the article, or a lock on editing out mention of other race's genetic contribution to African Americans.

Thank you Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See above.--ukexpat (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Literally all of the above discussion was irrelevant to the request. Please don't spam this one, too. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic, and unlike other racial groups in the US, for two reasons: (1) the "one-drop" rule during Jim Crow, where any traceable African ancestry meant you were Negro, couldn't marry white folks, and would get lynched if you tried to vote; and (2) the fact that much of your white ancestry came from rape, both during slavery and during the Jim Crow era, so your ancestors were bastards. Thus talking about either lineage can be difficult. That said, I think (2) is more of a sore spot than (1). Black people take pride in their African ancestry; they are generally not so enthused about their European ancestry. This is a problem emotionally with those DNA ancestry tests: since only a single ancestor can be traced back, you might try tracing your roots to Africa only to find that your only known distant ancestor was white. Since US society still insists that you're black, this can really mess with your identity. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're damn right it's a sensitive topic - and the page is currently a slap in the face to all those Native Americans, East Asians and Europeans that contributed to the culture and genealogy of the African American population. As I said, to not mention them is simply racist. We celebrate how Mexicans are a mixture of mostly Native American, with some African and some European. We celebrate how Argentinians are a mixture of mostly European, with some Native American and some African. And yet racists try to suppress the fact that African Americans are a mixture of mostly African, with some Native American, some European and some East Asian.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly a touchy topic with many diverse opinions.This footage is from a Theroux documentary on Black Nationalism.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 24 April 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.

Difficulties with Tenebrae?

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 it just me, or is there something about User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I have made requests for closure in WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? Maybe there is no need for discussion here, is there? --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See the response at WP:AN/RFC#Talk:Blackmark (novel)#Move? You are correct: there is no need for discussion here.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 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 promoting a movement

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 talk:완젬스 (redirects to User talk:67.77.174.6 -- redirect has since been removed as a result of this discussion)
• User_talk:Gandydancer#A brownie for you!
• Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street#Possible removal of antisemitism paragraph
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject OWS#The Jew problem on facebook
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488372101&oldid=488325297

This user is about 6 months old. In that time he has developed a history of pointing out his real-life ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement and furthermore prodding discussions subtly over to addressing how best to preserve its interests, which often toy with the boundaries of using Wikipedia inappropriately to promote the movement. He also addresses individuals who appear supportive of the movement on their talk pages to announce his shared allegiance, and attempted to determine my own allegiances by asking me outright.

This latest instance, linked in the diff above, made the most troubling statement yet: that he is attempting to keep content out of the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article because it would hurt the movement, while describing his use of policy-based arguments as a cover for that vested interest. I replied noting my suspicion that he was actually here to make OWS look bad, as his behavior is so blatantly nefarious that it seems like he wants to create evidence that OWS' representation on Wikipedia is heavily COI-influenced.

Whether 완젬스 does seek to create that allusion or if he's actually attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the movement (the latter seems doubtful to me), it doesn't seem to matter much. Either way his behavior appears to be of enough concern to address here. I'm proposing a topic ban for this user, and the IP account he apparently identifies with, from editing any OWS-related articles and talk pages, and from discussing OWS-related topics on any other page. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This quote from the diff you provided certainly indicates an agenda being pushed: " It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do". If it is the right thing to do after 11/6/2012, it is the right thing to do now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been clear to me that 완젬스 is a False flag operative for some time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be undoing that redirect on his talk page, in preparation for what I smell to be a block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I love the smell of blocks in the morning! Sorry obligatory reference. :P I am curious why user preferred a Korean username. User seems to be entirely contributing to very high profile current events (Occupy Wall Street (and related articles), Occupy Oakland, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Madigan Army Medical Center (correlates with Panjwai shooting spree)). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure, but the actual reason for the removal is to move that talkpage onto his. He just copy-and-paste moved it there, but I intend to legitimately move it once the speedy tag is serviced. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been having many headbutts with Equazcion for quite some time. I'm feeling very frustrated and extremely agitated today. It's definitely been a blowup & I feel like Equazcion has pushed my buttons and made me react in such a way that is detrimental to myself. I kindly ask if we can let this de-escalate first? This stuff happened within an hour ago, and I'm already stressing out and feeling like Equazcion is stressing my nerves. I never felt this way due to Wikipedia before--it's like hearing bad news over the phone, like you're fired or a family member has been seriously injured. I'm really agitated and I hope we can try WP:Mediation or WP:RFC where I don't feel this much urgency or sense of crisis. The administrator's noticeboard is a very traumatic turn of events, and I am not able to respond well or type well. This really feels hurtful & tortuous. 완젬스 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the comment I pointed out and the discussion he started today came before my addressing him -- my statements only came after them in reply. I'm not sure how they could've resulted from me "pushing his buttons". Equazcion ^(talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have escalated the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/완젬스. I think this is a more organized campaign that needs a much closer look. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea -- though a topic ban for this user seems appropriate either way, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that a block is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I am very, very sorry for being tilted today. I clearly behaved in a way that was reflective of a poor emotional state. I got infuriated by an off-wiki argument with another facebook user about George Zimmerman crowding out the media coverage. He unfriended me, blocked me, and logged off. I felt so conceited because of the seriousness of how hard it hit me. I smoked a couple cigarettes and I'm feeling better now. I wish to apologize to equazcion and request for this ANI to be transferred to Mediation, dispute resolution, rfc, or a less intensive process. I have full respect for the admins here at Wikipedia, and I want those of you to know I don't intend to cause trouble. If I could curl up into my hole and disappear, I would gladly do so. I want to reply but I don't know what to address? Yes, April 20th was a shameful day for me. I got careless, reckless, and cynical. I've come to realize while smoking the cigarettes that what happened to me on facebook wasn't that bad after all, and I should not jeopardize my standing as a welcomed editor (see my talk page & edit history before Apr 20th) nor should I ever take my status here for granted. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and I hope you guys sincerely believe me that I share the same sense of community here. I've been relatively inactive since March (and looking at my own edit history--my edits dropped off right when I participated constructively in the Trayvon Martin article). I'm a very passionate editor and George Zimmerman becoming a free man again today lead to a furious uproar within me about him being free again, and the peaceful solitude I had from April 13th (when he got arrested) until today (when he was bailed out) took a toll on me greater than I could deal with. It's so hard for me to be powerless and watch the news cycle as it happens. For that, I owe Equaczion an apology, and I humbly request from the admins if I can be allowed another venue to deal with this matter. I wish to proceed but it might be seen as a bad faith apology or be seen as preemptive if I do not first share with all of you how I feel about this, and how I beg of it to be resolved. There's no need to block me unless you think I'll re-engage on the occupy article or its talk page. I just want to apologize, log out of Wikipedia for the weekend, have another cigarette, take my dog on a walk, and crawl up into a ball and go to sleep, so that when I wake up, I can have closure on this process and await a more subdued process such as WP:DR or WP:M or WP:RFC or any other recommendation you have for me. Everybody has that one day in their Wikipedia career that they wish they could take back, and now all I can do is refrain myself from the article voluntarily, give my apologies to equaczion, and deal with the decision that is handed down to me here. I beg for any mercy or compassion because I'm just so distraught, agitated, and powerless. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is hardly confined to today's events, and the topic ban I'm suggesting is to prevent COI or false flag damage, not to punish. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:30, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Having a bias or COI does not merit what you are recommending. The latter accusations (false flag) are equally baseless as the SPI accusation. Take off your hater-boots and quit kicking a guy when he's down. I've been through enough today and I just want this feeling to go away. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the Occupy articles since last fall, particularly the OWS one, and at the time I just thought User:완젬스 was overly eager to support the cause here. He's been warned for months by various editors not to let his pro-OWS views get in the way of contributing, yet he ignores them and seems to have gotten more brazen. Now that I read Equazcion's suspicion about his covert intentions, confirmed by Hipocrite, I have to say in hindsight his posts make more sense in that light. El duderino (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said Equaczion was "pushing my buttons" to make me defend such an indefensible position. I volunteer on the main OWS facebook page, and I was having a very frustrated day (even calling people in the movement "occutards" which I have never done before today). There are two factions within OWS. I am in the pro-Obama faction, and I am very frustrated at the occupiers who throw around antisemitic wall posts (which I have to constantly monitor and police) and create antisemitic wall posts (which if I or someone doesn't take them down in 15 minutes, they spread like wildfire) (i.e. see here) because the "occutards" are not helping Obama and are only making OWS look antisemitic. (this pic specifically) Basically within OWS there are a handful of people who give everyone a bad name, and don't know the purpose of the movement is to help democratic politicians in the same way that the tea party helped republican politicians. The idiots I have to deal with day-in and day-out on facebook are antisemitic, lazy, self-entitled, sheep. They do as much damage as the Occupy Oakland black-block guys who broke into city hall and destroyed a children's art exhibit. I'm a "starbucks liberal" and want a clean, violence-free, antisemitism-free, stigma-free occupy movement. I have immense frustration due to our bad apples within OWS who moronically post antisemitic wall photos attributed to Occupy Wall Street, and for that reason, I can be both for Occupy Wall Street (such as back in 2011 during our rosy days) and be cynical/jaded in having to deal with the punks who give our movement a bad name with antisemitic artwork. Thanks for the first part of your statement because if I were false-flag, then I would only be cancelling myself out. (i.e. erasing the positive work I did last year by my frustrations today or alternatively, last year was a setup for me to be a "false flag" on a scarce handful of days in 2012). Either way, my explanation today is totally in line with all my "venting posts" earlier today. It started with an argument about OWS competing for media coverage against America's obsession with George Zimmerman, and me chastising people who don't realize when our coverage is diminished, then the media's tendency will be to over-report the negative stuff (like antisemitic artwork) and under-report our May 1st General Strike and the 99% spring. I apologize so much but back in 2011, I was "new" in the facebook leadership hierarchy, and since 2012 I have been promoted due to being Korean, since all the high-ranking online moderators were white males. If you want the simplest explanation--just look to my stress level and my facebook promotion. That is the truth of why I'm more cynical/jaded in 2012 about the occupy movement (because I have to constantly deal with the bad apples who make violent/antisemitic/anarchist comments on FB wall) compared to last year when those people who are overworked, overstressed (like I am today) saw me as a gullible fool who would happily volunteer for the extra drama, extra headaches, and extra stress.

My promotion through the OWS channels in facebook has shed light on why I'd try to recruit someone gullible, starry-eyed, and optimistic about the movement too. They'll do free work if you promote them to sysop--and 4 months later, they become tired, frustrated, and disillusioned. (I'm sure becoming an admin at wikipedia has that same "reality check" 6 months later when you wonder why you wanted to become an admin, ever...) That's the real reason why my attitude has evolved. It isn't some sort of complex, pre-engineered plan to hurt the movement. If I could, I would denigrate the saboteurs within OWS who draw negative attention to our limited prime time media coverage through actions including, but not limited to: drug use, violence, antisemitism, etc... How could these people not know better? It's like the idiots who took picture of a suicide bomber's remains and figured it wouldn't hurt the image of our military here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We're here to discuss your behavior on the wiki. These walls of text describing internal supposed OWS issues really have no bearing on this discussion, and only serve to muddy the water. I'd invite an uninvolved party to consider collapsing them. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Do you still believe in the assertion of false flag? (because the long argument was to show you an alternative explanation of why my attitude in 2011 is different than 2012--the "promotion" I received in the facebook group directly correlates with the stress level of an admin verses the stress level of a regular person). If you will drop your false-flag accusation (and let us civilly discuss bias/coi then I'd be happy to) but if you accuse me of bias, coi, false-flag, and spi, then you will deservedly receive a lengthy response. You're desperate to nail me with anything--just like I described multiple ways to scuttle a maneuver. You are trying to hang me by 4 different ropes. I have apologized. I have explained myself. Please let us wait for the SPI review to take its course rather than your "hater boots" trying their best to engage in unfriendly jesting. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After skimming through a bunch of stuff in this users contribs, it's blatantly obvious to me that 완젬스 has a conflict of interest, in that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. 완젬스 is instead here to ensure that the OWS movement is represented in a positive light on Wikipedia, and so that the user can receive personal recognition for making that happen, as can be seen by this March 15, 2012 diff. There are other clear indications of the problem on just about all of this user's contributions to date, including some of the statements here in this AN/I thread (or, alternatively, to make OWS look bad, as Equazcion speculates in his opening statement). That being the case, I support a topic ban at the least. (I have a feeling that this person is a sock of someone else, based on some of the comments on their talk page, but this seems worth nailing down regardless... Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for advocacy, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, euphemisms about stress and explaining your ties to a subject do not help you in this case. We only have an interest in seeing that articles remain neutral, without an agenda threatening the integrity of the pages. Explaining your connection to the subject matter and not showing an indication for easing up on your rhetoric concerning these pages only enforces the case for a conflict of interest. I must agree that a topic ban will be prudent for now; please edit Wikipedia, but do not get involved with pages in which you have a personal connection with. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI for user 완젬스

I will hopefully be cleared by the SPI. Can I please ask user:A_Certain_White_Cat to assume good faith? I've acted humbly, respectfully, and deferentially since it was brought to my attention that I'm here at WP:ANI. I want to preface the investigation by saying that I hope your theory that this is an orchestrated campaign can be challenged if your prediction is incorrect. The only SPI problem individual we ever had on OWS articles was user:CentristFianco here. There has never been an allegation about SPI about me before. The only complaints I've had thrown against me were having a pro-OWS bias, which I try to mitigate by only editing sections of the article which are 100% objective (e.g. funding section). I confidently await for the SPI investigation and I have full confidence that there is no conspiracy theory going on. This is just me having a miserable day that I wish I could "undo" but in life, you make mistakes. I just hope my sincerity and honesty will clear up this regretful mishap. I am deeply sorry for my edits today, and they are completely shameful. However, I would never have multiple accounts because that thwarts the consensus process and makes Wikipedia worse off for everyone. Hopefully, this SPI issue will encourage everyone to go further back in my edits than my most recent 50 (March 28th - April 20th) and I can have learned this painful lesson and--pending the SPI investigation--I can be given back my editing privileges. I will not damage or do harm. I'm simply inexperienced and too thin-skinned to have the discipline and maturity which you admins have; but, I'm much more aware of my weaknesses after today. I stopped myself once the ANI was posted, and I've done no further self-destructive edits. I feel good about my initial reaction and taking 15 minutes outside to re-think. I hope the SPI will cast doubt to the idea that I'm a conspiring misanthrope. My personality is much too timid and anxious for that type of deliberate malice. I hope the SPI gives evidence to my side of the story. 완젬스 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. I am following the evidence. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I really do want the SPI to show you that I've been honest here in dealing with today's ANI. I don't want this ANI to drag out or waste anyone's time. There are so many trolls, sock puppets, anon vandals, and other garbage you guys gotta deal with here. I hope to just escape unscathed and disappear from your memory banks. I'm not a bad person at all--just having a really, really bad day which I 100% regret at this point. 완젬스 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"This user is about 6 months old" had me thinking "Awwwww, bless! A genius!" Sorry to butt in ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was actually closed as an undue request without being investigated. I don't necessarily disagree, as it was sort of a fishing request to begin with, but I just wanted to clarify. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Efforts of Equaczion to truncate my posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&oldid=488412395#ANI_issue Please tell Equaczion to refrain from trying to truncate my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's only at WP:Mediation where the mediator has discretion to truncate/edit other users posts and/or move posts to the talk page. He is canvassing now to find a willing admin who agrees with him, but I stand by my argument that if he accuses me of 4 things (bias, coi, false flag, and spi) then he opens up 4 areas for me to defend myself. Also, he will not wait for the SPI to run its course. He has his "hater boots" and I believe he is acting punitively rather than the original issue. This noticeboard should not be a war of attrition or a battle of who can outmaneuver the other person by him having more experience than me. I consider this issue dormant until the SPI investigation is complete or the SPI accusation is withdrawn. 완젬스 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked one admin (User:The Bushranger) for advice on handling this, and he did not say he disagreed -- he just said he didn't want to read through your long posts to figure out what was going on (which, incidentally, is the issue I'm trying to address with these requests). He advised me to ask someone else, and I did. I'm not canvassing for people who agree with me. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:44, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting for 4 hours hitting refresh on my own WP:ANI. I am held hostage by him because he is dragging this thing out so unfairly. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I find it unfair that he is so adamant about getting me topic banned based on bias/coi rather than the coi noticeboard or rfc. It's very unnerving and affecting my real life. I'm afraid to take a break because I don't know what he'll do next. This is simmilar in intent to [[SLAPP] lawsuit meant to discourage the other party. He is a veteran editor and I'm barely defending myself from these indefensible accusations. Can somebody tell us whether we should wait until SPI is completed or we should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard such as WP:coi as has been suggested already by an admin? 완젬스 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "cruel and unusual" here is trying to slog though your walls of text... I'm half tempted to propose you be blocked just so that the rest of us could discuss this without it being disrupted by dissertations posted by you! Can one of you please restate what the hell the problem here is, succinctly? Sheesh! (And, by the way, the fact that you feel you have to "sit here and hit refresh" tells me that there probably is a real problem here. Just sayin')
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for the result of the SPI case before investing any further time here. If he's a sock, then that's the end of it. If not, then we can delve into the actual issue. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since 완젬스 seems confident the SPI will come back negative, and SPIs usually take a while, I think it's prudent to try to nip this now rather than attempt to start it up again in the future (whenever the SPI closes, and who ever knows when that will be). Ohms, if you read my initial post, it states the issue and pertinent evidence. 완젬스's defense is rather unclear to me, and I wouldn't try to sum it up anyway since I'm involved. If you take a skim through his large walls of text it should give you an idea. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks to both of you admins. I've been defending myself for 5 hours and have gone through 10 cigarettes, some red bulls, and plenty of tylenol. If equaczion continues posting in my absence, please let me reserve the chance tomorrow afternoon to defend myself. WP:ANI is a very serious threat to my editing privileges, which mean a lot to me--enough to endure all the consequences to my shameful mistakes and to hopefully grow from this prolonged, embarrassing shakedown. Cordially, 완젬스 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And so these men at ANI,
dispute it loud and long,
and seven weeks have gone by
since I saw this was going wrong

there will be no satisfaction
if you take a drastic action
a little patience and a gentle tone
will show they're learning on their own

the little club I have reviewed,
and can I see the situation,
that the project would be improved
if you gave out invitation

peace and harmony will elude
if we focus on right and wrong
instead of working to include
and we all learn to get along
Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude. If you're really that stressed out about this, you might want to take a break and do something else for a few days. Or, do some things on this list. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, no kidding. The one thing that's really clear to me here is that this guy needs to relax. Geez. That, and a general cluelessness (which can't be helped by anything but time and experience, but it does provide some insight into possible behavior issues).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely dissuaded by this victim act, but I'll let everyone judge for themselves. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mean "persuaded" not "dissuaded". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

...as in dissuaded from my assertions/recommendation :) Equazcion ^(talk) 03:38, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if he's not socking then he should relax and not worry about it. Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sock or not, I think a topic ban is in order as his behavior has been problematic, and indicative of either COI or a false-flag operation. After I brought this up, another user thought this might be part of a larger socking scheme -- maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but either way, the issue that brought this here still stands. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Just say to yourself, "it's just Wikipedia - I should really just relax". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Relaxing is a good idea that is for certain. The other bleeding obvious idea is that if someone is willing to talk things out that we give them a chance to do so in the appropriate less stressful venue. I will tell you right now the problem is not just one editor, BULLSHIT.

The pursuit of 'someone to blame' is going to cause more problems. If you single out one editor and miss out chastising anyone who had a part, it is going encourage the editors who got away with it to do it all over again. These editors are best left with some guidance and the opportunity to learn how to deal with the problems presented. The group needs someone to keep an eye on them, and I do not mean lurkers. They respond very well to being asked what the problems are, and working through them, I did so before, and it worked well, but I have been distracted and lost interest. Anyone who wants to fix this can just goto the article talkpage and ask, but it would be a LOT BETTER if the brand new wikiproject was to INVITE people to join, where are your invites guys ? is it a private club ? Then the discussion can be held in the clubhouse. RELAX, Relax, relax. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes I do know my poetry is crap and you're welcome to say so. Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand? There's loads of discussion on the talk page, where it's become clear that the user here (no clue how to pronounce a bunch of Korean(?) characters) is either working for OWS and is seeking to "clean up" their articles by removing negative things, or is intentionally trying to portray the OWS movement in a negative light by misbehaving.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Their username more or less translates to "Wan James" Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap seems to be lumping this in with general conflicts that have arisen at the OWS articles. If he takes a closer look at this user though, I think he'll realize that this is a separate and more pressing issue apart from the usual content tiffs that occur there. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:29, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You pronounce it '완젬스', it's easy 완젬스, 완젬스, 완젬스 ! see ? :) I see pressing issues that there is an editor who is RESPONSIVE and open to learning, if he's not warring, then other editors should learn to either realize that editing is what happens on wikipedia, and if they can't discuss things amongst themselves then maybe they need a little guidance, that's all. It's kind of rare to see any editor with no particular slant on their editing, if that editor is discussing things, sweet, if editors all fail to articulate, then that's all editors, not just one. _{(feel free to smack me ohms law)}Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're completely missing the issue here. We're not discussing edit warring, but rather a conflict of interest problem. This editor seems incapable of editing in a neutral manner. The problem has been discussed extensively, and the user seems unwilling and/or unable to fit his interest in the subject into an ability to edit neutrally. That being the case, a topic ban has been proposed, which seems reasonable to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing the issue, I am seeing two more issues. I agree 100% there is COI. But I disagree at the moment 완젬스 is incapable of learning. I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight. I'm kind of medium at it and there are surely editors better at it than me. Teaching them how to sort the useful contributions and mold the bad ones is worth it in the long run, it's a lot less work, and better quality for the articles as well. He seems agreeable and apologetic when he's corrected, just a bit of guidance for all of the editors on how to cope without intervention is needed. Penyulap ☏ 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, they could cut their workload by 50% by leaving one side of the issue up to this editor and just filtering out what he brings them, in the comfortable knowledge he's keeping close track of everything. Going a block and sock is having a lopsided article possibly, and then you have to work out who is a sock and who is a natural newbie who addresses the same issues. Just keep him/them all in one account and filter it as it goes along, how is this not the easy path ? just add 완젬스 to their watched list and the day's work is done. Penyulap ☏ 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... okay, you really don't understand this. Adding this user "to (my) watchlist" is pointless. We don't let one editor have "one side of the issue." And most commonly, telling someone to "keep in one account" often fails miserably. I'm also worried that you say: "I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight." That indicates you only see the problem coming from everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see I failed to express myself properly. I don't mean you, I mean someone who wants to take an interest. There are 3 or 4 editors who are dealing with 완젬스, but they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire, but are asking for the fire to be shoveled outside wikipedia's door, where it'll keep burning, and all the smocks will come back inside. It's easy to help 완젬스 to fit in better because he fully engages in conversation. But I see too many editors want to play survivor. So dump community and just vote him off the island. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this suggestion properly, it's ridiculous. This is not an American court of law, where "justice" is imagined to be found by having each side present their own biased case, allowing the jury or judge to accept one or the other or, occasionally, hew a road down the middle. All Wikipedia editors are expected to contribute here in a non-biased way by providing material supported by proper reliable sources. We don't let one editor take one side of an issue and other editors take the other side and let them battle it out. If the fellow with Korean name that's unpronounceable to an English-speaking editor cannot edit within basic policy, then he shouldn't be allowed to edit. Period. We have nothting to gain by allowing him to frolic here in support of his own political beliefs. And that's the case for every editor for whom a POV is more important that building a reliable and neutral encycylopedia. Get rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think where the misunderstanding is, is that every person not just every editor has a different point of view, this is fundamental to the laws of the universe. What non-biased is on wiki is a question of how far from your own point of view someone else is, or how far from one group of people another is. The lines that are drawn are just as elastic as the underlying laws of the universe they are written on, the wik has no clear definition or measure for bias. That is all fine, because you have to be practical and make generalization, I'm saying that having the skill to cope with differences in a civilized manner measures the success of wikipedia. If people just say 'I do not need to work on my conversation skills, I can simply turn my back and plug my ears' then the scope of the project narrows because people don't practice the skills required to make wikipedia work. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we understand you feel that way. What you're not getting is that, at some point, a user becomes disruptive enough it is no longer worth the time to keep arguing with them. And your childish comments about plugging our ears are really not helping you here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify who is 'we'. Penyulap ☏ 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Little note, a community ban is not what's being proposed; just a topic ban from the stuff he has a COI/etc with. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this user has repeatedly been asked to quit discussing his personal association to OWS and going even further than thay by suggesting that all the other "good" editors are in agreement with him. I too believe that a topic ban would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you're still not getting it. I knew you meant "anyone who takes an interest," but watchlisting someone's user page is useless. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they're editing. Further, you still don't understand the situation: this user "fully engages in conversation," then does whatever he wants anyway. That's not something that can be fixed with a gentle talking-to, because that's what people have been doing, to no effect. Also, you keep insulting the other people in this situation ("they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire"). That is getting quite old, and you need to stop doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Penyulap, who are these "inexperienced" editors who've been trying to engage? Amadscientist, who's been on Wikipedia several years longer than you have? TheArtistAKA, Racingstripes or Becritical, who've been on Wikipedia two years longer than you have? Honestly, even if "I'm-more-experienced-than-thou" ever did work on Wikipedia, it's not a challenge that someone who registered a year ago can credibly pull off. Ravenswing 00:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I don't quite agree with "you still don't understand the situation" or the above comment, this issue is not 'just another generic ANI issue passing by that penyulap comments on' I've been contributing to that talkpage for close to 5 months with dozens of edits, so Ravenswing, when you look past my registration time and look at the actual topic of discussion here which is the ows, you are saying therefore, that I've been part of that conversation for a third or maybe half of my time on wikipedia, and somehow don't know what I am talking about, doesn't sound the same when you look at it that way now does it. Penyulap ☏ 14:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. You don't get it. That's obvious by your comments above. It's also starting to wear out my WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Penyulap, I did notice that you have fewer articlespace edits than talk page edits; for my part, I'd rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about it. But that being said, how could you possibly have construed my statement to mean that you don't know anything about that particular conversation? I was talking about *your* claims that other editors - who had been on Wikipedia far longer than you, and several of which have far more edits than you - are too "inexperienced" to handle the situation. Would you like to respond to what I actually did say, rather than what you wanted me to have said? Ravenswing 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban from Occupy Wall Street and related articles, broadly construed. I'm 99% positive he's a conservative (or at least anti-OWS) troll, but regardless of whether he is or isn't, his editing patterns are unacceptably disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This page written by him makes it obvious he's a troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were able to read that, you're a better man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Whether an anti-OWS troll or a pro-OWS editor is irrelevant, since in either case the user is not editing with a WP:NPOV. Also, I'd like to point out that several other support !votes are scattered through the previous discussion and should be taken into account. (Equazcion, who proposed it, Ohms law, DarthBotto, Gandydancer and Kevin Gorman just above this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do not support topic ban (YET) Just an FYI, the editor 완젬스 has stayed within Wikipedia policy in regards to stating a conflict of interest and their intention to refrain from editing the section in question. I believed it would have been best (and suggested at the time or close to it) that he not edit the article at all and this is part of the reason. Conflict of interest means not doing anything self serving. It is THE TOP Project OWS guideline and was written expressly because of the many editors who edit articles with an Occupy related title and who are closely related to the subject. I think what may be happening should not be taken for anything more than what it appears as 완젬스 has been editing at Wikipedia long enough to not be considered an operative to make OWS look bad....if this were true all COI claims go out the window. It becomes a witch hunt in my opinion for, what could well be one faction of a politcal protest, warring over how to define the national and worldwide definitions of OWS. I believe the person who made the suggestion to topic ban to be difficult to collaborate with and who seems less than willing to really discuss content disputes without making claims of behavior problems and accusations such as tag teaming.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• With an editor making posts like this one I have no idea how he can productively edit in this topic area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There are more examples of that kind of blatant COI revelation in the article talkpage archives and various user talkpages going back to Fall 2011. I don't have time to dig through them now but if anyone else is so inclined, I suggest starting with User:완젬스's talkpage history from its beginning. I have not seen him become any more "responsive" or able to learn from others, as Penyulap claims above. (By the way, apparently the name is transliterated as Wanjemseu according to a regular editor at the OWS article). El duderino ^(abides) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't got a clue what that was about but have my thoughts.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this user under this username. I recommended to him that he should leave for a while, get another username, and come back as an editor who is there to promote NPOV, not to promote OWS. This user has a lot to offer, if he can do it within the WP framework. He said he was going to leave, then come back with another username and do it differently. I think that he should be banned but allowed to come back with another username. If he can do that and act differently, then he will be good for the encyclopedia. Continuing to be promotional and not doing as he said, however, does merit a topic ban. So I would topic ban him but allow a return if he feels he can reform. If he is an anti-OWS troll, he is doing a mighty good job of it. He is totally convincing in his wiki-clueless oh-gosh promotionalism. B^e——C_ritical 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3 month topic ban per BMK, Kevin Gorman and others above; no prejudice against a return and no prejudice against a quick reinstatement of the ban if the problems continue. SÆdon^talk 07:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support (short-term) topic ban: Either the editor genuinely believes in the OWS cause, in which case he's a hardcore POV warrior and doesn't need to be involved in these articles, or he's a agent provocateur trolling his merry way through the field, in which case he doesn't need to be involved in these articles. Let's let him spend a month or two convincing people that he can edit calmly, reasonably and in accordance with policies and guidelines, and revisit the issue then. Ravenswing 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - When the subject said "Everyone thinks Jews run wall street..." that was the give away to me. --Mollskman (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I love ANI. Penyulap ☏

• Comment Does someone want to close this thing? I think we have a consensus. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:00, 25 Apr 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.

Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 ([[User talk:== Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink ==

Bare with me this is the first time I've done this. I'll have to leave within twenty minutes. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)|talk]]) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've less than five minutes. I'll attempt to notify Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is any admin action required here?--ukexpat (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes. A 6-month (minimum) block of 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) for 3RR at Planetary boundaries, and authority to block, even by involved admins, the obvious clones when they reappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A few of the clones can be found at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little disturbed by the edit warring to remove the link, even though it is the correct interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. Where are the attempts to start a discussion? Monty₈₄₅ 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There was some discussion of the IP-hopping editor's overlinking on that talk page, dating back to last year. Antartica is just his newest selection for overlinking. And that's just this article. I suppose I'll have to bring it up on AN3, noting that this particular war is stopped by (temporary) edit protection, and he apparently hasn't edit-warred to insert the specific link he was blocked for in February since his unblock (although his clones did reinsert it during the block). As I and others have said before, the only solution is permanent semi-protection of all articles loosely connected to climate change, or immediate block on clone detection (for admins, even involved admins) and our considering him banned. He edit-warred using other IPs for at least the first two weeks of his block, and probably for the entire length of his block.

There had been attempts to discuss his overlinking as far back as 2009; recently, he's been mechanically claiming WP:AUDIENCE whenever one of his overlinks is reverted. There had been attempts to discuss his other absurd edits, including inserting global warming whenever climate change appears, his addition of links on talk pages saying something like "this looks helpful" (especially when it is totally unreliable and has nothing to do with the subject of the article, although it resembles the title of the article -- when questioned, he says it looks helpful on another article, then, when ignored, he acts on it in that article); adding REDLINKS of books to article on the author; wikilinking with quotes (and now, when he realizes that it's inappropriate, adding the link to the "See also" section, even though the link clearly has absolutely nothing to do with the concept expressed by the author); etc. I think something needs to be done here, although user bans are usually discussed at AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Michigan troll(s), for a recent discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur...any ban evaders in Michigan you can think of? When you trace the IP's, do they all come up from Kalamazoo?--MONGO 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The static 97. is from the Kalamazoo Library. Some of the recent 99.*s have been SBC internet connections in Wyoming and Hudsonville, in the Grand Rapids area. Still nearby, and it's possible that the home system is accessible remotely, and that, when you drop an IP, SBC assigns one "near-by". My home IP has geolocated the to California cities Brea, Fullerton, Anaheim, Costa Mesa (about 15 miles south), and Covina (about 15 miles north). I haven't moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, since this issue seems to come up fairly often on the noticeboards, you may want to consider dropping a link to a centralized page (either an archive or something in your userspace that explains the situation) in your edit summaries when you revert so that people unfamiliar with the situation who just see your reverts can get up to speed. 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree...Arthur, creating a page in your userspace with links to this discussion and the one earlier and link to that upon revert...why not see if checkuser can ID the master?--MONGO 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that there is no logged in editor who is a master; if there is someone who they frequently send a WP:TEA to, that might be a candidate, as they show no signs of understanding what they are doing. As for a link, it is tempting, but sometimes I want to give a specific reason for the revert, as well. What do you suggest? An edit reason like:

• WP:MICHIGAN TROLL; per WP:OVERLINK, WP:EGG, and just wrong ....

If I use Twinkle/revert, it would then appear as

• reverting 3 edits by 99.99.99.99 (talk · contribs); WP:MICHIGAN TROLL: per WP:OVERLINK, WP:EGG, and just wrong

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it makes more sense than his using WP:DIVA, WP:Audience, WP:VIP, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, if you want to link to a report in your edit summaries, consider making an entry for this editor in WP:Long-term abuse. Then you could link to something like WP:Long-term abuse/Michigan IP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dehr

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.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Dehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dehr (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

indefinite block; Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Administrator imposing the sanction

Timotheus_Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[9]

Statement by Dehr

• The accusation of “blatant bad faith” seems to be way too emotional and indefinite block is way too harsh and suspiciously quick. I have rviewed AA2 discretionary sanctions log [10] and found that no one ever has been indefinitely banned so suddenly and hastily. T.Canens used a strange edit summary "You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits" [11]. My block is unprecedented across the AA area and WP in general.
• There is no direct proof that I was acting in bad faith or that I was trying to game the system, as alleged by T.Canens. I never used the acquired 500+ edit count to my advantage and never implied that I was going to, i.e. I never showcased that fact, and I never used it on talk pages to influence discussion or influence conduct of other users. I regret that I mimicked User:Winterbliss (the other user blocked simultaneously). I was sure User:Winterbliss was a more knowledgeable and senior user, and I thought it was ok to acquire the 500 edit counts the way he did. I created an entirely new article called Ghaibalishen Massacre and hoped that the benefit of building a new article from scratch would offset any possible controversies arising from the method I was editing that article. Now I realize that it was a mistake but I could not know before the fact that it was. I regret that but it was an honest mistake as I naively copied the behavior of a more experienced user, Winterbliss.
• The restriction imposed on the Nagorno-Karabakh article does not specify what method of acquiring new edits is good faith and what can be viewed as bad faith. This is bound to confuse less experienced editors like me, now and in the future. Generally, the article-wide sanctions for Nagorno-Karabakh are confusingly worded, see [12].
• I was given NO opportunity to explain my actions in AE report hastily filed by User:Grandmaster [13]. The decision by T.Canens was too quick to be seen as balanced and reasonable. Several old users already expressed their surprise [14]. However, I want to stress, I don’t think T.Canens has a bias against me – he is, like many administrators, possibly too busy and angry because his hard work does not earn enough recognition. I am appealing to his good side and hope it will help.
• I have a good record of editing. I was never before sanctioned for any misconduct (edit warring, sockpuppetry, or anything else). I always used talk pages to explain my position in editing, and I was always complying with WP regulations on civility, AGF, etc. The block was imposed for “Disruptive editing” but there is no evidence per WP:DISRUPT that I was disruptive. Please see WP:DISRUPT where it is also mentioned that “An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.” This was sufficient in some previous cases to get users unblocked instantly but my conduct is more WP-compliant than the "accidental - (good faith) - disruptiveness" mentioned in that sentence.
• Per reviewing Armenia-Azerbaijan “Log on Blocs and Bans” I could not but noticed that only Armenian-side users are blocked indefinitely while Azerbaijani users have never been indefinitely blocked although their they behave more poorly than their Armenian counterparts [15]. Reason?
• I cannot access T.Canens directly. Please alert T.Canens if you see this request.

Statement by Timotheus Canens

To the extent that this appeal is directed to me, I decline it. To the extent that it is directed to the community, I recommend that the appeal be declined as well.

Previous AE cases have established that editors who had extensive participation at AE may be deemed constructively warned of the relevant discretionary sanctions. In this case, Dehr has participated extensively in the discussion that resulted in the editing restriction that he attempted to game.

Moreover, this kind of blatant disruptive gaming more than justifies an indefinite block even without the discretionary sanctions. It should have been blindingly obvious to any reasonable editor that evading the spirit of a restriction by making hundreds of edits, each adding a single word, is simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dehr

• Per Boing!, carrying on the fight in the unblock request isn't a very promising sign. I don't have a sysop bit to see what Blade is commenting on in the deleted page, but generally trust his judgment. Given that, plus an attempt to carry on an ethnic fight in the unblock request, I see no reason to overturn this.I also moved discussion from the 'results' section below to this section, because it seems like it's where it should be. feel free to rv if I'm wrong.Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would some of the above editors please explain to me in what way the content edits made by Dehr were "disruptive" to Wikipedia? A proper answer please. Are your servers so full that the extra space to record the history of Dehr's one or two word edits would break Wikipedia? Was there something wrong with actual content being added? There are no Wikipedia rules that individual edits can't be less than a couple of words, and there is no mention in the restriction that was used to block Dehl that the 500+ edit threshhold had to be reached in a specific way. So Dehl had every right to try and avoid the restriction using the course of action he chose. It seems to me that the restriction under which Dehr was blocked was created specifically to block Dehr, and this restriction was created because no existing method could be used to block Dehr. So, if there has been a "gaming of the system", it was done by administrators who have invented a one-off restriction that was created to block one particular editor. Meowy 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The restriction has been in place since October of last year: Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions. So, no, it was not created "just for Dehr." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong - the restriction was only created on April 7th: "Nagorno-Karabakh is placed on 1RR per day restriction for all accounts under 500 edits". Here is the dicussion about it: [16]. That was the restriction that T. Canens, by assuming bad faith, claimed Dehl was trying to avoid. I say "by assuming bad faith" because Dehl never actually made any reverts to the Nagorno-Karabakh article after the 500+ edit restriction was introduced (even though he had reached, by making those large number of little edits to other articles, the 500+ edit requirement that would have allowed him to do so). If Dehl had made reverts, then the case for a block would have been arguable, but because he never tried to I don't see under what reason he was blocked at all (beyond the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason). An editor can't be blocked just because of a suspicion that he might do something that is a blockable offense - the blockable offense has to be actually committed! There is nothing wrong with the Ghaibalishen Massacre article that Dehl created, and no editing rules were broken during its creation. Meowy 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions give admins broad ability to block for disruptive activity. So, yes, it's been in place since October. The additional "500 edit" restriction is just a more narrow instance of "what is disruption," and Dehl's specific actions are clearly WP:GAMEy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet the disruption for which he was indefed occurred outside the area covered by discretionary sanctions didn't it? Monty₈₄₅ 22:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they were certainly under that. Per the ArbCom decision cited above:

"Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions."

Unless you're arguing that Ghaibalishen Massacre had nothing to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan, it certainly falls under sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No your right. I was mistaken. Monty₈₄₅ 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It can be easy to miss with all the various things flying back and forth in the A-A disputes. That's why I normally don't comment. As below, it's not worth banging your head over. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the "using AA2, admins can do whatever they want" reason. Which brings me back to the question that I asked and that remains unanswered. Tell me in what way the edits made by Dehr were disruptive to Wikipedia? Meowy 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That has been explained above. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I note how comments that initially appeared under "discussion" were later moved to "result" - pretty strong evidence, I think, that there was never any intent to have a real discussion, only an intent to end at a predetermined result (the "admins are always right" result). BTW2, re Jayron32's comment in results, someone is getting ahead of themselves! When this article-specific 500+ edits edit restriction was being discussed I predicted that soon it would be 500+ of a specific length (that prediction is now true), and then more than 1000+ edits and then the edit restriction would be on more than one article, maybe 10 or 20 to start with, then 1000, then 10,000, then hundreds of thousands of articles. Jaron32 - you've gone straight to the millions of articles! Meowy 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, there's the "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit. ಠ_ಠ I think I'm done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy? You are the bullshitter. You say any old bull rather than address my points. Meowy 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Dehr

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I don't find the warning required by WP:ARBAA2#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Looks like the word-by-word edits have been deleted, so they can't be used to "game" anything now. Unless there is evidence of socking or other disruption, inclined to overturn. Awaiting response,. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea how [17] could be considered anything other than blatantly disruptive gaming. No experienced editor could have done that in good faith, and I'd have indeffed even if the article wasn't under discretionary sanctions. We're allowed to block for clear disruption if it's incredibly obvious, even if we haven't gone through all the motions. I'm inclined to agree with the sanction given here, and I'd suggest Dehr wait at least few months before appealing again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  @Meowy; you're pushing your luck. I'm very close to blocking you for casting aspersions about other editors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blatantly disruptive gaming, accusations of bad faith in the unblock request, claims that only one side of the dispute gets blocked -- no unblock needed at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clear WP:NOTTHEM activity in the request tops off the issues raised by Blade and Sarek. No need to unblock until such a point as the editor has had sufficient time to reconsider their own behaviour in the past, and as they someday move forward (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, carrying on the "Armenians vs Azerbaijanis" fight here in the unblock request? I guess it's better than in real life with guns and sticks, but it's not the way to get unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  @Meowy; The restriction described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113#Winterbliss is quoted as "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Dehr created the article Ghaibalishen Massacre and made hundreds of very small edits to it, building the article one word at a time, to get his edit count up to the 500. In my opinion that's clear bad faith and blatantly gaming the system. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Meowy; My view is that the one-word-at-a-time creation of Ghaibalishen Massacre on April 11 (which was after the restriction was imposed) was blatant gaming of the system to get out from under the restriction, even if Dehr did not go on to break 1RR on Nagorno-Karabakh. That alone, in my view, shows a bad faith approach to collegial editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly a justified block per WP:GAME. It would be better if the restriction were expanded to indefinite 1RR for all editors, as all ethnic conflict areas should be. Regardless, however, this was a clear and blatant attempt to bypass the restrictions. --Jayron32 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: There has been some confusion about where comments should go, with comments being moved back and forth between the "Discussion among uninvolved editors" section and the "Result" section. Not only has this been seized upon by a conspiracy theorist as evidence of bad faith, but, more seriously, it has resulted in disjointing the discussion, with responses to comments being detached from those comments, and a reference to "the above editors" when the comments in question were below. I suggest that the best way to use these sections is for all discussion, whether by adminisrtaors or not, to go in the "discussion" section, and the "result" section to be used only for concluding the discussion.

To remove an arbitration enforcement block after a community discussion requires "a clear, substantial, and active consensus" to do so. We clearly do not have anything like that. In fact we have a substantial consensus against unblocking. Not only is there a substantial numerical preponderance of editors argung against unblocking, but the couple of dissenting opinions do not argue within the framework of Wikipedia polices. (Gimmetoo argues for a procedural unblock because of the lack of a warning about the sanction. However, that is missing the point. The purpose of such a warning is to make sure that nobody is blocked for breaching a restriction that they were not aware of, but Dehr was clearly fully aware of it. (Even without looking at the history of the case, that is clear from Dehr's statement above.) There are various ways of ensuring that someone has been warned of something, and while placing a message on their user page is a useful way of doing so, if the same effect has been achieved by other means then we don't need to go through a pointless formality. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia to think that we interpret policies, guidelines, and editing restrictions as strict rules in the way a court of law does. If the person clearly knows about the restriction, then no further warning is needed. Looking at Meowy's dissenting opinion, if we ignore the irrelevancies such as the "all administrators are part of an evil conspiracy" nonsense, the essential content is that Dehr never actually used his 500 edit count to breach the sanction. However, that again is missing the point: it is perfectly clear that the purpose of the absurd way of editing was to accumulate the 500 edit total (Dehr even admits as much above), and the only conceivable purpose of that was the intention of breaching the sanction: what else is special about 500 edits? Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and if an editor makes it so blatantly clear that he/she is making preparations for a breach of sanctions then that is abundant reason for a block. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia's polices to think that we work by applying some sort of exact rules, such as "you can be blocked for breaching the exact letter of this sanction, but not for going against the spirit of it, or evidently making preparations to do so".) In view of the consensus against unblocking (note that the absence of a consensus for blocking would have been sufficient) I am closing this discussion, and will decline the unblock request. Thanks to all who have taken part. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 25 April 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:ElliotJoyce

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.

---

ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on at least three articles that I am aware of. He was reported to WP:ANEW sixteen hours ago, but the report has not been acted upon. He has now made six reverts at African slave trade. Will somebody act on the ANEW report? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The 6 reverts do not go to the same content, and as far as reverting the edits of Ackees goes, this individual has consistently changed information on various articles in Wikipedia that either contradict the source or are POV. For example, please observe his edits on the African Slave Trade page, where he directly contradicted the sourced material several times in effort to insert his own content in the article. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — WP:3RR -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the user for 48 hours. The edit warring with multiple editors involved is quite clear from the edit history, and i cannot fail to notice wikihounding due to the sudden revent spree of Ackees edits on pages the user has never edited before. Also, comments such as this and this don't exactly inspire confidence either. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:17, 24 April 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.

Pakistan Premier League T20 and User:NHPak

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.

---

NHPak (talk · contribs), no doubt the same person as 39.54.35.26 (talk · contribs), has been removing sourced information from the above article and replacing it with inadequately sourced material despite warnings. It's gone on long enough and somebody should probably block the account and IP. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, account blocked indefinitely and IP blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 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:Hurz4711 conflict of interest

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:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly a tantrum, and as described. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
• How about evaluating these prods on the merits? Is it not possible that this new user has now become aware of WP policies because of their recent experiences? I took a look and Hurz4711 may have a point. Here is the list of articles in question: VirtueMart; osCMax; Interchange (software); Bots (edi); Batavi (software); Ubercart; and Arcavias.WTucker (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis, although I had added a notice on his page - see this diff. The duplicate has since been removed by another editor. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be what you're looking for. I'm not saying tagging those articles was wrong, but sometimes one subject will cut the mustard, while another will not. We still have articles slip through the cracks at times, but that's what CSD, PRODs, and AfDs are for. I'm not saying you were right or wrong with the PRODs, but once an editor removes the PROD tag you can't PROD it again. If you believe those articles don't stand up to policy, then WP:AFD is your next step. Ishdarian 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, no on is saying that Hurz4711 adding the PRODs the first time was against a policy, but considering the totality of circumstances, reviewing mass PRODing here at ANI was the right thing to do, as it did look a little unusual. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like some clarity on a way forward here. Whether the other ecommerce applications are notable or not is another story, but I feel that adding seven deletion requests simultaneously as a response to one's own being deleted is unreasonable. The topic has relatively low activity and it's likely all seven are not going to be watched closely and some may be needlessly deleted as a result of this. I'd prefer to work with User:Hurz4711 on their new article to see whether it is notable (it's still hasn't reached version 1.0, so likely not, but may be in the future), or on one at a time of the other articles to see whether they can be salvaged, rather than have to deal with seven simultaneous notices. Some of the other articles may be able to be improved, some may end up being deleted, but this doesn't seem a good faith attempt to deal with the issue. The user's aggressive tone and defensiveness indicate to me that they haven't really had an epiphany. Is there consensus that I go ahead and remove the seven requests again? Greenman (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, behind the times, TP has removed as discussed above, thanks for the clarification. Greenman (talk) 00:01, 24 April 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.

WholesaleChinajerseys

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.

---

• WholesaleChinajerseys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This blocked user spammed on its talk page. Please consider revoking his/her talk page access. Mathonius (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 25 April 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.

Bobthebuilder1412 account being used just to make patently undeserving pages

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.

---

• Bobthebuilder1412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a kid just making pages about his buddies (e.g. First page was about his 15 year old friend who is a Nazi; it has already been deleted.) JoelWhy (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already been blocked.JoelWhy (talk) 14:20, 25 April 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.

Masculinism

Hi everyone. We've had a situation recently with a dynamic IP who is editing the masculism article. I'm sort of at a loss of what to do. This person recently posted the following attacking talk page comment: [18] and while I'm ok with them removing uncited content, they are extremely aggressive in their nature. The anon who has edited the article for the past day or so is easily seen here on the history [19] and has also been warned about edit warring, personal attacks, etc. I really don't want to see this turns into another Men's rights drama, regardless of anyone's political or social beliefs. Help would be deeply appreciated, as I have no clue what to do. Thank you. Sarah (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The dynamic IP is also substantially above WP:3rr - I just hadn't reported for that as I figured that a rangeblock would be more effort than it's worth. A couple of the changes they were making were worthwhile, but most of them weren't - and they were doing stuff like citing UrbanDictionary Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning for edit warring. If they carry on, blocking is in order. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been pointed out already, the topic of masculism may fall under the Men's rights article probation enacted by the community last year. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all the IP users are the same, since they are all using the same ISP in austria. I agree with Fluff that it pretty clearly falls under the previous article probation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been a long running issue with anon IPs from Australia engaging in this kind of disruption in this topic area. I share Kevin's POV that these ducks quack and would suggest denying recognition and following revert, block, ignore--Cailil ^talk 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

World Tomorrow (again)

I've been accused of being a "blatant sock puppetry for Julian Assange and Wikeaks supporter" [20]. I originaly reverted it as being "disruptive and incorrect claims" [21]; but after thinking about the recent history on these articles, decided that I should mention it here for further review of my actions.

This is related to my reversion and page protection of both World Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is also likely related to the issues from a week ago that can be found at ANI archive#747 "Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs" (and the sub-thread in that archive titled ANI archive#747 "Legal threat over World Tomorrow"). For the record, I have never knowingly met, communicated with, nor have I been employed by Julian Assange, his associates, nor any of his organizations or business ventures. I have also never even watched the World Tomorrow program. My actions on Wikipedia were strictly related to the unsourced changes and the disruptive sockpuppetry of multiple IPs restoring those changes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It just looks like random IP trolling. You did fine by reverting, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a random troll, it's someone related to The World Tomorrow (1934) who's angry that the Assange program has usurped the primary target on the disambig page. They contacted me on my Talk page - see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#The World Tomorrow. But yes, I agree that revert and protect was the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant, but apparently did not convey. Pissed off IPs accusing an editor of being a "shill" is nothing new, and rightly ignored. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Need admin to block vandal

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

 – Blocked by Tnxman307. Monty₈₄₅ 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

96.250.18.251 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 25 April 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.

Disruptive edits by IP 216.255.168.47

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.

---

IP-user 216.255.168.47 repeatedly edits articles to change the order in which consoles appear. It's generally agreed upon that consoles are listed in alphabetical order, however this user insists that the Xbox 360 should be listed first. These edits are generally disruptive. Here's a list of just a couple of his edits on the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier-page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Clancy%27s_Ghost_Recon:_Future_Soldier&oldid=489192048
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Clancy%27s_Ghost_Recon:_Future_Soldier&oldid=487037957
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Clancy%27s_Ghost_Recon:_Future_Soldier&oldid=485725709

There are a lot more of these edits. In fact, this user has already been blocked from editing twice. One of those times for this exact same reason.

I've already warned this user four times, but to no avail. This is why I am requesting an administrator to take a look and help resolve this dispute. Rudiculous (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

adding...IP does nothing but disrupt, as apparent on their talkpage. Otherwise I would have tried something else (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 25 April 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:ONEDHARMA

ONEDHARMA (talk · contribs) is continuing their disruptive editing that they were blocked for previously. They are mass-posting the same thing across all these forums and it's getting cumbersome. Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• They were blocked for harassment, not for inserting swaths of text. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think posting that stuff repeatedly on user talk pages counts as disruption; it's obvious that User:Sikh-history and the above user don't want it. I've given this user a final/only warning, but I think I know where this is headed. There's also 2.127.2.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to reckon with. Someone knowledgeable please look at Sanatan Singh Sabha. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  The IP is likely the same editor as ONEDHARMA. There were occurences of edit warring on some pages as well. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Shared IP being disruptive and writing vile edit summaries.

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.

---

Would it be possible for someone to look into this shared IP account, User talk:89.100.207.51. Following some rather obscure reversions on article Eurovision Song Contest 1969, in which the IP is altering a translation of the Monegasque song "maman, maman", despite prior agreement between the project about the reliable sources showing what the translation of the song should be. Also is it acceptable for the IP to refer to myself as an "impudent shit" in their edit summary?

Thank you in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 21:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How were my edits obscure? The "reliable source" you directed me to wasn't referenced on the page so I couldn't possibly have known about it. When I checked it out, all I found was a self-published fan site. I could find no discussion on the talk page which would have lead to the consensus you're talking about. If you don't want to be referred to as an impudent shit, you shouldn't have referred to me as a vandal and called my edits disruptive and deliberately factually incorrect when I was clearly acting in good faith. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now the IP is posting bizarre warnings on my own talk page... what on Earth? Wesley☀Mouse 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How is that a bizarre warning? You posted a vandalism warning to my page when I clearly wasn't vandalising, so I posted a warning to your page about your inappropriate use of warnings. Not at all bizarre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the entire history yet, but the IP is right on the latter point: there is nothing bizarre about that template. It might be incorrect, but it is certainly not bizarre. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Right. However, Wesley Mouse is also correct that being called an "impudent shit" is a personal attack. 89, even if you feel insulted, you do not get to retaliate like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Calling someone a vandal is also a personal attack. In fact it is worse than what I retorted with, as it implies that I'm here to damage the project89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter whose was "worse." Retaliation is not the way to go. That said, you've both had your slap on the wrist. Take it to the article Talk page and see if you can work out the edit. If not, WP:DR is the way to go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, the warning issued was from TW, and under the heading "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors" - there is no mention of vandalism in that heading, so that may be something technical that needs to be reviewed separately. As for the reliable sources I directed you to, it is clearly listed on the list of references shown at the bottom of the article, as Reference number 3. As for the project consensus to use the website Diggiloo Thrush, for the sake of translation of song titles, can be found in the archives of the project page WT:ESC and also in a very lengthy discussion on the ESC 2012 talk page. But to call someone an "impudent shit" is still unacceptable regardless. Wesley☀Mouse 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference 3 is listed in line as referring to the language a song was recorded in, not to translations. I can find no such discussion in the archives of WT:ESC. The discussion on the ESC 2012 talk page only talks about using that site for listing the names of languages, not for translation. Further, it's simply a conversation between yourself and 'one' other editor- hardly project consensus. Calling someone a vandal is still unacceptable regardless. 89.100.207.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

• Reference 3 is on the language column yes, although logically it is a site for song lyrics, and should really be reflinked to song columns too - something which I will look into correcting in due course. As for the conversation at ESC 2012 talk page which you say only 2 people took part, forgive me for being pedantic but I counted 10 users (both IP and registered) who took part in the entire discussion that lead up to the Diggiloo Thrush decision which was primarily about languages, but was also pointed out to myself at the time that as it is also a lyrics site, that their "English translation" for foreign songs, would be appropriate to use, rather than using translation services, which are not always the best of technology to use in any circumstances. Wesley☀Mouse 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, that's nonsense. You gave them a level-3 warning: all those warnings are for vandalism. Moreover, the change made by the IP can in no way be construed as "deliberately introducing factual errors" unless you're a mind reader, which you aren't. Mouse, the "deliberate" part means "vandalism". If you don't know what the warnings mean you shouldn't use them, and why you'd start off with a level-3 warning instead of a frigging note (with the information you just typed up) is a mystery to me. Sure, they shouldn't have said "shit", but you started with an assumption of bad faith. Methinks you don't like IP editors. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• One more thing--no, two. Wesley Mouse, you mentioned "obscure reversions". There was nothing obscure, and you were the first one to revert. Second, IP, please don't refer to Malik as a liar, please. I know it's old news, but still. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) "Introducing deliberate factual errors" is a direct accusation of vandalism. And that statement is included in the template. You went straight to a Level 3 warning for a simple content dispute. I'd say you've both done things incorrectly. It'd be helpful for each of you to slow down, have some WP:TEA, and discuss the sources on the article talk page. Consider it a learning experience, both of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In response to 89's first comment on this thread, if one looks at the edit history on the article, one would note that the reversion was done in good faith. When it came to posting the automated warning using twinkle, the only warning that resembled the type of edit made, was the one listed down as "Introducing deliberate factual errors". I'm almost certain it was a general notice that I selected, so not sure how it was posted as a final warning. Could that be a technical error that we're not aware of? After the warning was posted, I had noticed the word "vandalize" appear in it, which did strike me as odd, as I never claimed the edits to be an act of vandalism. Which is why, if you also noticed, I posted a secondary comment shortly afterwards. Hope that clears up things in the slightest. Wesley☀Mouse 22:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Drmies, I have nothing against IP's; as they are people after all who prefer to be known as a number rather than a name. In hindsight it does look like the level 3 warning has occurred accidentally, as I rarely issue level 3's. Those things scare the life out of me, so I rather use level 1's most of the time. I'll be a tad more cautious next time, and make sure I don't catch the level 3 option. @The Hand, Erm, I like the WP:TEA suggestion (milk, 1 sugar - thanks). If 89 wishes to discuss the reliable sources issue in more detail, then by all means, I'm open to a fair and civil discussion. Wesley☀Mouse 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • OK, good. All those warnings of level 3 and higher mean "bad faith," by definition, as WP:UWUL makes very clear. I suggest you have a really good look at that page and the main page for that section, WP:WARN. I've said this before but it bears repeating: I get the distinct feeling that IP talk pages get slapped with warning templates all too easily. Use the higher levels but make sure you know what they mean and make sure they're justified. Now, let's move on. The Eurovision 1968 article probably needs copyediting. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Glad to hear it, Mouse. As I said to 89, you've both had your slap on the wrist. Talking out the edit on the article's page would be stellar. If that doesn't work out for some reason, WP:DR is the next step. Oh, and enjoy the tea. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here, here Drmies! I'm all in favour of a bit of bedtime-reading especially reading policies LOL. The thing about online translation services though is that they are not always correct, which is why the project itself tends to use Diggiloo Thrush website, as A) they are listed as notable enough by the European Broadcasting Union (who are the official body for the Song Contest), and B) the website alone covers a multitude of areas on the ESC projects, such as languages, translations - kills two birds with one stone (for choice of a phrase). Oh, and don't even mention the copyediting on ESC 1968, I keep looking at that one and then cringe in horror. Its on my "to-do" list though. Wesley☀Mouse 22:42, 25 April 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 editor, take 489

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.

---

987li (talk · contribs) — Okay, I'm calling WP:COMPETENCE if not outright trolling. So far, since August, this user has.

• Creation of unsourced, OR-laden articles about Friends (e.g. Friends: Season 3 episode 25 - The one with the beach)
• Creation of nonsensical stubs such as Temperature conditions (speedied twice) and Air house

The user got a level 3 "Stop your disruptive editing" warning in September and continued to do the same thing:

• The first one, which was redundant to the article The Pilot (Friends)
• GoAnimate, a spam page deleted four times
• Creation of a policy-violating template, Template:Out-universe
• An RFA after <600 edits
• Converting Mama Luigi from a redirect to a genuine article sourced entirely to IMDb, then nominating said article for GA (which I quick-failed)

After I warned them to slow down and take it easy, they put a help tag on their page and said "I feel that someone hacked my account.. I got on a vacation and haven't been on Wikipedia for a long time but some edits were not made by me, but it says that it was made by User:987li!" That last edit there smacks of outright trolling, since the edit pattern has been pretty consistent from day one and does not seem to be an account hack.

tl;dr: This editor is clearly not here to build a project, just to screw around. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deeply harsh. I'm not sure 987li was actually aware of WP:WAF until I linked to it yesterday during the {{out-universe}} TfD. Unsurprising that he'd want a do-over, and unsurprising that he picked one of the more common lame excuses. This editor needs guided in the right direction rather than his head bitten off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I did NOT post that message. I did not get hacked, I did not go on a vacation so I didn't post that message. I admit that I created all those articles, and I admit that I went to far from a good article to an admin, but I seriously didn't post that message of the hacking thing. I dont know who did, but it wasn't me. If I were really hacked, I would have changed my password, not burst out in tears looking for help, right? you don't have to believe me, but that is what really happened. 987li (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Considering he made an RFA after his first 8 months of screwing around on Wikipedia, I'd say he does need his head bitten off. I'm not an admin so I don't know what that should entail, but one suggestion is, if he's engaging in unconstructive edits or moves, to use each of the increasingly escalating Vandalism Warning templates and then alert an admin to block him when the latter stages are reached. Otherwise, I don't know what the penalty should be for blatant lying, wasting of admins' time, and serial creation of ridiculous articles. Perhaps he should be on some admin's watchdog list, if not outright blocked or banned now. (I vote the latter: ban following this warning if behavior continues to follow this pattern.) Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your belief, there's NO way that any editor should even be suggested to "have their head bitten off" - any behaviour that serves to drive away another editor is unwelcome on this project. Blocking and/or banning is an absolute last solution to anything. If you think otherwise, then go elsewhere. If your own behaviour related to this situation is represenative of other situations, you need to stand down pretty quickly - your assistance has been the exact opposite of what we need around here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what, if you're really going to think that way, go ahead and block me...987li (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The editor has retired a couple of hours ago. In case he should he decide to return, I'll also point to his Commons userpage, which displays the same not-so-good behavior. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

if the average length of "retirement" after placing the banner on the user page was something longer than the 2 hours, that might be worth noting. :-) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:35, 25 April 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.

I've CSDed a lot of the redirects he's created, as a lot of them are fancruft abbreviations and "EP" while rediring to a season article - "FG EP 2" does not go to the second episode of Family Guy, but to the season 2 article), and FG itself is a lengthy dab page in and of itself. That should clean up most of it. MSJapan (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On further inspection, this editor never apparently bothered to learn policy, MOS, or anything else of basic substance. There are a lot of unnecessary capitalization redirs and unneeded dab dirs. WP, being case insensitive in search, will find the correct title irif it exists, and three different redirs to the same page with differences in caps, or things like "United States (country)" are nothing but confusing, and many have already been dealt with via established methods (hatnotes and the like). I've CSDed a bunch more redirs (up to 20+ easily), but it takes time. Can someone simply go through his contribs and nuke the garbage? MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment

AN/I seems recently to have become (if this is possible) even worse than it's been in the past. I'm disheartened to see such an overwhelming lack of attempts to de-escalate in many situations, with an over-abundant amount of Shoot 'em! Ban 'em! Block 'em!

Would it be remotely possible to reduce the amount of aggression in here, just for a while? For everyone who's tempted to leap onto a banhammer bandwagon, in cases where calm, friendly discussion and a bit of understanding would probably work better, to have a nice cool beer or three and not post unless they have constructive, forward-moving, non-damaging options to suggest, instead ;P

Sometimes it seems almost as though we have Clippy-clones in here saying; "It looks like we're recruiting a WikiLynchMob! Would you like some help with that?" Pesky (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot more names in here that follow that attitude, as opposed to:

1. check that it's been attempted to be resolved directly with the editor
2. AGF as far as possible
3. perform the principle of least harm
4. correct/extinct the bad behaviour, increase the good

Anyone who's not doing those should STFU, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since this is a board reserved for situations that have gotten terribly out of hand, I don't see why proposals for blocking/topic-banning are surprising to you. If you disagree with proposed blocks/bans, speak up and offer an alternative solution to the problem. What I do see on ANI lately is people escalating to drama by repeating themselves endlessly when it is of no avail in the situation, and escalating to aggression by name-calling and profanity (even in acronyms). That is aggression; suggesting blocks or topic bans when they are standard Wikipedia procedure for repeated and warned-against misbehavior is not aggression or necessarily bandwagonism, it's just solution-proffering. You are free to proffer your own solution(s). Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This board is for proffering solutions that are based on policy and what is best for the project, not your version (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

When the only tool you are willing to consider using is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Why arent we giving greater consideration to other options in the toolbox?-- The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To repeat: You are free to proffer your own solution(s). (In the interest of non-repetition, I'm not going to repeat myself again.) Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In a community based project it is EVERYONES responsibility to act in a manner that helps rather than hinders the project. the "YOU fix it" attitude is a prime example of shirking individual responsibility to help the community. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to call for admins to take direct action on a problem which requires admin tools. Coming here is asking for the hammer to be used. If you feel it's not necessary to bring down the hammer, provide your argument. Others will provide theirs. That's how this works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• You're the user that linked Data. I love you (and Data). I think that every time a thread gets out of hand, everyone should go watch some Star Trek. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL should I link it again? Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It's applicable to almost every thread on this board. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 09:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Folks: To quote Data: [22]. Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• As Softlavender suggests, on the board of last resort, calls to block/ban are entirely appropriate. Where the problem is is in the wave of people who apparently believe ANI should be the first resort for issues. Ravenswing 12:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For some of the reports, there are cases where all the defendant (for want of a better word) needs is a few words of encouragement and advice. I know in the past that admins have done exactly that, but sometimes I find that having totally uninvolved and neutral editors provide the same service is actually more palatable to them. Despite what we all understand and think, there will always be the thinking of "us (editor plebs)" vs "them (admins)". In the few cases that I've meddled in, I've either learned something new or at least managed to (I hope) provide a peanut gallery voice. Quoting BWilkins, we should take AGF as far as possible (except in obvious cases). Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A person who posts on this board is not necessarily seeking a block/protection/deletion. Sometimes a warning or word of advice or clarification of policy from an uninvolved admin or someone level-headed who has been around for a while can lead to behavioral changes. And quoting Star Trek should be an action of first resort; I would accept that as an axiom. -- Dianna (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a prime directive? Syrthiss (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my temporary absence; I've been at my daughter's wedding! Prime directive - nice one! As has been said (wisely), much of the problem is when people drag someone (with mandatory kicking and screaming) directly to AN/I, when there are (in many cases) almost certainly other options which would be so much less hurtful. It always seems to get particularly spiteful and nasty in here, and this never does anyone any good at all. It leaves a lot of festering sores behind it, and dramatically demotivates people. The petty bickering may intrigue many people, but when the characters on stage are wielding real swords (well, okay, not real swords, but you know what I mean), the interests of the audience should take a lower priority than rescuing the poor sods on stage, many of whom are probably quite bewildered ;P If people would try all other options first (and yes, I know the only time I ever brought someone here I should have tried other options first ... this is why I'm saying ;P) People in here are not just words on a screen, Mr/Ms Anonymous, they're real people with real feelings. Sometimes I think we lose sight of that, when we can't see them sitting there at their own computer with weepy eyes and tremory fingers. (OK, not all of them, but some of them.) This really should be the place of last resort, or for emergency action, and not for petty little squabbles. Pesky (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the editor who opened this thread. For a group "not required to use the tools", the tools sure get used pretty fast. I'm sure the defense of this will be, "but some situations require it". But I think the honest editor will recognize that the entire reason that non-requirement was put in the WP:ADMIN page is because they knew the tools would get misused at times. If administrative editors can't admit that, then we're in a sad state. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the editor who opened this thread. For a group "not required to use the tools", the tools sure get used pretty fast. I'm sure the defense of this will be, "but some situations require it". But I think the honest editor will recognize that the entire reason that non-requirement was put in the WP:ADMIN page is because they knew the tools would get misused at times. If administrative editors can't admit that, then we're in a sad state. -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the standards for addressing an issue on this board should be raised. I often hear the question asked "Have you first attempted to discuss this with the other editor on their talk page?" I think an additional component of this question should be "...and have you previously raised your concern on a more specific noticeboard (:WQA, BLP, 3RR, HELP, etc)?" If the answer is "no" to either question, then the thread should be promptly shut down. This board should be a request for admin action based on prior consensus at another noticeboard. Lengthy discussions here never seem to accomplish anything, probably because of all the people who follow the happenings on this board and chime in without actually taking the time to research the issue. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a very insightful and wise comment. I very often see an issue 'resolved' here without those questions ever being asked. And as you say, if they weren't done, then the editor bringing the issue here likely hasn't done due diligence. As always, there are exceptions, but generally, it wouldn't hurt to sometimes ask... did you try to work this out first? -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• What I've noticed quite a bit of recently, is an uptick in... let's call it "amateur psychology". There seems to be a bit of a meme that's developed recently, which is concerned with "all the pain that everyone is feeling". Personally, I don't really give a damn. I don't say that because I'm uncaring though, but because we're volunteers here. I mean, if Wikipedia is really getting you stressed out to the point that your stress becomes my problem, then you should take a break (preferably voluntarily, but...). Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, after all. Being an editor is not a job. The site isn't going to come to a screeching halt because you take a break from editing. (That, plus I agree with Quinn1 and Ravenswing/Softlavender).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Damn straight. WP:CIVIL is a good policy but, in any social medium, toes are going to get stepped on. CIVIL is to try and keep those minor offenses from turning into verbal brawls. What I'm seeing from some users, though, is that we should take great pains to never, ever, ever step on toes. And if someone does resort to verbal abuse or repeatedly violates policy, it's everyone elses job to keep gently coaching them ad infinitum. That a block or even a stern talking-to is never the answer.
  • There's a point where being blunt is necessary to emphasize the seriousness of an issue. And there's a point where a user has ceased to be a net-positive to Wikipedia's community. I think it's a good idea to debate when a person has reached that point, but eventually people will reach that point. There are a few troublemakers who have been allowed to outstay their welcome, while a few editors got blocked too soon. That's going to happen, because we're all human. Blocks are not like the death penalty, though: mistakes can be corrected here. Swinging to a more permissive culture would be to the detriment of WP, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Eeek! (lol!) But taking a break from the WikiFix is, like, really hard for the really addicted/committed WikiHolic! (says she, typing at 02:16 ...) Pesky (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

lol yes it is! It's only really a problem though if the WikiFix is causing an editor to end up... well, here (or WP:3RR, for example). I'm reminded of the expression that is being used now for addiction, which is something like: "if it's causing you to abandon relationships, or hurt yourself...". Hopefully that makes sense. heh
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring block while retiring

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 should probably point out that Armbrust (talk · contribs) is evading his block using Armbrust public (talk · contribs) for the purpose of retiring from Wikipedia. I want no part of taking action on this because I can't shake the feeling that I'm partially to blame and that doesn't sit well with my conscience. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

He has posted a notice on his main talk page that he wants both accounts permanently blocked. So it looks to me like he is just tidying up his archives and stuff before he goes. -- Dianna (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a sad situation. He was always so friendly. It's also a technical violation, but not one I'm inclined to block over. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ks0stm, maybe you should pop over there and apologise. Couldn't do any harm, and it might keep him from leaving. -- Dianna (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually you shouldn't per WP:IAR. Just let it go. Nobody Ent 02:28, 26 April 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.

Justifiable venting

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's justifiable venting after being blocked, then there's this.

• 19:24, 23 April -- "if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy."
• 19:26, 23 April -- "Either a competent administrator will undue your improper block, or not."
• 20:10, 23 April -- "Is this Vulcan mind-meld, psychosis, or what?"
• 20:25, 23 April -- "Speaking of phronetic limitations..."
• 22:00, 23 April -- (edit summary) "Pathetic, make that bathetic"
• 07:45, 24 April -- "So you ignore the rule-book when it applies to you and your familiars, and run around imposing bullshit blocks without having the decency to explain your fuck ups?"
• 08:03, 24 April -- "Sarek's abuse of tools"
• 08:49, 24 April -- "This episode has provided good examples that will stop BHG, Sarek, Bushranger, etc. from ever being elected to ArbCom or re-elected as administrators."
• 14:01, 24 April -- "The Blocking-Head Sarek of Vulcan had no such sense. but apparently had powers of mind-reading into my intentions (which relieves him of the usual WP policy of describing behavior rather than intentions)"
• 16:29, 24 April -- (edit summary) "Dawes describes his psychologist colleagues having the ability to understand others' intentions without behavioral evidence as satisfying one DSMIV-R criterion for psychosis"
• 08:53, 25 April -- "Sarek has behaved like an abusive administrator, not for the first time---and not for the last, unless he grows up. He blocked me for a month because he didn't like my short notice on Malleus's page, which he stupidly (incompetently and---one would like to be able to wish---perhaps not dishonestly) called a violation of canvassing."
• 09:31, 25 April -- "After Sarek abused his administrators powers"
• 12:46, 25 April -- (edit summary) "Has anybody looked at IRC or Facebook, regarding this RfA, for real canvassing (not Sarek's hallucination)"

And that's just the attacks on me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked for the remainder of the block. He is clearly not using his talk page for making a reasonable appeal, he is just using it to cast accusations and spout endless nonsense as usual. What he really needs is a solid chunk of time away from Wikipedia, not two weeks of using his talk page as his personal facebook page to chat with his wiki-friends about how Sarek and the "Blocking Heads" are a bunch of assholes. A short, temporary block is intended to demonstrate to the user what it will be like if he continues the behavior which got him blocked. This means that KW should be restricted from influencing articles, AfD's, CfD's, and pretty much everything else. Talk page access during a block is a privilege given so that the user may appeal his block, and in this case it is clearly not being used for that purpose. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unjust, but expected. Where's that dog cartoon when you need it? Hipocrite (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(I've unarchived the thread, since from the comments posted here outside of the archived section, and the comments on my talk page, it seems a few editors would like to discuss this further.) ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a WP:KICKADOGWHILEHESDOWN essay? Seems like it fits. -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not the way to go. I can't be bothered to count the number of times KW has asked for a full and insightful explanation. Surely he's entitled to ask for an explanation on his talk page, and surely he has a right to complain about not having received an adequate explanation? I can't see how it's wrong to ask for a really decent explanation for a block. Bearing in mind policy, and all that. And I can't see how it's wrong to get upset when that explanation isn't forthcoming. And I can't, also, see how it's wrong to be upset when an apology - at least for misunderstanding, if for nothing else - also doesn't appear. And yes, kick a dog while he's down. And I think maybe people should read the whole talk page, not just the highlighted diffs. They look different in the context of the whole page. Pesky (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's take those bullet-points one at a time. Someone actually spend some time to review them and find something more offensive than "Blocking-head." "Boo hoo, someone challenged an admin's authority," is not a blockable offense. Where's the incivility? Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken. That's not what he was blocked for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His talkpage was locked as a result of the above overblown, puffed-up accusations of incivility. I am not commenting on his block. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Implicitly accusing someone of incompetence (as KW appears to do extremely frequently) is not a big clever grown-up un-sanctionable version of doing it explicitly. In fact, it's the opposite of grown-up; it's all the more immature behaviour for imagining that others won't have the gumption to call him on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pesky, I think the point is that there is no adequate explanation for KW. There is nothing an admin could tell KW which would satisfy him. Meanwhile, he's continuing the incivility and personal attacks (that led to his block in the first place) on his talk page. I understand he's frustrated, and I get the "kick a dog while he's down" comparison, but at the end of the day KW needs to understand that incivility isn't tolerated no matter how frustrated or upset you are. If you're angry, then stand up, go outside, and take a walk around the block, rather than spending hours ranting and attacking editors. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Which of the bullet points did you feel demonstrated incivility, and which of them were filler added to create extra bullet points? Let's start with the bullet point that said "Either a competent administrator will undue your improper block, or not." How, exactly, was that incivil? I mean, either a competent administrator will undue your talk page block or not, right? It's a tautology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. The block was upheld on review, if shortened. It is KW whose responsibility it is to understand why he was blocked, rather than Sarek's to somehow convince him. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to the issue at hand, which was KW's alleged talk page incivility, which apparently consists of "blocking head," and stating that Sarek abused the tools. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor Quinn1 asks a useful question in another thread above, so I'll ask it here. Sarek, in good faith and with a positive attitude, did you follow the guidline 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." Simple question, needs a simple answer. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a very good point. Sasha (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that notifying a blocked editor about this discussion is not terribly important, since he lacks the ability to respond to it. In any case, the notification I posted on his talk page about revoking talk page access included a link to this discussion, so he's undoubtedly aware of it now. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

KW felt he'd been quoted out of context, and attacked. I can see that point, though (as I've said on his talk page) I think the editor quoting him said it as she saw it. I don't think it was intentionally quoting out of context, just maybe that the whole of the context hadn't been appreciated. KW posted a grand total of two neutrally-worded comments about an RfA. As I've said before, I don't think (and neither does KW) that those came into the (strict) category of canvassing. He's asked for a better explanation of having a one-month block for commenting on what he saw to be acivility violation re context, and a more detailed explanation (which would apply to any and all editors, not just to himself) of exactly how his neutrally-worded comments constituted canvassing. I think both those requests were reasonable, and I think it's not reasonable that he's now been denied talk page access for having got upset that no decent explanation has (yet) been forthcoming. I'm sitting here with the strongest-possible impression that the primary reason he was blocked, and denied talk page access, was because he's KW. I think things would have been rather differently handled if he'd been somebody else. Pesky (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be, but as Pesky says, you have to take into account the context. A fair number of the people who did originally discuss concerns about KW's behaviour with KW himself, were accused of hounding (and all manner of other things), and were the targets for suggested "interaction bans" so that KW could carry on his behaviour uninterrupted. It's the old tactic of attempting to get into a dispute with every possible administrator, so that there will never be an uninvolved administrator capable of blocking you (there's an essay on it somewhere). Sarek took the option of remaining completely uninvolved when using the tools. Probably wisely, since he's been criticised for not doing so in the past. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward, you've said:"It is KW whose responsibility it is to understand why he was blocked, rather than Sarek's to somehow convince him. " But this says "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.." OK, he fell down on civility, because he's had no explanation. I think that's understandable. Pesky (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The block was upheld on review, if shortened" was the previous sentence in that sentence. I cannot see how you could have missed it. Admins are accountable to the community as a whole. The block had already been discussed here and accepted by Sarek's peers. It is plainly illogical to interpret your quote from the guideline to mean "any editor can question any administrative decision at any time and the admin responsible must obligate that with a response". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins aren't machines. There's a section called WP:BUTT that seems applicable here; if this was a new user I'd have removed talkpage access for being a trolling-only account. Why should we have to put up with that from anyone? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Kind of have to agree with Demi about how well communication has gone in the past. Kiefer doesn't make approaching him the easiest of tasks. Also, I'm not sure why everyone feels the need to treat him like a delicate little flower, or a wounded dog. He's neither of those things, and everyone knows that. He's an adult, and at some point the adults need to start remembering they are accountable for their own actions - and continuing to try and deflect attention away from themselves and onto the admins that have to clean up their messes only makes things worse, for themselves and for others. ADMINACCT is all well and good...but surely the rest of the users should take some accountability for their actions too? It would be nice. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If KW was having civil discussions on his talk page, and calmly asking for an explanation, there would be no problem. Simultaneously pointing out the "hypocrisy" and "fuck ups" of the person who you're asking for the explanation (while calling them stupid, or more subtly, having "phronetic limitations") is not the way this process works. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I know he can be problematic, and I also know he won't mind me saying this here. But he does get upset easily (no, not a delicate little flower, but he gets angry-upset at perceived injustice). On the other hand, he doesn;t fly off the handle when I leave him a nicely-illustrated dominatrix spanking on his talk page. I'm not a miracle worker, nor have I ever claimed to be, but KW and I see to be able to sustain some kind of communication, and he always knows where I;m coming from. I just wish there were ways, not just in this case, but (as above) in so maqny others, of fixing things without actually leaving people really upset by something. Anyway, I'm knackered, been at my daughter's wedding, going off to eat pizza now. I may be gone some time. Pesky (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixing things without having people upset, that would be nice. Unfortunately, this is the real world and (to be unimaginative) shit happens. Everyone is accountable for their own actions, whether they are upset at a perceived injustice or not. The sooner people realise that, the better. Ugh. I really can't see this thread going anywhere. Perhaps it should be closed (again)? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

KW had been at the personal attacks all day before posting to Malleus' page -- that was just the final straw that caused me to block him. I saw the last block for a pattern of incivility was one week less than 3 weeks ago,, and evaluated 2 weeks and 1 month for an escalation before deciding on 1 month.

• 10:38, 23 April -- "Please reduce the AGF violations and hypocrisy, BrownHairedGirl and Oculi."
• 10:45, 23 April -- "The Blocking Heads are again in usual form."
• 14:30, 23 April -- "You are quoting my comments out of context, BrownHairedGirl, especially stupidly or dishonestly."
• 14:36, 23 April -- "As explained below, BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today."
• 14:38, 23 April -- "The dishonesty or stupidity BHG can display beggars belief."
• 18:36, 23 April -- "It is a predictable pity that Demiurge1000 appears again without any concern for incivility, AGF, NPA violations against me by BHG, but nobody cares what he writes about me, since he has not had the courtesy to apologize for the smearing of Lihaas as a national socialist, or about his lies in the RfC,"
• 18:42, 23 April -- (edit summary) "Withdraw per double-standard of apologizing for adminstrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc."
• 18:45, 23 April -- "We don't need another junior-high school vice-principal reciting cliches and apologizing for administrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, as in BrownEyedGirl's thread at ANI."
• 18:56, 23 April -- "Please be aware of Dennis Brown's comments at ANI, and that Dennis Brown is currently a candidate to be an administrator."

That's basically what I saw, and why I blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd still like an answer to the question I ask you above, Sarek. It is clear you're good at amassing mountains of snips and clips, but are you attempting in good faith to de-escalate and move this guy Keifer to a more positive editing posture or are you just looking for stuff to nail him on? -- Avanu (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you like, not seeing everything written above or something? Do you honestly believe that alternate methods haven't been tried with Kiefer? Need I point you to his RFC/U? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not Sarek that has amassed these mountains, Avanu, it's KW. Sarek is not responsible for KW's actions, KW is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Avanu, other editors have tried to de-escalate with Keifer in the past and although there are ways of doing it, they are generally considered demeaning to the editor who attempts to de-escalate. It takes two to tango, Kiefer does not appear to have attempted de-escalation either. Whilst I believe Sarek's block was excessive, it does not count as admin abuse and certainly does not deserve the barrage of comments from KW he has received since. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Avanu, you're placing the burden solely on the shoulders of the blocking admin. Others have already tried, for an extended amount of time. Insisting that the admin who decides to block must first attempt to "talk down" the editor before blocking, even though extended discussions have already occurred, is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

either I missed something, or Avanu's question was about this ANI sub-thread (started by SoV, and concerning talk page access) and not about the block. To my opinion, this is a valid and legitimate question. Sasha (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed something. As worded, Avanu's question is just making Sarek responsible for calming Kiefer down. I took it as in regards to the block itself but, even if he's referring to the talk-page locking, others have asked Kiefer to take it down a notch. He has not. It is not on Sarek's shoulders to talk Kiefer down from the ledge, and Avanu's question struck me as needling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

have re-read the thread, and I still think my interpretation is plausible (Avanu - perhaps you could comment?) Anyhow, here is what bothers me: SoV posted a complaint here under the subtitle justifiable venting. I would appreciate his response a) whether he has tried to communicate with KW after KW was blocked and before posting this complaint, and b) whether he still regards himself as an uninvolved admin in this affair.

Thank you very much!

Sasha (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Throwing WP:INVOLVED around in situations where it doesn't apply is not a good way to get your questions answered. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The header was "Justifiable venting," but his very first line is to note that while JV is allowed, this instance isn't "justifiable." I honestly don't see he has anything to gain by responding here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I also doubt that the precedent that "block a user once, you can never block them again because you're now involved" is a particularly sensible one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. Let me rephrase: SarekOfVulkan, you have posted a complaint at ANI (the current sub-thread) regarding the (alleged) violation of WP rules by KW after he was blocked. Have you tried to explain this to him before turning to ANI?

If you think my question is not well posed (or illegitimate), I will rephrase again.

Sasha (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of this thread is composed of diffs showing problematic intereations between Sarek and Keifer. In that light, the question "Have you tried to explain this to him before turning to ANI?" seems to be a non-sequitur.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohms, you're wrong. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. You expressed what I was trying to express myself anyway.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sasha, considering his very first post after my block notice had an edit summary of "Sarek of Vulcan needs to block himself for severe incivility of blocking while citing WP:Canvassing for 2 neutral messages" and content that included "if Sarek wishes to avoid continued hypocrisy", and it went downhill from there, over the course of 41 hours, exactly what do you think would have happened if I posted on his page saying "Please stop the constant personal attacks, Kiefer"? Really, I'd like to know what you imagine Kiefer's next post would have said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, I understand that the situation was problematic. Still, procedurally this is exactly what you should have done. If this was difficult/impossible for you in the existing situation, you should have left the matter to others. I understand the circumstances, still, I am unhappy about (what I see as) policy violations, especially from an admin, and especially when it comes to complaints about policy violations by other users.

ANI (and being an admin, and especially the combination of both) is a stressful and difficult activity; luckily, it is voluntary. So I do expect from an admin to get involved in an ANI incident only if they can follow the procedures to the end (if not, there are plenty of other ANI threads here, most of them are probably less stressful). Sasha (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why enwiki has a fairly rigorous RfA procedure that selects administrators who are sufficiently independent-minded to not be crippled by ridiculous aspects of procedure. I've never heard anything so foolish in my life. Exactly how many edits did KW make on these various topics, before Sarek got round to stopping him? For each of those dozens of edits, did KW bother to follow (or even think about) any of these "procedures" that you're suddenly so keen on? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. I was supposed to know before I blocked KW that he was going to spend the next 41 hours attacking my honor, intelligence, ability to think rationally...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

...(and your legal right to use your own username)... (I jest not) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that, as far as I can determine, KW is one of those editors who believes WP:CIVIL is a 'strange and distasteful concept' Note for clarity: not KW's words, but those of another member of the CNCC (Content Not Civility Club) that applies to others but not to him, and that any attempt to get him to understand that it applies to him to is an attack on his person, that any attempt to explain his disruptive behavior can be deflected by wikilawyering over how WP:DISRUPT doesn't apply, and that any block has to be the result of a power-mad and abusive admin - it couldn't possibly be him. That is a shame, because his articlespace editing is a great asset to the encyclopedia, but his talkspace, Wikipediaspace and (lately) categoryspace edits have consistently contained kind of actions that drive people away. Until and unless he understands that and changes his ways outside of articlespace, we're either going to have continuing debates of exactly this sort, or he'll be indef'dand/or he'll become another passenger on the block/unblock/cries-for-desyopping tilt-a-whirl. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@Demiurge -- thanks for the compliment. I am happy to be at your service as a standard of foolishness. [btw, do you imply that I have previously been violating some procedures (else what do you mean by suddenly)?] If procedures themselves are ridiculous to your opinion, I am sorry, this is not the right venue.

@Sarek -- you implicitly admit that you took personal offence. This is exactly the reason why I would suggest you to downgrade your involvement, and leave this to others (I am sure there are enough other admins following this as well as KW's talk page).

Finally, it seems that the error of interpreting others' beliefs and views was committed several times on this thread.

Sasha (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The one thing that comes to mind here is: WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. God knows we have enough of it already. (No offence to any passing bureaucrats, obviously.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"you implicitly admit that you took personal offence"...."it seems that the error of interpreting others' beliefs and views was committed several times on this thread" *looks askance at Sasha* Pot, kettle? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

May I offer everyone a nice cool beer? Please let's not all bite each other as well! Anyone wanting a granny-hug, please help yourself now ;P We all, in here, so often misunderstand exactly where others are coming from. Sometimes we think it's "obvious" (yup, sometimes it is, but not always!) But we all fall into the trap of believing we know what's going on in other people's minds, what their ulterior motives might be, and all that stuff. It's sad. Pesky (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Its disappointing that we move off target so fast. My question for Sarek was simply whether he followed the guideline for this page. I've not seen him answer it, and while a lot of other editors have come in with defenses and justifications for the block, that doesn't change the basic question. I don't know this Kiefer Wolfowitz guy, but he seems very unhappy with perceived neglect of process by admins. I've asked if process was followed, and from what I can tell it was not. Are there excuses for this? I'm sure its entirely possible to come up with many. But that doesn't change the advice and guidelines that have been carefully developed and hopefully will serve us well if we follow them. Simply admitting we can do better is enough for me, I don't see the need to develop so many justifications for not being perfect. -- Avanu (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but in this particular case you're simply off the mark. There's a history here, that's partially already in the AN/I archives. It's perfectly understandable why Kiefer is whinging away at administrators in general, but that's part of the history behind all of this as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Same ol', same ol. There's actually no reason to think the guidelines have been 'carefully developed' -- in fact, they haven't, they're just a hodgepodge which evolved until it became too hard to get consensus on anything different. Blocking KW for incivility -- sure, that's possible almost any given day (like the next time he decides to award a 'barnstar of decapitation'), but Wikipedia has no standards for personal interaction and the combined attention span of a gnat. The block is fine, the part of the justification regarding canvassing ridiculous per the Homer analogy (Do'h!) and blocking talk page access overreacting -- if an admin isn't willing to be an other duck after laying down a block on a prolific edge-riding editor like KW, they should just work on the low hanging fruit. Nothing is going to happen here, so best option is for an editor with sufficient wiki-cred to slap a close tag on this and everyone moves on until the block times out. Nobody Ent 02:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinda hoping that other duck thing catches on. Close away. :) -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 26 April 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:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor

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:Cla68 now advertises his services as a paid editor at the top of his userpage, as well as in other posts to places such as the Signpost discussion pages. He openly invites clients to use Wikipedia's email facilities to contact him for hire, as well as inserting an external link to an anti-Wikipedia website.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So what? Seems like a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe all of us who know how to ... actually add top content ... should follow suit. WMF is hiring and paying folks all over the place, and their programs promoting things like recruited student editing are dragging down quality, so why should those who actually know how to write articles not be paid along with WMF staffers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no hesitation at all in writing an article for money, so long as it could meet the GNG. And as you say, the WMF staffers are being paid to do God knows what anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, volunteer hours of my time and knowledge to clean up marginal articles (that get no page views) created by student-editing projects to at best C-class, or get paid to create top content that someone actually reads. Such a dilemma; what's an editor tooooo dooooo ??? Bad boy, Cla68, how dare you improve content! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:)) ANI is rarely that much fun. JN466 21:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm → ROUX ₪ 17:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats pretty bold I must admit. I'm not sure if its as big of a deal as it used to be though unfortunately. I brought a couple up and no one seemed to care. I think as long as he is honest about it and follows the guidelines there is a low level of acceptance these days. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what he does, not why he does it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty facepalm worthy... but practice seems to be it's okay if the paid editor follows Wikipedia's rules, including WP:COI. It's just going to get a lot more eyeballs on his contribs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And more than on those who are already doing it without being so open. Cla68 is to be congratulated on his honest transparency. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I wouldn't go that far. But yes, the honesty is refreshing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, as far as I'm aware, being paid to write an article is not, in and of itself, against our rules. Doing it in a manner that's not neutral, or pushes a POV, or whitewashes, or anything else that breaks a policy is against our rules. Doing it without disclosing that one is being paid for a particular article is also strongly frowned upon. If it turns out that Cla68 does any of these things, then we have a problem. If, on the other hand, he's simply turning out appropriate, featured content in a neutral manner, then both he and the encyclopedia have gained, and while it would behoove the community to devote a few more eyeballs to making sure content produced in this manner is entirely even, and it would behoove Cla68 to request community input on edits he makes for pay, we have no real reason to prevent him from editing in a way that benefits both him and Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You sure 'bout all of that? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment OMG, we can get paid for this? Oh, I wasted my life. On a serious note, if it's goal of Wikipedia to have as many FA articles as possible, does it matter how that is achieved?JOJ ^Hutton 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• How is this an AN/I issue? What do you want here, Orange Mike? To force Cla68 to remove something from his user page, or to block him until he somehow "proves" that he's not being paid to edit, or something?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)A portion of the editor base feels that paid editing should not be allowed, full-stop. However, no solid rules have ever been agreed upon. If Cla had done this a couple years ago, he'd have been blocked in heartbeat. Right now, I don't think that'll happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • He's advertising an anti-Wikipedia website on the top of his userpage; he's using his userpage to advertise his services for hire, and inviting his potential clients to use Wikipedia's e-mail facilities to contact him. Nobody thinks this is a violation of our rules on the use of userpages? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, this seems like a stunt. Cla is doing it to make a mockery of the COI policy. I doubt he'll get any serious offers. Raul654 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing to forbid writing for money here (and it would be impossible to police anyway). It sounds to me like Cla68 is being honest about it, and effectively also inviting scrutiny to check that any paid articles are appropriately written. I really don't see a problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Illiminati have been paying me for years. I hope Cla68 gets as much from it as I have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ha! The CIA pays me, but I hear the pay from the reptilian humanoids is out of this world! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• ArbCom recently established, in the TimidGuy case, that conflicts of interest were irrelevant. I used to think we had a basic responsibility to our reader to disclose major financial or other conflicts - after all, that's a very fundamental ethical rule of reputable publication - but now I know better. So if Cla68 can convince someone to pay him $1,000 for a Featured Article, more power to him. The dominant ethos of the site right now says he should take the money and run. If "the community" and ArbCom see no problem with frank editorial conflicts of interest, why should we expect Cla68 to restrain himself from cashing in?

  In the current economy, I'd be surprised if anyone is willing to spend $1,000 (and I think most companies would prefer a low-profile puff piece to a high-profile featured article), but there's a sucker born every minute, and among the myriad ways in which fools are parted from their money, one could do worse than to fund an FA. So meh. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, posted that above before I saw this. Egg-zactly. If paid COI is acceptable, and WMF staff are also paid and their programs are promoting poor content, we have no basis whatsoever for complaining about what Cla has put on his userpage; in fact, the disclosure is helpful as it will generate review of his work. The arbs and WMF led us down this path, what's good for the goose is good for the (unpaid volunteer) gander. Horse outta the barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ignoring the very real COI issues associated with paid editing for a moment, or the potential to distort quality standards, there is the fact that he is ADVERTISING a business on his user page. We do not allow people to advertise other businesses on their user pages when they don't have anything to do with Wikipedia - why should this be an exception?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Spot-on. I was just going to say the same thing. Paid editing is neither here nor there - advertising is not permitted. TNXMan 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Simple; because if you force him to remove it, you've removed an important disclosure that does more good than harm. It's called, shooting yourself in the foot. I'd rather know who is paid to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If an editor is editing for pay, it helps the project more than it hurts it for him to say so on his user page, so that the conflict of interest is apparent. Could it be a matter of how the information is phrased? Edison (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia will fall into the dust if professional athletes are allowed in the Olympics there is a tasteful mention and link stating that the editor is available to be paid to improve articles. About time, by the way, say I. Nothing incentivizes like incentives.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to employ the the slippery slope for a moment. If we allow "a tasteful mention and link stating that the editor is available to be paid to improve articles", why cannot we not allow a tasteful mention of my Amazon storefront and a link stating I have books for sale? This could go on ad nauseam. I feel if we make an exception allowing an established editor to advertise, the exception will open the door to a whole host of problems. TNXMan 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The key is that this is an advertisement directly related to the editing of Wikipedia. While there may be a slippery slope even then, it is much more difficult to envision a realistic bad result at the bottom of the slope. Monty₈₄₅ 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so while we're on that slippery slope, in terms of the effect on articles, how is paid editing any different than the WMF-promoted student editing for a grade-- programs in which participants can engage in coordinated editing (aka meatpuppetry) to affect consensus and in which classes/profs can promote a POV? The slippery slope Wikipedia finds itself on these days, whereby the days when we created content because we believed in a free project anyone could edit, are gone. Undone by paid WMF staff promoting projects outside of community consensus, and the arbs passing on paid COI. We've got a real goose-gander situation here, and it signals the end of editing as we knew it. Disclosure is better than none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My point was not about the idea of paid editing (I do not particularly care one way or the other). It's the userpage advertisement. If Cla68 wants to disclose that they are a paid editor, great. They should not be permitted to advertise their rates or otherwise advertise their services. TNXMan 18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Someone should offer him $1,000 to make featured articles out of a bunch of semi-notable subjects that will never have enough content to become featured. We'd get a ton of high-quality articles and not have to pay a dime. WIN! (Really, if someone can get paid to write articles that conform to guidelines then let them, it hurts nobody). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not a fan of paid editing, but I accept it happens and could accept it as long as it's not biased editing. I'm not fine with using Wikipedia for advertising which is what putting that notice on a user page does. --Onorem♠Dil 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So only the foundation should have that privilege, or should those who make the content?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The foundation offers articles for cash? Link please. --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this was permitted now. I know a lot of marginally notable people who would be willing to pay $100 for stubs on themselves. Easy money! (Does the foundation report articles created to the IRS?) --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's happening now, worse than ever before, anyway. New page patrol is down, I'm shocked at what is getting by in Medicine new page patrol-- too much for me to address, and largely going unaddressed, all kinds of non-notable uncited bios and articles (including promotional) are getting through, and too many established editors who could be/would be doing something about it have given up. One of us, instead, spends most of her time (in vain) just trying to keep medical content free of poor student edits-- a program promoted by paid staff, and a program that doesn't seem responsive to community concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice story. It's completely off-topic and I have no information to dispute it with at the moment. What does it have to do with this discussion? --Onorem♠Dil 18:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(after four ecs) Well, since you admit you have no information, that may partly explain why you don't see the connection. There's too much to keep up with now in terms of articles that are already appearing on Wikipedia, likely for pay in some cases. Wrt the effect from the Education programs, what's the difference between being paid in $$$ or a grade? I'll tell you; for the grade, you have an entire WMF organization behind you, and you can engage in coordinated editing to affect consensus. What is worse: that, or one editor who declares on his userpage that he is for hire? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(many ecs later) Even better. Now I can go to the even less than marginally notable people I know and get them into wikipedia for $200 bucks a shot! In fact, the more work I do, the harder it'll be for admins to keep up. If I've understood this correctly, all I need to do is to announce my rates on my user page and then rake in the cash. Coming to think of it, I know quite a few doctors. Thanks for the tip Sandy! Now, if only someone will answer my question about the IRS,....! --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this discussion is about a user advertising their services on Wikipedia. I'm completely baffled by whatever the hell you're trying to get at. I love great articles. I hate the idea of paying for them, but can live with it. I'm not fine with someone advertising their services in any way on their userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical note: There was a 2009 RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing in which 102 editors endorsed "Summary: Why you write content is irrelevant--is the content free to Wikipedia itself, and policy compliant?" with 66 supporting Jimbo's view that policy forbids "paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia. " Jimbo also said "I will personally block any cases that I am shown." Edison (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Allow me to join the ranks of those saying "Who cares?". I'm sure tons of people out there would like their articles improved and would be willing to pay for it. It's time for the WMF to start acting like a true non-profit with legions of volunteers at their disposal: Those volunteers who do best should have the possibility of a paid position. If they really want to avoid the potential pitfalls of article subjects paying editors directly, they should consider making productive editors paid employees of the foundation. Sounds like a good way to clear some backlogs. Oh, and why is this at AN/I? --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• See the RFC linked above. Our Founder said "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown." "Consider this to be policy as of right now." He then mentioned the possibility of a paid editor creating appropriately licensed article-like content on a website, which could be used (by someone else) to create an article, an interesting approach. We have lots of editors with huge numbers of "articles created" who merely cut and paste public domain or freely licensed content. Edison (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If that is his current stance, I agree with Jimbo...but don't agree with Jimbo as an argument. His opinion is useful, but not binding until he says it is...and on that day the volunteers disappear. --Onorem♠Dil 19:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And see the arb case linked twice on this page for how well that worked out for Jimbo. I'm not saying I like the current state of affairs, but Cla is following on trends already established on Wikipedia, and at least he disclosed. The volunteers are already disappearing as Wikipedia becomes more and more about paid advocacy, WMF paid staff programs, recruiting, and acceptance of COI. That horse is out of the barn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I see now that Jimbo Wales proposal to enforce his policy by blocking is negated by his permanently abandoning the use of blocking in July 2009. So the only real policies related to paid editing are those established in accord with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• As long as Cla68 is following our content policies, particularly WP:NPOV, I don't see a problem. Hell, we all deserve to get paid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • There is presently Wikipedia:Bounty board where monetary payments are offered for Wikipedia work such as promoting an article to Good Article or Featured Article status, or for programming bots to do particular things. (Apparently they presently go as donations to the Foundation). Lots of sums have been paid out per Wikipedia:Bounty board/Expired and claimed bounties, and sites which once offered paid Wikipedia editing did not list substantially higher payment than some of these. The Wikipedia:Reward board gives barnstars or tangible gifts to the editor personally. See User:Brumski/paid editing adverts#2nd set of examples (Elance:Tayzen). Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I never liked the idea of the bounty board either, but it's good to know that adverts in userspace are completely acceptable...(as long as they're somehow related to wikipedia?) --Onorem♠Dil 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; perhaps, given Cla68's specific rates, we cold start a pool and pay him to round out and complete as many of the core topics as possible. I'd be willing to start with $5,000. Any other takers? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec, of course) Great idea! Let's start a company "Wikipedia Admin Editors, Inc.". We get your point of view across! or "No negative information left undeleted!". We could all leave our day jobs and do this. In fact, the more admins we can recruit, the less likely our edits will be viewed as problematic. ErrantX, are you on? --regentspark (comment) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have misunderstood my comment as ironic or funny. But our core topic coverage is shit, and this could be a good opportunity to get one of our best writers on the job! I'm deadly serious, I would happily switch my yearly donation to WP (which will not run short for the lack of a few thousand dollars) to get 5 critical featured articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm serious too. If everyone is going to be doing this (if one or two people start doing this then lots of people will) then I don't intend to miss out on the opportunity to monetize the time I've wasted here. I can assure you that for a professor in academia looking for consulting opportunities a wikipedia page is worth good money, so the idea that people won't pay for an article is bogus. And, like I said above, the more we're into this, the less likely that our edits will be seen as problematic. We'll be scratching each others backs. The capitalist encyclopedia, or "the best encyclopedia that money can buy", that's going to be the new slogan. --regentspark (comment) 23:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is now: who would ever want to co-operate with Cla now that we all know he's raking in money? Next time he nominates an article for FA, just say "I'll review it for $500". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For a limited time only, FAC reviews on sale for the low low price of $500 Support vote sold separately Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A professional Wikipedian? hahahahaha, that's hilarious. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is, how many more of the "super writers" who dominate FAC, or admins have got their noses in the trough? How many here are taking payment? How can we trust that processes are not being corrupted? How can we trust a paid editor commenting on someone elses FAC? How can we be sure that they will not sabotage other "competing articles"? - and something like that is very easy to do. If we stand for this....Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point: we've already stood for this. Majorities of "the community" and of ArbCom believe that conflicts of interest are irrelevant, because of an (entirely misplaced) faith in our content policies to weed out biased editing. What Cla68 is doing is a natural extension of those trends. It's time to sleep in the bed we've made. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So we can all look forward to seeing more GA and FAC articles about notable people and organisations. But especially rich notable people and organisatiions. Wow, that sounds perfectly fair and equitable. The sort of good advertising you can't even see. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You can have the bed. I'll sleep on the couch. This isn't about paid editing. It's about advertising on a userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be applauded then, as it makes any bias more transparent. In fact, cummulative total reciepts will prove more of an encouragmeent to other editors than lists of DYKs and barnstars, yes? Mmmmm cosy, Zzzzzzz Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The number of highly-regarded, cream-of-the-top editors who are wringing their hands saying "the horse is out of the barn, there's nothing we can do, live with it, voluenteer editing is over", etc., is disgusting. If you have a principle, stand by it, don't say "well, we can't fight city hallWMF". Paid editing is never acceptable, regardless of what WMF or ArbCom says, and if we the community actually stand up and tell them so instead of running around in circles saying "the sky is falling!", we'd have a chance of salvaging things. But the voice cries in the wilderness... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  There doesn't appear to be widespread "hand wringing", though. I know that I'm not particularly wringing my hands about it. I share Malleus's "so what?" reaction, along with the explanation that "it's about what he does, not how or why he does it". I never really understood the "Paid editing is never acceptable" position, even though I never personally planned to try to be a paid editor.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Recruiting students like here is actually a great idea. One may look how it works in another wikiproject, MicrobeWiki. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it ok to advertise for your business on your user page?

Regardless of whether it's for paid editing or not, advertising your services or your business on your userpage falls afoul of WP:UP#PROMO. If he wants to get paid for writing articles, that's great. There are currently no rules against that, as long as it's done correctly. But keep the ads for your business off of your userpage. If Joe the plumber had a userpage on Wikipedia, we certainly wouldn't allow him to post "Hey, is your toilet backed up? I'll come over and pump all the crap out of your toilet for $1000! Just email me!" How is this situation different, because his business is more related to Wikipedia? To me, that doesn't make a difference. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with SW here. Even if allow paid editing, it doesn't mean we have to allow people to use wikipedia to conduct their business. While the editing may be related to wikipedia, the paid part is not. Therefore they should conduct this part elsewhere and only come here to do the part which does concern us (i.e. the editing). In terms of disclosure, there's nothing wrong with them disclosing they may be paid to edit without advertising (i.e. without information on their rates, requests to contact them or anything of that sort). More meaningful disclosure would of course be to disclosure every time they are paid to edit, although since there's no requirement for disclosure at all, that's ultimately up to them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Under current policy, editors are given broad discretion to use their userpage and userspace for activity related to editing Wikipedia. The advertisement here clearly qualifies. We would not let an editor advertise some random business on their userpage because it would be totally unrelated to editing or improving Wikipedia. Now I can certainly understand how some may believe that we should disallow the advertising of a clearly editing related business or service on a userpage, but current policy does not prohibit it (and even if you argue it does, it would be ambiguous at best). The solution is to initiate a policy driven discussion/RFC on the question, and ANI/I isn't the right place to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 19:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Broad discretion doesn't include adverts. If it does, I'm gonna start up a company that makes accounts by name and published adverts on their userpage. What a fantastic idea. No WP:POINT here....just going with what the current conversation says is fine. The idea here is that you can advertise your work on your userpage, right? --Onorem♠Dil 19:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I also disagree on the interpretation that the policy allows this sort of advertisement. An advertisement for paid editing is first and foremost an advertisement, and the tenous connection to Wikipedia related activity does not overrule that fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

      The entire point of the advertisement is that the advertiser is offering to edit wikipedia... that is hardly a tenuous connection. And again to Onorem, the key is that the advertisement is directly, and in fact exclusively, related to editing activity, not some unrelated business. Monty₈₄₅ 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

      • What difference does it make what the key of the advertisement is? If Cla wants to make money by selling articles, fine. (ugh) He should not be able to advertise that on his userpage.
• There seems to be a lack of clarity about the guidelines for the use of Wikipedia by public relations professionals or, in this case, persons seeking freelance public relations work. Wales is right to object to abuse of Wikipedia by public relations professionals. I agree with him on that. But if he wants to follow through, he should participate in this discussion. 19:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Tepper (talk • contribs)

• WP:USERPAGE encourages stating "If you are editing for or on behalf of a company, organization, group, product, or person (etc.) which you wish to be open about in order to gain a good working relationship with the editing community." "Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion." It discourages "excessive unrelated content" such as "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." A blatant advertisement: "My website at www.jhjh shows how I can promote your company for very reasonable rates" would certainly be out of line. But informing other users that one edits for pay might fall under "Significant editing disclosures" which are allowed, if editing for pay is in fact permissible under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. A paid article which was Wikipedia:Spam would not be tolerable, but in the RFC from 2009 cited above, most editors had no problem with paid articles which otherwise met all standards, policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of users disclosing potential pov issues. I'm not in favor of them advertising them on their userpage. It is blatant promotion. Contact information conveniently provided... --Onorem♠Dil 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I will do this for you for this amount of money. Here are 2 ways to contact me and we can negotiate if you want a separate level of service. (obviously paraphrased, but show me where I'm off)
  • How is that not blatantly promotional? --Onorem♠Dil 20:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    • There are websites where one can find Wikipedia editors for hire-- that horse is out of the barn, so I see no reason not to have it announced in house, which will result in more scrutiny on those editors. I'm not saying I like the status quo, but that's what it is, and COI and paid editing has not been disallowed on Wikipedia, see the arb case referenced above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What do those websites have to do with it? 'I edit articles for pay' is different from 'I offer this service for this much and here are several ways to contact me to employ my services' --Onorem♠Dil 20:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I am also in favor of disclosure of paid editing on userpages, and would rather have the editor advert on his/her userpage than not. It behooves us to know who is editing. I'm more concerned about paid editing that is undercover, and editing coordinated off-Wiki via student assignments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I am in favour of paid editors working on Wikipedia and collaborating alongside volunteers, just as the Red Cross has paid staff that works alongside volunteers. WP:COI strongly suggests declaring such a conflict of interest on his user page - however there is a difference between declaring a conflict of interest ("note that I edit for money, see this external link for more information") and advertising ("please hire me! here are my rates and contact information!"). Advertising on Wikipedia is not only against policy but bad marketing. Dcoetzee 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:NOTSOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Very clearly not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think the question of paid editing and advertisement of editing services is basically an ethical question that can only be judged on a case by case basis. If the Ministry of Culture of Guatemala for example decided to pay User:Simon Burchell to become a fulltime wikipedia editor working on articles about the history of Guatemala as he has always done - i would have no problem with it. If Monsanto called me and offered me 10,000 bucks to make the criticism section in their article less harsh I hope I would be in an economic situation that would allow me to turn down the offer. I propose that we don't judge paid editors - but their work. The best way to do this is by knowing who they are and who pays them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The paid editing may be an issue of discussion, but there is no discussion that Wikipedia should be allowed to be a free advertising service for ANYTHING. Period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Getting focused on the "paid editing" part can make one forget the "advertising" part. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not true at all, we regularly allow advertising of on Wiki groups and activities. Example: the {{User AfC}} Userbox is clearly an advertisement for the AFC project. The only fundamental difference here is the monetary consideration being requested, which is certainly a fair thing to consider, but its not what makes the difference between an advertisement and a non-advertisement. Both are ads, we just find one clearly acceptable, and the other we are discussing here. Monty₈₄₅ 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I feel like things are getting twisted around here. Disclosure is one thing, advertisement is another. Disclosure is "I write Wikipedia articles for money." or "I wrote this particular article for money." Advertising is "I offer a service whereby I write Wikipedia articles for money. I charge xyz dollars for my services. To hire me, send me an email at this address." They are two entirely different things, and this section is focused on discussing the latter. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst constructive paid-editing is acceptable, advertising on a user page is not. However, Cla68 is a highly-active editor, so I wonder if we may avoid drama in future by asking Cla to create a separate account through which all his "paid editing" will take place. AGK [•] 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This will inevitably become an endless argument about wording. For example, say Cla puts "I am an editor who accepts money to improve articles to GA or FA status." He then puts "If you have questions or concerns, please contact me through the Wikipedia mail service." OK. Then it's "If you would like to discuss this with me, please contact me through the Wikipedia mail service." Or "If you would like to suggest articles and discuss arrangements ..." Be worse than a civility discussion. Set general guidelines, and don't stress it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't get it. WP:UPPROMO explicitl says "unrelated to Wikipedia." This is related to Wikipedia. I don't understand why we're having this discussion. Okay, I do, and it's because people are incensed about something because they have romantic assumptions about how Wikipedia gets edited, along with the idea that "money" is somehow a different, and more poisonous, motivator than all of the other reasons people might edit Wikipedia. But, as we always say here on ANI, if you want to change policy, please do so on the policy's talk page, not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• While some may wikilawyer that the guideline WP:UP#PROMO does not apply because of "the connection to Wikipedia", the policy WP:SOAP is very clear "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favor of users advertising their proprietorships on Wikipedia pages. Who really cares what fancies my favor? My76Strat (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Other things exist

Is this really that different from, say, User:Peteforsyth advertising his consulting business on his user page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I also stumbled across an editor yesterday whose User page described his work in photography for Wikipedia, with links to contact him at his business. (Looked like nice work, too.) Unless the WMF says otherwise, I'm not seeing much reason to take up arms on this one. Advertising one's Wikipedia-related work on their Userpage has apparently been accepted by the community, through disinterest if nothing else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "I work in this field" or "I work for this company" with a link are fine in my mind...as long as they are productive editors.

Comments like "I work in this field and these are my rates and get in touch with me here" or "I work for this company and you should buy from them because..." are not fine. Saying what you do is OK. Advertising is not. --Onorem♠Dil 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm; so a somewhat obviously tongue-in-cheek user page note is not fine. But a link + promo text to a serious Wiki consultancy business is fine? If Cla68 made himself a website and linked to it that would then be fine would it? *sigh* --Errant ^(chat!) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"If Cla68 made himself a website and linked to it that would then be fine would it?" Yes, I think it would be - and moreover I think it's in his interest to do so, since employers are not likely to find him through his Wikipedia user page, but are likely to through a contractor listing on an external website. Dcoetzee 22:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have some sort of objection to User:Peteforsyth's page, please feel free to address it directly. I don't see the obviousness of the 'joke' on Cla68s page. People shouldn't be expected to be in on the joke to get it. --Onorem♠Dil 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Cla68 Venue?

All of this is somewhat interesting, but I have to again ask: why is this on AN/I? Shouldn't this be a more general RFC?
On that note, would anyone object if someone moved the whole section to it's own page somewhere and slapped an RFC tag on it?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not difficult to see that Cla posted this offer knowing full well that it would provoke such a reaction. In fact, that was almost certainly his intention. Given that sort of intentionally disruptive behavior, I think ANI is the appropriate place to discuss it. Raul654 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So... you're proposing a block, due to disruption?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Arb on conflict of interest editing from Feb 2012 said "2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed." and "3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above." Seems like a good time for the requested RFC. Edison (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're a tad late, I'm afraid. It's just waiting on closure by an admin(s). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, but this is more of a specific application. meh, it's probably too late now regardless. ErrantX is making this about OrangeMike's behavior now as well, so... off we go!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As usual, the pathetic search capabilities of Wikipedia and the sad lack of wikilinks did not allow me to find the existing RFC from all the preceding dramahs. Edison (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Commentators are missing the nature of the REAL problem

...which is that currently, as it stands, it appears that Cla68, having entered the industry early, has a monopoly on the provision of the advertised service. Basic economics tells you that monopolies are bad because they increase prices and restrict output (i.e. fewer quality articles are produced). What is needed is some healthy competition which would drive the prices down to a more competitive level, in line with the marginal costs of producing new featured articles.

Or in other words, the prices that Cla68 is proposing to charge are outrageous, and a complete ripoff. THIS is the real travesty here. Hence I have taken the step of entering the market myself and I want it noted that I am offering fair, competitive, just and reasonable prices which are lower than Cla68's.

Additionally I would like to request that Cla68 be banned for being a monopolist, and that anyone else who tries to enter the market in the future, once I'm there, is immediately banned because of obvious WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ABF, and WP:CANVASS and also for being incivil and making personal attacks.

VolunteerMarek 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps a Userbox could identify those who wish to be known as paid editors, with a standardized simple and unspammy announcement. Edison (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could have a userbox to identify those editors who hardly ever actually edit/improve articles and instead spend their time playing political games and drama mongering on AN/I. Like a userbox that says "only 20% of this editors edits actually involve encyclopedic content, rest is facebook-wanna-be-admin crap". Make a userbox that explicitly states the % of edits that are in article space vs. user talk pages and drama boards. Then we can talk about force-tagging paid editors.VolunteerMarek 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The inclusion of his rates are the only problem that I have with his note. If he didn't have his note, then there would be absolutely no question about it (aside from the controversy surrounding paid editing---which if done in the open I don't see as a problem.) If Cla wants to take an article to FA where he's getting paid, then he should declare that as to ensure that people pay a little closer attention to the neutrality of the article. Beyond that, as for advertising... let's think of it this way. I am a professional balloon entertainer. If in my introduction or "about ballonman" I included a link to my business page, would anybody consider it advertising? If some body provides a link to their employer is it advertising? If they include a link to a business they own, is it advertising? I think the only difference here, is that he includes his rate---which is just tacky and not a good business practice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm going to start McWikis™. It'll be a sensation! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The real money is probably in admining. It should be possible for an experienced admin to make himself available for investigating, deleting or undeleting pages, or blocking accounts. Of course, if I did this all my admin actions would be consistent with policy and would improve the encyclopedia, so I can't imagine anyone having any problems with that. Injecting some free-market discipline should also make people more willing to persue RfA, and also make admins more responsive, since losing rights would hit them in the wallet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins can offer protective services to content editors, ensuring for a modest stipend that editors wishing to contribute to, or remain on Wikipedia are not additionally harassed and blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike

The conduct of the OP needs a little scrutiny here. His response to seeing this message from Cla68 was to post this thread (he must have known dramaz would ensue); there was no attempt (so far as I can see) to have dialogue with Cla68. He then didn't follow the basic rule of AN/I and notify him of the thread. And to cap it all, several hours later, after the thread apparently isn't going his way he is appealing to Jimbo. Given that Cla68 and Jimbo have been publicly sniping at each other for some time now it's not hard to guess what the response will be... And, finally, we have some wierd new reference to the site ToS in that talk page message - an as yet unexplored avenue for OM to bring here? I think it is fair to ask him to provide some answers on his actions here, because they certainly don't look healthy. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC) on a side note if we are talking about self-promotion, his user page is certainly an education... ugh --Errant ^(chat!) 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LOLZ - great funny!!! cause you cannot POSSIBLY be serious. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I could see it being serious. Jumping straight to ANI, then forum shopping with an appeal to Jimbo... it's not exactly the best reaction to the situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is where I was coming from; it wouldn't do for this to be a witchhunt or too hard a boomerang. But I do seem to recall this happening before - Mike is very passionate about Wikipedia (and I feel a little taken up in his own mythos) which spills over into an overly aggressive reaction such as this (a quick look at recent editing shows derisive edit summaries r.e. poorer content, inadequate block message edit summaries). Someone he respects having a quiet word might help. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I rather think it's obvious why KINGCINEPRODUCTIONS would be blocked, and I doubt that anyone would really question that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Jimbo's home page say that bringing matters there isn't forum shopping? I once had somebody bring me up there right away because I quoted a few sentences from an abstract. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not let the WMF handle paid editing?

Instead of the annoying funding drive every year, why not implement paid editing via the WMF? The WMF would then keep part of the money for themselves and hand out a fraction to the editors according to their contributions. There is a big market for this. E.g. we have many articles related to Romney and Obama, and they are going to spend billions of dollars on their campaigns. So, obviously, they would have a few million dollar to spare to improve wiki-articles relevant to the Presidential campaign. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you're kidding...?--MONGO 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It wouldn't make a dent in off-site solicitation of editors, and would just drive competition for who gets to edit articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the WMF should offer compensation to editors to improve the "core" topic articles. For $1,000 I would offer to take any one of them to FA-level quality. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not do it for free? That's kind of the idea behind this thing. It'd be great dealing with the COI problems that would come along with officially taking money for articles. That's a fantastic fucking idea. </sarcasm?> --Onorem♠Dil 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote MasterCard International Global Headquarters for free because I really enjoy architecture and find researching it a fun hobby. I could upgrade Country, but won't because I don't like it as much as I like researching architecture (or doing renames for that matter). If you offered me money to update Country instead of doing those other things, I would be more likely to do it. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of people liking money in return for work. I don't like the concept of people being paid to edit wiki. Bring on the banner ads. The dream is over. --Onorem♠Dil 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I look at it like sausage. I don't like watching it be made, but I love eating it. If it's shown that paying people to edit wiki (parts of generally) or even banner ads generally will result in a net increase of quality free-content, I'm all for it. My primary concerns are how to ensure quality and how to ensure that paying some people won't drive off other people. The goal is free content, that doesn't imply free creation. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the point to start with on this thread was not the paid edits, but the advertising of them on Wikipedia. I've made sausage. I don't mind seeing how it works...though I prefer eating the sausage I helped with just in case. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bah. Now you got me hungry. Gonna have to thaw out some bambi for a late snack. --Onorem♠Dil 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy! I would generally be against turning userpages into adverts, but would like some voluntary method of identifying paid editors, like a category or userbox or wikiproject of some sort. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject? Silverseren^C 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...something like that. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%... paid editing isn't the problem, identifying those who are paid and by whom is. I remember an article I read a year or two ago about a coal mine or a fire in a coal mine. The article was undersgoing significant edits by a user. The user was the Museum Curator for a small community museum. His job was to update the signage at the Museum and increase the accuracy of the articles in wikipedia related to the Colorado Coal mining industry and the town where his museum was located. He declared his intentions and made it clear people knew his bias. Guess what, I have zero problem with that... and I have zero doubt that others have jobs where part of their job is to edit or at least monitor articles relative to their employers. Having paid editors, isn't the problem... identifying them is.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Was this Yule Marble? Asks, Carptrash (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC) , not an administrator. And how did I even get here? Not to mention "Why?"

Slippery Slope

If you're ok with advertising prices for paid editing on your user page, then we're on a slippery slope. Question #1: Do you think it would benefit Wikipedia if a lot of users (hundreds or thousands) realized this was ok and started competitively advertising their prices for articles on their user page? You think we have a spam problem now with student editing...? Question #2: How would you respond if I put this on my user page:

"I am available as a paid !voter. For a nominal fee of $20, I will post a !vote of your choice along with a well-reasoned argument (quoting the relevant policies and guidelines) to the XfD, RfC, RfA, ANI, or article talk page discussion of your choice. I believe my qualifications as an admin on Wikipedia speak for themselves; my opinions will not be overlooked and will often sway the discussion in the desired direction. Email me to work out payment terms. I accept PayPal!"

‑Scottywong| chatter _ 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what anyone else does with their user page (within reason). However, paid voting would clearly be a "conflict of interest". Improving the encyclopedia is our main objective, so what's the problem with "pay me to make an article a Featured Article"? Paid advocacy to change Wikipedia's policies, or some such thing, would easily conflict with the core "improve the encyclopedia" interest though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I hinted at that above. How about I charge $1,000.- for a FA and give $500.- to the reviewer who passes it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And then some of the editors who are also lawyers can advertise their services for drafting the contracts between the paid editors and whomever. We should have advertising banners on user pages as well. It'll be fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, I just don't find the "slippery slop" to be that convincing here (and I'm hardly one to triumphantly and dismissively scream "slippery slope argument!" either). There obviously are lines that shouldn't be crossed, but this isn't really one of them (...yet).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want a slippery slope argument, let me make one about paid adminning, and paid shills. Not all those paid articles will be good; some of them will be obvious puffery. Some of the people who paid good money for the puffery will be angry if someone comes along and tries to delete it or make it neutral, and will be willing to pay for them to be blocked. Crowds of paid shills will show up at ANI to demand that people who are resisting paid POV pushes be blocked for some reason or other (perhaps removing peacock language from a biography will become a BLP violation). Then a paid admin will swoop in and block them. If exposed, those involved will claim that that they are making good blocks, and that whether a block is good or bad does not depend on whether it was paid for. Once that is accepted, the next frontier will be paid requests for arbitration ... Cardamon (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

POINT

The editor has admitted the intent to disrupt the project [23] to prove a WP:POINT. I hope administrators will take appropriate actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT is mostly about abusing process to prove the point, here it is a much weaker case. In essence, your interpretation of WP:POINT is so broad that it would swallow up provocative edits that spur valuable discussions, and in fact would undermine the principle of WP:BRD. It was a bold edit, and it spurred valuable discussion, and to the extent any disruption has occurred, it was from editors being pointy in reaction... Monty₈₄₅ 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me to be classic disruption. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not spur discussion. We had an RfC, we'll probably have another, Jimbo weighed in a few times, ArbCom has an ambiguous ruling, and it comes up with alarming regularity. This user's "offer" looks like an attempt to skate on the edge of a block to make a point, in the "ha ha, this isn't technically against the rules but will make everyone mad" sort of way. My advice, block until he agrees to remove the note and stay away from poking things with a stick, close discussion on ANI, and let cooler heads prevail in a new RfC. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As we use to say on Usenet, YHBT HAND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruption.... pffffffft. It is time we started blocking the disruptive editors who keep running round trying to block everyone else. What Cla is attempting is fine. It just needs a little balancing and sensible discussion. Running a commercial operation based on Wikipedia itself is a different issue from normal business activity. Cla's business operation has to be balanced and placed in the wider framework. First off, Wikiedia should be charging him say $1000 a week for using Wikipedia to advertise his business. Secondly, the right for people like Cla to edit for a profit is a special case, and Wikipedia should impose a business charge of, say $1 for every word he adds or deletes. Alternatively, he could pay royalty charge, say 90% of his business profits, back to Wikipedia. People like Cla can potentially make money off the back of Wikipedia because people like me have put a huge unpaid effort into the project. If Cla is going to lever off that, then I expect the appropriate returns back to Wikipedia for providing the infrastructure his business requires. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• We need to start detooling ban-happy administrators who try creatively adapting policy to strike down people or actions that they personally do not like, that's one opinion of mine. As for CLA — of course he's trying to provoke a reaction. Given the recent collapse of the COI policy RFA that was mandated by ArbCom — 25 different opinions and no consensus on anything outside of the fact that the situation is confusing and contradictory and needs resolution — a well-placed hand grenade to provoke a new round of discussion on the matter is probably overdue. If Orange Mike, whom I respect a lot even though we don't agree on this particular issue, has run off to JimmyTalk with this, he is forum shopping and to be criticized for that — I'll pop over there and take a look, I hope that is wrong. But even that's probably a worthwhile venture, come to think of it. The COI RFC has failed, time to see if a second go will result in some sort of coherent result. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 26 April 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 talk:87.231.133.174 / Rachel Marsden

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.

---

• 87.231.133.174 (talk · contribs)
• Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone at the IP address is claiming to be the subject of the article and the copyright owner of an image over at commons File:RachelMarsdenRTScreencap.jpg they want to use in the article. If anyone wishes to help the user go through the process to verify copyright owner ship (the image is supposedly from Russia Today television program, so I am not certain how the copyright fell into Marsden's hands) and and the release process, please feel free. And anyone who has admin rights at Commons who wishes to pop over there and remove the copyright image, you may do that as well.

• Francophile1232 (talk · contribs) initially uploaded the image. I will let them know about this as well.

-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 25 April 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.

Need help in straightening out a mess

Would greatly appreciate an uninvolved admin with a little spare time to help straighten out a move/delete/merge discussion mess that has cropped up (everyone involved was acting in good faith).

Yesterday, I proposed a move of Seamus (dog) to Mitt Romney dog controversy here and several people commented on the proposal. Sometime later, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, another editor proposed merging Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which I actually liked better than my original idea - I posted a pointer to the AfD merge discussion here. After that, yet another editor created yet another merge discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog) here.

So basically, there are now three discussions regarding slightly different variants of the same idea. Does anyone have any ideas for perhaps deciding which one place is the best venue, and perhaps hatting/closing the others? I would give it a shot myself but I am an involved editor. Any help welcome. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly's take is pretty much spot on. It is messy. I am the editor that created the last mentioned thread on the talk page, and I did so because I think an AFD for a different article is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I'm ok with what ever consensus arises obviously. I'm not 100% sure ANI is the right venue for this, but it's not really much of a "dispute" as much as a procedural problem, so admin help would be quite welcome. SÆdon^talk 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To thus of us who remember the relentless edit-warring from 2008 and 2009 over politicians' articles (liberal and conservative both), it's unfortunate that there seems to be no improvement since then. This kind of garbage does not belong in a "real" encyclopedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Look on the bright side - I don't anything can ever be as bad as Sarah Palin in late 2008, with hundreds of edits per minute and wheel-warring involved admins. I think I still have PTSD from that article. Kelly ^hi! 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think things are that bad tbh. In a couple months it'll all be worked out and might be a GA, all just part of the process. SÆdon^talk 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, sure. Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. And I missed the obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face comment that wikipedia is "going to the dogs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just hope the dogs are Keeshonds :). SÆdon^talk 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RECENT needs to be a speedy criterion.WTucker (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually I'd like to take issue with something in the first line of this thread. User:Kelly says "everyone involved was acting in good faith" but I think there is a possibility that this is not true in her case. Judging by her involvement with the Seamus article, creating the new Obama article, and her responses at the various talk pages, as well as her pattern of disruptive editing in the past, I think she may be gaming the system and/or treating it all like a game. Or at the least, looking to take advantage of the mess to wear others out. El duderino ^(abides) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  What else did I do? I have to admit, so far it sounds like I am a Very Bad Person and should be investigated immediately. Kelly ^hi! 06:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the mess would have been completely prevented had you not created the Obama Eats Dogs article. The mess stems from that. The Seamus article is fine where it is or under 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. The Obama non-issue can be added as a tiny mention on the Seamus article, as a reaction to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's really a content issue, we were just looking for some help with the procedural stuff. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure thing. I propose a topic ban on Kelly relating to all articles, images, and templates concerning the 2012 election, its candidates, and any related issues, such as memes. How's that? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Viriditas. Kelly, you obviously have to wait for your Obama Eats Dogs article to be deleted. Then the discussion can occur in one place: on the Talk page of the Seamus article, where it should. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Topic Ban Given Kelly's conduct in this instance, and reviewing last years Sarah Palin fiasco, I agree that Kelly should not be involved with anything related to the 2012 elections. There are other users who should also get said topic bans, but none of them had the temerity to blatantly violate WP:POINT, and none of them to my knowledge did it last time as well. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Heh - perhaps someone should first submit some evidence of my poor conduct? Kelly ^hi! 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure thing. You started an article named Obama Eats Dogs, which was created by this unreliable source, based on this gossip blog which does not meet the reliable source guidelines established on Wikipedia. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's the only source? Kelly ^hi! 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Care to tell me how a so-called "meme" started by a partisan gossip blog is an acceptable source? You wouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to push a political POV now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Nope - actually the whole intent is to balance the POV in Seamus (dog) by including the other camp's response< which is why I would personally like to see a merge of the two. I think the article is sourced to acceptably reliable sources like the Washington Post and ABC News. Is there a problem with neutrality in the wording of the article? (We're veering into content issues here.) Kelly ^hi! 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  That sounds like POV pushing. One could write an entire article about Seamus without ever mentioning "Obama Eats Dogs". The only one linking the two issues is an unreliable partisan gossip blog, who you appear to be representing. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  It sounds like the Grundle Method of NPOV, honestly. The belief that a Good Fact^(tm) placed near a Bad Fact^(tm) results in NPOV is a common error seen in partisan editors. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, Kelly, but I have to endorse a topic ban from articles related to the 2012 election as well. It's nothing personal, I just think that it's pretty clear you're trying to push a POV here. Based on your comment above, you seem to unintentionally confirm the gaming accusation against you by saying that the reason you created the Obama eats dog article was to get a POV in, hoping that the content would be merged (against consensus on the Seamus talk page). Even after I explained very logically why what Obama did as a 6 year old is a red herring in respect to the Romney dog issue, you pressed the point without any sort of logical argument as to how the issues are related. You had to know that Obama eats dog would have gone to AFD immediately, it's just so obviously a POV fork, and that tells me that you're not able to edit in this are dispassionately. SÆdon^talk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we even have a Wikipedia article on a dog spending a few hours riding on a roof of a car shows how easily the Wikipedia system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an election year. This crap always pops up when the US Presidency is up for grabs. It's only going to get worse once the GOP convention is over, and the full campaigning starts. There's a reason I stay away from politics articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me, it is probably about time to look at candidate bios for senate and house races, as this is the point in the election cycle where we see puff pieces arise. Hopefully there will be less hissy fits when articles are pruned as oppose dto the last time around. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So first, is, or has there been, an RFC/U for Kelly? If not, I suggest the those asking for a topic ban get busy. Second, think you guys could move your Topic ban comments to a different subsection? I barely even noticed that it had been proposed, and I doubt I'm the only one. Oh, and Oppose. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

An RFCU has never been a prerequisite for a topic ban. SÆdon^talk 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is a step in dispute resolution, specifically user conduct issues. If that is your goal anyway. Which it doesn't appear to be. Arkon (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My goal is a neutral article specifically and a well built encyclopedia in general. I am apolitical and I don't vote. If I was forced to choose between Romney and Obama I would flip a coin. I supported a topic ban because I believe it is best for the encyclopedia and for no other reason. SÆdon^talk 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This general subject seems to be crying out for a home. Many presidents have had interactions with dogs, one way or another. There was the Bushes' dog, for example, a pint-sized pup that attacked reporters. And there was the case of LBJ, who took a lot of heat for lifting his beagles by their ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty damn decent idea, Bugs. First dogs anyone? SÆdon^talk 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FDR had a dog named Fala. And then there was the infamous Nixon speech about a family dog named Checkers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more than just dogs, though (Socks the Cat during Clinton's administration.) Pets of the United States Presidents is a bit clunky, but would be an accurate starting point. We'd just want to keep it narrowed down to the notable ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note though that Checkers speech, certainly highly notable, is the article; Checkers (dog) redirects there. And Checkers was only a vice presidential dog anyway, she died in 1964.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Here's what needs to happen. First Obama eats dogs will rightfully be deleted as an unencylopedic POV endeavor at AfD. The next day Seamus (dog) will rightfully be deleted as an unencyclopedic POV endeavor at AfD. Then some POV warrior, bitterly unhappy that their new favorite distractions have been eliminated from WP will start a Dogs In Politics 2012 piece attempting to synthesize the two competing deleted POV essays into a new unencyclopedic POV endeavor and THAT will be rightfully deleted at AfD. Then the POV warriors will move along to something else. Start taking names for the inevitable topic bans to follow... Carrite (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Hipocrite

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 have been noticing problems with the conduct of User:Hipocrite with regard to pornographic articles. Right now, there is a long discussion about the rewording of WP:PORNBIO going on. For some reason, Hipocrite was initially !voting "delete" in AfDs about possibly non-notable pornstars with the reasoning usually being something like, "Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated [sic] and should be disregarded." (Like the closing admin is just going to take his/her word for it?) I kept telling him/her that that isn't true; in fact, it came to the point that I had to issue him/her a warning (which also shows that I am not the only user to bring this to his/her attention). For a few days it seemed like s/he stopped, but I come home from work tonight and I discover that not only did s/he nominate a few of the articles I created for deletion ([24] [25] [26]), s/he didn't even notify me about it (check my talk page and even my talk page archive for proof). That all kind of reeks of bad faith. In addition, as you can see from the above diffs, lately s/he has now even been saying that WP:PORNBIO isn't a guideline at all.

Because of all this, I propose a topic ban on Hipocrite for pornography-related articles until s/he understands that there's a difference between WP:IAR and just dismissing a guideline on the basis of just not liking it (being under discussion does not necessarily equate to being deleted). If a topic ban is deemed too harsh, is there any other way to get him/her to stop this behavior? This situation seems too intense for WP:WQA. (And for the record, unlike Hipocrite, I actually am going to notify him/her of this discussion.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Erpert, WP:PORNBIO is depreciated because it's too lax, and some editors refuse to update it. In the last years, the notability requirements have gotten stricter, and this guideline is showing its age. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An example of the problem: following Erpert's preferred wording of the guideline, if a group scene with half a dozen people receives a group award, then every every actor and actress in the scene are automatically via WP:PORNBIO and gets an article. Even if he/she doesn't have any coverage in any reliable sources beyond his/her name appearing in the award's list of names. Erpert has reverted several improvements to WP:PORNBIO [27][28][29], Erpert's opinion in bottom of the diff --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We can consider it to be de facto depreciated by the lack of consensus to enforce it. Guidelines and policies are reflective of community norms, not dictorial, and as of late there have been several points made against the guideline as written. My suggestion is to work out a new guideline asap. Oppose topic ban, but would ask that Hipocrite makes sure to remember to notify Erpert in the event he nominates his articles for deletion. I'm sure it was just an oversight. SÆdon^talk 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite has already nominated Erpert's articles: Elexis Monroe AfD, Janet Mason AfD. And no, he has not remembered to notify Erpert :-( (why can't we all be friends and have a group hug?) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Enric, I explained those reversions on the talk page, and other users agreed with me in all those cases. But that's all I want to say about that here because I don't want to be accused of canvassing. But Saedon, I like to assume good faith, but do you really think it was an oversight every single time? I even told Hipocrite about it the first time s/he did it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Without looking too into it (it's way passed my bedtime) I agree it looks off, but I suppose that's where the A in AGF comes in. I would like to see Hipocrite's response. SÆdon^talk 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never notified article creators about AFD. If that's part of the process, it should be added to the basic toolbox "nominate afd" that comes standard, or it should be noted on the article-page template, or it should be noted on the AFD page template, or it should be noted on the AFD instructions at Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. I ignored Erpert's templating of me because it started with a " Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed," which was false in all cases, combative, and a clear violation of WP:DTR. Hipocrite (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...whenever I use the Twinkle interface to nom an article for AFD, it automagically notifies the creator. WP:TRR and all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not use twinkle. Hipocrite (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TTR maybe? Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Afd how to says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Therefore, while it would be better if Hipocrite notified editors, there's no justification for a topic ban (or another one sanction) if they chose not to. Nobody Ent 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think if Hipocrite didn't start providing notices from this point onward, there would be a problem. There are a lot of things that aren't required around here, but not doing them over-and-over will get you a ban of some sort. Not following WP:BEFORE over and over would be such a case. And Hipocrite, IMO, isn't always very collegial in discussions related to the PORNBIO topic. So I'd hope an outcome of this discussion would be folks urging Hipocrite to be sure to be collegial and asking them to provide AfD notices, especially inside of this topic area. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I intend to provide AFD notices going forward. If there is a problem with my "collegiality," I'd appreciate it being brought to my attention on my talk page, with specificity, and not with a template that informs me that my edits are disruptive and have been reverted and that I'm going to be blocked for daring to disagree. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

When I initiate an AfD, I consciously do not give any editor a notice about the discussion, sorry. If someone is interested in enough in an article, then the onus is on them and how they manage their watchlist, not anyone else. I would emphatically reject any suggestion here that an editor be required to perform a purely optional and IMO meaningless action. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Tarc, for several reasons: (a) the number of people who have made significant contributions to an article is often impossible to delimit; (b) none of the editors who have contributed to the article own it; (c) notifying a specific group of users may well bring just the wrong set of people to the AfD debate (the whole point about AfD is to get outside feedback, not feedback from those who already have a vested interest in an article); (c) we have watchlists for a reason; (d) I generally refuse to do any manual notifications in deletion matters beyond those that are easily automatable through Twinkle and similar tools, as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle does it already, so... I make sure to notify the creator, because... well, it's just the nice thing to do. The "if they cared enough they'd make sure to know" argument gets used for a lot of different things and it's dubious. Watchlists aren't that reliable and we don't have the tools to keep them all that organized, despite many of us asking for that ability each passing year. It's nice to recognize that we're all in that same crappy boat and notify each other of certain things we'd especially like to be notified about, being that we can't can't currently have our watchlists especially notify of things we care especially about. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:13, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that people would publicly admit that they would deliberately attempt to hide a deletion nomination from the article's creator in an attempt to keep "the wrong set of people" from participating in a deletion discussion. I knew User:TreasuryTag did that, but I just assumed that was just TreasuryTag being TreasuryTag. Looks like it may be time to write a bot to notify the poor sods that aren't given the common courtesy of a notification that someone intends for their contributions to be removed. Anyway, kudos to Hipocrite for offering to do the courteous thing here regarding notifications. 28bytes (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Said bot already exists, and is why I didn't waste my time with notifying creators (the same way I don't waste my time rescuing references) - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erwin85Bot_8. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that a rescinding of "I intend to provide AFD notices going forward," above, or are you just referring to past instances? Equazcion ^(talk) 13:56, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Pay careful attention to my tensing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, I thought it said "don't". I'm slightly dyslexic. Still, there's no reason to be snarky. We're all friends here =D Equazcion ^(talk) 14:15, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that bot hasn't edited since 2010. 28bytes (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask the creator for the source Download the source [30] and restart it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Grabbed it. Thanks for the link. 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is talking about 'deliberately attempt[ing] to hide' deletion nominations, 28bytes, and it's beneath you to misrepresent people's comments that way. I think everyone agrees that deletion nominations should be accompanied by a clear and explicit edit summary, so that everyone who has an article on his watchlist has a fair chance to participate. (This should, incidentally, automatically bias participation in the AfD towards individuals with an interest in the topic.) I'm not persuaded, however, that compulsory talk page notifications are necessary or beneficial, largely for the reasons that Equazcion suggests.

Not that this will ever happen, but it would probably be good for the process and for Wikipedia's content if the first day or so after an AfD nomination didn't involve any editors who had even heard of the article's subject, let alone edited the article, so that we would be able to get an idea of what editors coming to the article 'cold' were seeing. The best 'defence' for an article isn't widespread notification/canvassing of every editor who might have touched an article, but rather writing articles that are firmly based on good-quality sources that clearly demonstrate the importance and relevance of a given topic. An article which accomplishes this does not need the intervention of its creator to pass AfD (and is frankly unlikely to be nominated in the first place). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My statement was actually in favor of notification. Did you mean to say someone else? Anyway, I think the purpose of this thread has been served, since Hiprocrite says he intends to notify in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:42, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I misrepresented absolutely nothing and I would appreciate it you retracted that accusation. The plain English interpretation of "notifying a specific group of users may well bring just the wrong set of people to the AfD debate" is that the nominator would prefer that the article creator and others likely to !vote keep not know about the deletion discussion. If you've got a more plausible interpretation, I'd like to hear it. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In a rational world, rather than worrying about what an individual editor did do, didn't do, or won't do or will do Wikipedia would do the necessary consensus building to have a coherent policy -- that is, either Afd says yes notify or not required. Nobody Ent 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either of you meant what you're accusing each other of. Notification is open to interpretation. I'd say it's good, since it can be especially disheartening to miss an AfD and find out later that something you created got deleted without anyone letting you know it was even nominated. I could understand it being seen as slanting the discussion too, but I think closing admins know to take creators' comments with a grain of salt (if they don't then that's the real problem), so the benefit of notifying outweighs the conceivable detriment. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:04, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't support a topic ban, not by a long stretch. If a user is saying something you don't like about content/policy/guidelines, shutting them up is rarely the answer. Instead I would suggest talking to them about the content/policy/guidelines. Also, it's courteous to notify the creator of an AfD but not required. If the article was recently created by an active user, they're most likely going to have it on their watchlist anyway. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing much good faith in this proposal. The filer has been on the losing end of some pornbio-related AfDs lately, and this smacks of trying to rid oneself of an editor with an opposing POV. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Topic bans should not be used to appease an aggrieved editor, and no such ban is warranted here anyway. Seeing as this has now become a discussion on the advisability of notifying article creators about AfDs, perhaps it would be best closed or moved elsewhere? WT:AfD perhaps? pablo 13:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal reflects poorly on the proposer. The two are committed adversaries on how to update PORNBIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, no topic ban. For real. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 26 April 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:PurpleSteak

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

Resolved

 – indeffed as confirmed sock of JHerbertMunster

This discussion is carried over from the Dispute resolution noticeboard, because repeated disruptive editing and general lack of cooperation by User:PurpleSteak, has turned this into more than just a content dispute. It started when he attempted to move the article General Joseph Colton to both "General Joseph B Colton" [31] (without the period), and to "General Joseph B. Colton" [32] (with the period). It was reverted both times by Favonian, who had reverted many edits by other users trying to perform the same cut and paste move.

PurpleSteak has now proposed a move of the article to "General Joseph B. Colton", and has changed this information on other articles and files related to this article [33] [34]. He has left several messages on my talk page (Edits to Joe Colton and Joseph B. Colton), and I have mentioned the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and coming to a consensus on the article's talk page (Talk:General Joseph Colton#Requested move and edits), but my attempts to reason with PurpleSteak have fallen on deaf ears. In the meantime, he has continued to re-add several POV edits to the article, even after they have been disputed. [35] I believe that he is trying to prove a point, but he is going about it the wrong way, and he thinks that any information he can find online automatically supports his position, regardless of how relevant it is. I also believe that sock puppetry may be involved, since these edits were attempted by other users before PurpleSteak (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster).

• Wow. Over an action figure? Drmies (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• The user is twice at 3R, if I'm counting correctly. I reverted the lot. One more and they're done--but maybe something will come out of the CU. Munster did not, as far as I can tell, add that JFK stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 26 April 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.

68.198.254.73 and Port Chester, New York

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

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Drmies

Hi. A particular IP user, 68.198.254.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has persistently (since November 2011) been putting uncited, POV, and sometimes (according to some) incorrect information on the Port Chester, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The user has been warned repeatedly on their talk page, including a final warning at 2:01 am today, and has (since that warning) again posted the same problematic material. A notice of this discussion has been placed on the user's talk page. Blocking would be appreciated, unless it is concluded that semi-protection is preferred (I would not think so, given that it's the same IP address for several months...). Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week since this is likely to continue. Longer blocks may be in the future. Please submit to RFP if/when IP hopping starts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 April 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.

Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)

22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)

12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)

22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)

22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)

22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)

22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)

22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)

22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)

21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)

20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)

13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)

10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)

10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)

10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)

13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)

22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)

10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)

09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)

09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)

09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)

09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)

23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)

20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)

• Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty₈₄₅ 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't look at the dog article but Arzel's participation on its talk page looks tendentious to me. In addition, looking at Arzel's overall edit history IMHO shows a long-term battleground editor and wikilawyer. Articles to which Arzel has contributed 20 or more edits: Fox News Channel: 172 edits, Tea Party movement: 144, Fox News Channel controversies: 138, Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 127, Michele Bachmann: 116, RealClearPolitics: 92, Tea Party protests: 64, 2011 Wisconsin protests: 62, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 60, Seamus (dog): 42, Brian Kilmeade: 37, Political positions of John McCain: 36, Herman Cain: 36, James O'Keefe: 35, Tom Emmer: 34, Steve Doocy: 33, Matrix scheme: 32, Glenn Beck: 31, Gretchen Carlson: 31, Elizabeth Kucinich: 31, Restoring Honor rally: 31, Debbie Schlussel: 30, Joe the Plumber: 30, Media Matters for America: 30, Hydraulic fracturing: 29, Kevin James (broadcaster): 28, Scott Walker (politician): 26, John Boehner: 26, Sean Hannity: 25, Political activities of the Koch family: 24, Rick Santorum: 24, Meg Whitman: 23, The O'Reilly Factor: 23, Tim Pawlenty: 23, Koch Industries: 22, Mitt Romney: 21, Bob McDonnell: 21, Fox & Friends: 21, Keith Olbermann: 21, Political views of Bill O'Reilly: 21.

  Looking at the edit summaries in contribs gives a clearer picture of the edits. Arzel is versed enough at wielding WP policy that I don't see clearly outrageous individual diffs, but there's a lot of removals of sourced material (of varying quality) unfavorable to conservatives, some of which I'd call dubious, along with occasional insertions of stuff unfavorable to liberals.[36] I believe this pattern fits the WP:TE description of editing that is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. Others familiar with this sort of pattern might have further inferences to make. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you've made exactly one edit on Wikipedia (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Wikipedia to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: [37]. In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Wikipedia: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: [38], so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino ^(abides) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but you're not correct. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Darn, that was my second guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dog's Against Romney Since we are at it could we please gets some input from Admins regarding the Blog Dogs Against Romney regarding its use as an EL. I propose that it fails WP:EL#11 because it is a Blog and while it claims to be the offical site of dogs against romney, it is not the official site of Seamus. Its purpose is to complain about Mitt Romney and sell related merchandise to promote this view. It is also a work of Satire written from the point of view of a fictional dog called "Rusty". It may also violate WP:BLP since much of the content attacks a living person(s). Arzel (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is nothing but election year horseshit. Bring the article about the unelected candidate's dog from the 1980s to AfD and see if it is judged to be an encyclopedic topic. If it passes there, which is shouldn't, THEN start topic-banning the POV warriors by the fistful. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already gone through AFD. SÆdon^talk 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been TO AfD but not THROUGH AfD — a NO CONSENSUS close. Somebody should bring it again and this thing should be shipped away in a honey bucket. Letting Democratic POV crap in only provokes Republican POV crap. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, all caps is just pointless and annoying. Cut it out.

Second, it has been through AFD, and No Consensus is a valid close. If you want to take it to AFD again, by all means. It might be a good idea to let this ANI finish though, or it gives the appearance of forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer all caps to using bold text or italics for emphasis because it is easier to type. I am sorry that it offends your sensibilities, but I will most assuredly not adapt my preferences to yours in this matter. Happily, the article on Seamus the Dog is being put to sleep by consensus at AfD, so MELLOW is the word for the day... xoxo, Carrite (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your prerogative. Expect to get chewed out for "shouting" when you use all caps, though. It's your problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I know of many articles which are locked down in a junk or POV state by POV wiki-lawyers. In the few where I've seen Arzel , Arzel was the one trying to FIX the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be a very subjective opinion not born out with facts. We could easily provide (literally) hundreds of examples of bias in editing, double standards, and outright misrepresentation by Arzel spanning half a decade. He has outwardly declared his belief that Wikipedia is full of "liberals" and "liberal bias", so I have no doubt he feels justified in his edits. I don't believe that is true (after all, facts have a well known liberal bias), but even if Arzel's claim of "defending liberal articles" were true, the statistics don't add up... one or two instances of "defending liberal articles" doesn't overcome the thousands of examples of conservative bias. At the end of the day, any thorough examination of his edits clearly demonstrates tendentious editing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that wikipedia has any mechanism (or constitution) to deal with a tendentious editor who is careful to play by the rules. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous complaints have little value, why not show your WP face, rather than hide behind your obvious multitude of IP's so we can judge your edit hisotry as well. At least I am not hiding anything...unlike yourself. Arzel (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous editing is just as welcome here as non-anonymous editing and there is nothing even close to a requirement that anyone register an account. This is a long standing WP tradition dictated by the WMF. It is not true that anonymous complaints have little value and the arguments of any person can be judged on the merits of the argument itself and not who is making them. Note that I am not commenting on the substance of the edit, only that it is perfectly fine to edit as an IP SÆdon^talk 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit! Calling out somebody for alleged POV behind the screen of an IP address isn't "anonymous editing," it is anonymous denunciation. Come out and identify yourself or shut your fucking defamatory mouth, Mr. 24.98.7235480924350=92345. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing anonymously is my right, and is intended to force you to deal with the substance of the issue brought to ANI instead of attacking those who seek assistance. Thank you for the assistance in demonstrating my point. -A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are a coward, go troll somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell? This is not an elementary school playground, you are not (or should not, in any event, be) the class bully, and playground taunting is screamingly inappropriate. The anon IP is exactly freaking right that he is allowed to comment - as any editor might - and allowed to participate in ANI discussions - as any editor does. May I ask what you would possibly do with the editor's real identity, if indeed he has a registered name? WP:NPA doesn't have an escape clause where anon IPs are concerned. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is seriously unacceptable behavior from both Carrite and Arzel. And using terms like "defamatory" is getting close to legal threat language. You two may not like that WP policy - fully backed by the WMF to the point where they rejected a community call to require registration - but it's a huge part of WP. You both need to calm down or an admin is going to bring down the ban hammer. SÆdon^talk 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Better? Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Very, very slightly better, yes, thanks. SÆdon^talk 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: "Editing anonymously is my right..." Four career edits, all to this thread. See: Poison pen letter. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a proxy account which means that it's likely a dynamic IP. Either way it doesn't matter; one edit or a million, the IP has as much right as you do to comment. Please cease this line of reasoning. SÆdon^talk 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not have my history be judged by someone who refuses to show his history. That person is a coward, and if they have a problem with being called a coward they should go troll somewhere else. User names are already pretty anonymous, to be afraid of even having an anonymous user name says quite a lot. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both you and Carrite need to drop this line of bullying. Argue the substance of the edits, not the editor. It makes no difference, in terms of the piling NPA violations, whether the editor is registered or not. If you continue, you're going to get blocked for this without consideration to the original accusations. Stop it. Note that I am not commenting on the specific complaints, but reserve the right to in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to get blocked because an anonymous IP jumper is leveling accusations against me from several different IP's and I call him out on it? Seriously, this is what has become of WP? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, if you are blocked then it would be because you continue to personally attack another editor even when having been repeatedly told not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

But an IP jumper is free to attack me, where is the justice in that? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, "justice" isn't something Wikipedia is after. Demanding justice isn't going to earn you any points.

Second, the IP voiced an opinion that you are editing in a POV manner. Your response was direct insults and to repeat those insults after being warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Heck, if I had the mop, I'd block you myself for your repeated insults in this ANI alone, Arzel, because it's plain that you don't get it. Anon IPs are protected by WP:NPA just the same as any other editor, and their statements are evaluated on the merits, the same as any other editor. If the IP fears retaliation ... well, gosh, how could he possibly have come to that conclusion, eh? Ravenswing 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good god, I just stepped through a random sample of the last 1,000 mainspace edits of Arzel. Based on that alone, it is obvious that the concerns stated above are completely valid and need to be addressed. Since Arzel and his pal Carrite viciously attack responding editors, I wish to remain anonymous. just becaus we are anonymous does not mean our points arent valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Provide a point and we can see if it has any value. A single edit to come here and attack me is simply the sign of a coward. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think NPA is limited to launching them at named accounts? You would be wrong if you thought that. Stop calling this user a "coward". You are wrong about anonymous users. Doc talk 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you defending any anonymous IP jumper using several different IP's to attack my character? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only pointing out that we have allowed, and always will allow, IP jumpers to exist here. Some are good, some are bad. Some use it for gnomish edits that undeniably improve the encyclopedia, and some abuse it for nefarious reasons. We can't class a group of editors so easily. If you think they are evading scrutiny, and you know who they are, you can file a SPI. Doc talk 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I nominally have little problem with IP's, however, this anon is judging me while hiding behind a cloak of multiple IP's. It is the same person trying to give the illusion of many. You are defending that? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we even have Wikipedia article about a dog riding on the roof of a car for a few hours shows how easily the system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... didn't you just say the exact same thing in a thread below here? Maybe it's me... Doc talk 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, don't we have two threads going on this same article? The answer to both is yes. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

calling me (and the other anons) "cowards" only shows the strong desire to attack others instead of dealing with the issue. i am not very familiar with ANI, but somebody should really look into Arzel. his bias is systemic and long running, and the examples of it are pretty self evident. i can gladly give TONS of examples, but it seems to me that any random reading of a few hundred pages of his contributions through february (and a random few pages from a few years ago that i looked at) shows pretty obviously the problem. his edits are very clearly ALWAYS pushing a conservative agenda, and he bullies other users and lawyers rules to always benefit his point of view. if you want specific examples, what would help move this along the most? article edits? talk pages? tell me what to do to get someone to get serious about dealing with this, and i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Because you are One Anon, not many. The probabilistic pattern of the Anon's editing here strongly suggests that they are from one person, or a couple of persons working together offline. The odds that the Anon's attacking my character here would all have almost no other edit history is extremely unlikely. You did not all just come here by chance and have the same thing to say. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then file an SPI, don't keep poking the hornet's nest. Look, I know the natural instinct is to defend yourself, but each reply you make is digging the hole deeper. Just ignore them or file an SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of Arzel's contributions to articles consist of deletions of other editors' work. In very few, if any (I've never seen any) cases does s/he add complete references or contribute sourced statements to articles. Most contributions are statements are unsourced, POV opinions, personal attacks, and largely inaccurate wiki-lawyering on talk pages. The destruction of content and senseless and endless criticism of other editors is very offputting and discourages people from spending their time building content. Other editors have tried to educate, mentor, coach, and educate Arzel, but s/he has not been responsive to this. Some responding to this ANI may be choosing to remain anonymous due to Arzel (and perhaps his friends') retaliatory editing behavior. This is my only contribution to this particular thread. I'll use the same IP if I make additional contributions to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.135 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

When there are enough people adding shit to articles, it becomes a full time job to be a pooper scooper removing the same. A job unfortunately that somehow ends up tainting the person doing the dreadful work with a foul smell by which people seem to judge rather than the actual quality and necessity of the work itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The obverse is also true: crafty POV-pushers find ways to veil their editing under the NPOV flag. To use your imagery, ..donning the janitor's cap when it suits their purposes. El duderino ^(abides) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Complaints from IP editors at ANI or related pages have zero merit or value. They should be hatted, reverted or ignored, and the drama will be cut in half around here. The "destruction of content" rhetoric by this one is reminiscent of some of our dearly departed Article Rescue Squad indef blockees. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, this is not correct. IPs have the right to voice their opinion here, which admins can consider. Now, if they're trolling, socking or conducting meatpuppetry, they can be blocked and comments struck. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And as I will point out to you now, that is exactly what they are doing; trolling. The comment by the one below readily admits to editing via IP to avoid identity detection. That's underhanded, deceptive, and renders its comments irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • from SOCK " the use of multiple accounts" yep "to deceive or mislead" seems like what this is "other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking) and is not allowed. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: Creating new accounts to avoid detection" very clearly YES. "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases " potentially yes "and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." and again, yes."Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" umm yes. And under Legitimate uses I am not seeing anything that applies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's walk through that, point by point:

• " the use of multiple accounts" - Not exactly. This is the use of an IP to obscure identity due to the rabid attacks often leveled against those who seek help. I think the responses within this thread clearly underline why this is necessary.
• "Creating new accounts to avoid detection" - Wrong on two counts: one, I doubt any of the IP editors have created additional accounts beyond the single account I use (I can't technically speak for the others, but it appears at least one or both of them are well known already and appear on the up-and-up). Two, there is no attempt to avoid detection -- I have very clearly stated that I am a named account and why I'm anonymous. I can only assume the same is for the others.
• "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" -- "ummm, no". There is no legitimate reason to review the complaintant's contributions here. This thread is about Arzel, and no one else. If your logic is to base evaluation on the contribution history of those who ask for help, you are doing it wrong (see ad hominem). If what we say is incorrect or inaccurate, then ignore it; otherwise, stop hiding behind the absurd logic of "what you say isn't legitimate because i don't know who you are". You only want to know who we are so you can attack us (and, I'll posit, protect someone with a similar POV).

There is no crossover or attempt to votestack here. I've been directly forthcoming about why I'm posting anonymously, and I've even offered to identify to a trusted admin. The Foundation has made it very clear that IP anon's comments are both welcome and legitimate on their face; I would appreciate it if you'd address the issues raised herein instead of trying to delegitimize the complaints because you can't successfully attack those with a grievance. -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again Arzel, with a little assistance, has turned this into an attack on others instead of addressing the issue. Personally, I am a well-known editor (with many more edits than arzel) who wishes to avoid the unfortunately successful trick of avoidance ad hominem. I have edited from this singular IP only; responses above from other IPs are presumably other editors with similar reasons. If our statements are read as trolling or inaccurate, simply ignore us, however I believe the record speaks for itself - Arzel's blatant focus on conservative advocacy (of which there are multiple ANI filings in the past) should be compelling enough reason to justify the discussion. I am willing to verify my identity to a trusted admin who understands my wish to avoid attack whilst keeping this discussion focused on the issue. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and impartial observer chiming in: The initial concern over one article seems to have morphed into a review of a particular editor's editing. An administration action may be necessary. What is the next step? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

To be quite clear, the initial complaint is against one particular editors's conduct at that article, which has brought about a wider discussion of that editor's behavior due to his repeated, easily discernible pattern of the same behavior writ large. -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This whole massive thread by the Mr. Anonymous IP Poison Pen Tag Team strikes me as much ado about nothing, soon to be rendered moot at AfD. ANI at its very worst... Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Question for Dwainwr123|Debbie W. -- You make the claim that Arzel is "doing everything in his power to destroy the article through abusive editing". Question is this... has he been edit warring? And, if so, why did you not take this to that venue? Has he been operating with consensus or have you been working with consensus? If you can't answer these two things, I think you might have arrived at AN/I too early. If however, he has been edit warring... take this to the edit warring page. IF you have actually been following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and he's been removing things in that vein, then so be it. AN/I is not here to take a position on content and whether an article is good or not. It is here to take care of things that need administrative tools to solve. My impression is that your conflict here is not one that can be solved by administrative tools, but by simply following the policies found on WP:CONSENSUS. -- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, The issue is not edit warring, but disruptive editing and tendentious editing. Edit warring is fairly strictly defined as more than three reverts to a given page in a 24-hour hour period. Disruptive editing and tendentious editing are more complicated issues, but they defined as a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia, and editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. I'm not going to rehash what I stated at the beginning of this discussion, but I believe that Wikipedia is fundamentally about creation, and that unless an article is deleted by AfD, editors should work together to improve articles. Debbie W. 13:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and 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.

---

Regarding Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

I feel that a number of editors are ganging up on anyone who proposes keeping this article. The tone is uncivil, biting the newbies and nonconstructive. Editors have asked for explanation, help, evidence, guidance and clarification - but have instead been shot down in flames. Looking at the edit history of some of those involved, I honestly believe looking at the contributions of User:Salimfadhley ; User talk:Fmph and User:Dominus Vobisdu that there seems to be a cabal with a single interest of deleting such pages. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your link. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

People disagree. That's what's happening there - people are disagreeing with you on whether the article meets guidelines for inclusion, that's all. I think you threw out the accusations of bullying quite early. Those are completely unhelpful. If you can provide some diffs of people being uncivil or non-constructive then that's a different matter. If you can't, then I think you'll just have to deal with the fact that most of the editors there just happen to believe the article is not suitable. (Also, a cabal with the single interest of deleting pages about schools? That would be the most boring, pointless cabal in the world...) ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your humour and reply. I can deal with disagreements. I'm happy to accept it if an admin wants to throw the article out - I just want to know why, and how I can edit better to avoid this kind of thing happening. I think the abuse and dismissive tone of the editors is unfair. I want to do the right thing, produce a good article, one which meets the notability standard. Will someone please tell me clearly, what is wrong with the article, so I can try and do the positive and constructive thing, which would be to try and fix it. That's all I'm asking. I don't expect to be crapped on for asking that. Every time I've (and others) asked them to explain what the issue is, they quote policies, avoid answering, put up some patronising comment and refuse to give a clear reason which I can look at, and work out a way of improving the article from. That kind of offhanded and uncivil behaviour gives this place a bad name - in my view. As for the 'diffs' I'm sorry but I don't know how to do those - but if you look at the users' talk pages and their edit history you will see that the same behaviour is evident on many other pages and with many other editors. I really want to do the right thing here - but if noone is prepared to be reasonable then it really is too much stress and hassle to waste my evenings on - I have a family that's more important than all this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A diff is like this, showing an edit to a page. I have looked at the article talk and the AFD discussion and I really don't see why you think this was done out of spite. The other users are quoting policies, yes, the notability policies that they think the article fails. If their tone is unpleasant it's probably because they've been accused of bullying and witch-hunting because they are examining the notability of the article in question. I haven't the time to examine the sources of the article in-depth to see if I think it's adequately meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG, but from the discussion on the AFD, the other users feel that the sources are inadequate. I appreciate that you don't want the article to be deleted, but can't you see that your own behaviour is highly imperfect? Accusing others of bullying never helps. Remember to comment on content, not the editors themselves. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

These edits appear nonconstructive at the very least: [39] [40] [41] [42] 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs)

• It would help to have some adminstrative eyes on this AfD and the associated article. The discussion is becoming quite heated and uncivil (especially in recent edit summaries, e.g. [43], [44]) and there is some potentially ducky behaviour going on. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 26 April 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.

6badboy77 Removing deletion tags and suspected sockpuppetry

I submitted the Michael T. Dunn page for deletion because of lack of notability. Twice now, 6badboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the deletion tag (here and again here.) I subsequently learned that the same person's vanity page was previously deleted here, but the name used then was Michael Thomas Dunn, so it appears to have gone undetected for some time.

I have also grown to suspect that 6badboy77 is engaged in sockpuppetry, based on the information I have detailed here in my Sockpuppet investigation request. But, I figured I should report the deletion tag removal here, as well.JoelWhy (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• A7 applied. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see there's a sockpuppet request in, as I was about to request one myself. There's been repeated attempts to re-add the articles about Dunn and his work to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• I wanted to add that this has been going on for at least five years now, as evidenced by the following deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTD Studios If my suspicions are correct, there's been sockpuppeting and promotional/spamming going on for a while now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I reported you for violating Wikipedia rules (e.g. repeatedly removing the delete tag from the Michael Dunn page, deleting comments critical of Michael Dunn, etc) and for being a suspected sockpuppet. I've also submitted virtually all of your content on Wikipedia for deletion because it nearly all involves promotional material for a director who lacks notability. If that's harassment, I'm guilty as charged.JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This apparent legal threat may be grounds for an indef in and of itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This too - clear intent to produce a chilling effect; blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin Attention on MMA

I think it is time for me to post here about MMA and the off-wiki activity going on, following on from Some goon on Wikipedia is trying to get all of the UFC Event pages removed(I particularly like the bit about how WP update[s] with results before they announce the decision in the cage) , I think some independent and more experienced (admin) eyes are needed at the UFC articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, I have not notified any one editor about this as there are far too many to select out individually, and though I suspect I know the wiki account of the author of that article my understanding naming it could be WP:OUTING.Mtking ^(edits) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is all about the war between the online MMA community and the Wikipedia community. Previously, I have nominated Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning for deletion (here), but everyone seems to want to turn their ears off to the fact that Wikipedia is all about winning and losing and who comes out on top – just like all the MMA competitors. --MuZemike 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there need to be more eyes on that issue. I've seen some questionable arguments on both sides, and we had a recent ANI about an experienced admin calling scores BLP material... probably needs more attention. I'm not involved enough to have formed an opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In the end we have a lot of editors using Wikipedia as their own personal MMA wiki (which already exists elsewhere). The individual articles on fights are purely results services and nearly all of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOT#STATS etc. To give a parallel elsewhere, it would be like creating an article for every regular season NFL or Premier League fixture (indeed, one could probably find better sources for those). The amount of cluelessness at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is stunning; "These people must be violating some Wikipedia policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen." or worse, threats of puppetry "I can go to Sherdog or The Underground right now and bring back hundreds of people, if not more, and we can take that straw poll again. I guarantee you that your opinion will be in the extreme minority." Take a look at UFC 140, and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination), and weep ... Black Kite (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example is of last weeks UFC 145 and the discussion at Talk:UFC 145#Notability? over the {{notability|event}} template, the article still is only sourced to MMA websites, there is zero prose on the event it's self, no claim made (sourced or otherwise) to how this event is of historical significance. Would be it any other sporting event likely be merged/redirected or deleted with no fuss. Mtking ^(edits) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I personally would not count it a great loss if the entire wikiproject for MMA was vaped. Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone would like to have a chat with User:Beansy about his bulk removals of {{notability|event}} templates and his edit summaries. Mtking ^(edits) 11:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering you've admitted you clearly do not "understand or care about" MMA, perhaps someone should have a chat with you, User:Mtking, about your massive single-person campaign to remove dozens of significant MMA event pages. This is not a sport like baseball where MLB has over 2000 games in a regular season, or like the NFL which as over 250 not including post-season or pre-season. There are about 45 major MMA events (most of them being the UFC and Strikeforce events) and about 100 second-tier events each year in the entire sport. Trying to remove something like UFC 144 which is a truly historical event that sent shockwaves through the scandal-ridden kakoutougi industry in Japan (general term for all combat sports) by its mere existence and success, not to mention the fact that a World Title changed hands (and there are a lot fewer world champions in MMA than in say, boxing) is particularly galling and demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about the subject, yet you have been crusading non-stop for several weeks now to try and delete as many articles as possible. It's strongly indicative of malice on your part at this point. As for KSW, it specifically is indeed second-tier, but they are the largest promotion in Europe and routinely watched by millions of people in Europe, and the face of the organization is one Mariusz Pudzianowski who is one of the most famous people in all of Poland. KSW results are still fair game for an omnibus compression I suppose, but you don't seem to know a thing about this subject and you've been rebutted numerous times on meeting wiki guidelines, yet you've maintained a fanatical crusade specifically against MMA for completely unclear reasons. Perhaps you could re-direct your efforts towards a cleaning up entries on a sport or subject matter you actually care about, instead of specifically on something you hate. Beansy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been participating in these sorts of deletion procedures since last summer. I've seen hundreds of SPAs in these processes. Hundreds. There's such a coordinated pattern of socking and meatpuppetting here, I'm beginning to wonder if something more serious than mere votestacking is going on. With the enormous amount of betting which surrounds these events, I'm wondering whether the side money community is involved. Scottywong's recent closure of UFC142 points out the need for an RFC. I agree. BusterD (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I did not know about this until a little over an hour ago, but considering that this is a sport with a huge online community (because, well, it's a somewhat major sport), and now that word of what is going on in wikipedia is happening, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you're getting flooded with resistance to this sort of fanatical campaign. Imagine if someone tried deleting Miami Dolphins pages. There would be a tidal wave of resistance (and rightly so) and that's just one NFL team. Oh, and as for how wikipedia pages affect betting, if someone is going to make a patently ridiculous accusation like that, they really ought to explain how on earth wikipedia pages affect gambling or aide in illegal gambling, especially any more so than any other major sport. Beansy (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate User:Beansy demonstrating the problem we're dealing with. Regardless of the motivation, certainly a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance has been taken by the vast number of SPAs which arise anytime one of these events is discussed. Based on the edit history for UFC145, such articles should be at least semi-protected during the event to prevent the chat-like flow of edits. Name calling and ad hominum attacks are the norm in AfDs on the subject. It's clear in this content area that we're not working together to create the best online encyclopedia. As a community, we need to figure out the best way forward. This case-by-case stuff works in favor of the SPAs, not policy or pillars. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your levelheadedness in that "we need to figure out the best way forward." I 100% agree with that and have proven entirely open to change in the past (when all of the Bellator pages got AfD, I created the seasonal pages as suggested). However, I'm not sure you understand the context in which two editors took a suggestion from an admin upon themselves and completely changed all of the UFC pages to an omnibus (where they initially wanted no results) with little discussion from users. That event is what kicked this entire thing off. Additionally, Mtking's campaign of multiple AfDs seems to have little bearing on making things better, but more on wanting to argue and be right (via constant Wikilawyering; example seen here on my talk page). It is ironic that he is all for pushing the omnibus article, yet rarely contributes to it. I'm all for finding a solution, but this latest round of AfDs has proved even less successful. Udar55 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought given the statement made in the bloodyelbow article above. Mtking ^(edits) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination) has been started. Mtking ^(edits) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, Mtking. It's faintly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets stoutly defend the right of individual match articles to exist, while going after the portmanteau articles with a bad faith nomination. Let me get this straight: MMA event articles are notable, but articles on whole years aren't? That being said, turning my attention to Beansy, why, NO: if people were to attempt to make articles on individual Miami Dolphins games (each of which have many more people and many more viewers than any individual MMA event), they would be swiftly and uncontroversially deleted. The way sports seasons are handled, after all, is with annual articles much like the one you're advocating deleting. Ravenswing 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing, first off, nice ad-hominem attack on MMA fans, lovely impartiality there, clearly you have an even disposition towards the subject. Secondly, the argument is for individual event articles to exist (typically there are around 11 matches per MMA event today) not matches. I cannot think of a single individual match that has its own page (maybe there are a few exceptions). Thirdly, I said "pages" not games. As in existing ones. You have different pages for each season, each post-season, etc., going back to its inception. The entire NFL has 32 such teams. The season pages tend to be extremely detailed. But that's just the NFL right? Then many if not all Arena Football League teams also get their own season pages. Also the World League of America football. Each Frankfurt Galaxy season has its own page. But maybe that's not the best direct comparison. Take tennis then. There are different pages for each of several hundred significant tournaments each year. In the entire global sport of MMA like I said there are about 45 top-tier events, and 100 second-tier events, many of the latter of which are already omnibused (Bellator, for example, as it is the only major or second-tier MMA promotion to act on a "seasonal" basis), before getting into the thousands of minor events that generally are not mentioned. This is because average fighter has only 2 or 3 fights a year once they reach the elite levels (and with a few notable exceptions, maybe 4 or 5 a year max before the elite level), compared to the two dozen tournaments a tennis player might have. There are tons of obscure sports pages like that. When I wanted to find out Olympian-turned-MMA-fighter Hector Lombard's Olympic judo record, at first I was unable to since the 2000 Olympic Judo results only listed the medal winners but then I found tournament pages for each weight class. Why isn't anyone deleting those? There's no prose or anything, just information. I guess because they contain useful information which is exactly what one goes to wikipedia for and they haven't caught the attention of some wiki-crusader. Please try and have some perspective on things and at least pretend to be neutral here so this battleground doesn't get any worse. Beansy (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's notable to mention that one of the more seasoned and reasonable supporters of these individual pages has proposed that canvassing for more chat board participants is the best way forward. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And a good proposal it is if it is read from an uninvolved viewpoint. We already have a battleground so things can't get any worse. But if Anna's suggestion succeeds then we can get a number of new and dedicated editors developing the subject matter in line with our procedures. Can only be an improvement. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD closed. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) I have to say, I'm very disturbed by the level of battleground behavior from the MMA proponents. There are some suggestions on that blog of escalation into real-life harassment of WP editors (search for "the IP. GET the IP."; you can't link to individual comments). This is fairly typical behavior from bloodyelbow and its associated blogs/forums; an RFC might be a better solution than trying to hash this out on ANI. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As a editor in relatively good standing, having worked with several of the key players in the MMA Project space, I would be disheartened to burn the entire MMA article space to the ground. For every editor we chastize into oblivion and off for violating the policies of WP, 5 more will join as SPAs for the single purpose of expressing support for any MMA article regardless of it's notability, independence, or reliability. After multiple sockpuppets, Canvassing attempts, and single purpose attack accounts I'm considering requesting Arbitration for the explicit purpose of seeking Discretionary Sanctions for the MMA article space so that admins can be more proactive with conduct issues. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it's going that way. That'd also set a very refreshing precedent for other WikiProjects which simply opt out of collaborating with the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to go that route, make a request at WP:AN; that's what we did for Indian caste articles when we realized it would be necessary, and it's worked there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights that the easiest way to propose this kind of sanction is via community authorized discretionary sanctions instead of Arbcom. It's especially appropriate when the abuse is blatant. To see the example about Indian caste articles, open up WP:General sanctions and search for 'caste'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom also probably won't touch this right now due to the lack of prior dispute resolution. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, what could ArbCom do, anyways, that could possibly resolve this, given that neither side will agree to anything? --MuZemike 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DRN Try #1, DRN Try #2, this evidence section showing repeated misbehavior besides the user it was created for,ANI discussion, and more are not attempts at dispute resolution? Ending sarcasam here. The toxic enviroment that the fanatics create is why multiple experienced editors are fleeing the topic space. Hasteur (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Afd has been started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in Super Fight League. Mtking ^(edits) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy closed as a pointy nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been a little distracted lately, but I'm back in the mix. There are some good discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, often from people who originally opposed the omnibus system. It is just a few that seem to be causing 80 percent of the problems. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

more off-wiki canvassing can be seen at Nerds are ruining MMA on wikipedia - help out. Mtking ^(edits) 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm about to fade out for the night, but I will be around daily. If it gets too disruptive with SPAs, I will see about page protection (I'm still learning new tools, you have to cut me a little slack as I'm not inclined to get cowboy with them). I'm not too worried. Much of that is just talk, and we have dealt with flood before by blocks when forced to. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that, but I'm tired of standing still and want to simply build a clear consensus of real editors and will see it to the end. It is currently a confusing mess. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche Back Via Proxy

User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I wish you had dropped me a line (I blocked the 81 IP)--if you had, I wouldn't have embarrassed myself! (See section below.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not notifying you about the ANI thread. I was just about to signoff for the night when I seen that post by Rinpoche and I posted to ANI. I am actually surprised it was coherent as tired as I was. :) Anywho, my apologizes, will definitely make sure all are notified in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Can we please get evidence (up here, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion) of the harassment? Revdeled is fine: I have magic glasses. I am not aware of it; I apologize if I'm asking for something redundant. I see some oversighted edits but my magic glasses aren't that strong. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• You can probably see this: User:FightingMac/Van Gogh "dark" debate. I can't remember what's on it to be honest; he has a habit of attempting to out people. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

Further to the above, as this guy incessantly returns to cause more disruption in various places under various sock accounts, I propose a full community ban from wikipedia, so that his edits can simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified.

• Support as nom Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Superfluous As an indefinitely blocked user, his edits can already simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified. The only thing a community ban does is prevent admins from unblocking his accounts once they are aware that the account is a sock of Rinpoche. Is there really a risk of that happening?—Kww(talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, but to give an example of why a ban would be useful: my most recent interaction with him involved an RfC started by a sock of his regarding an issue which had already been addressed. After he was blocked he could no longer flog the horse, but the RfC still had to be allowed to run its course because redacting comments made by blocked users is against guidelines, whereas doing the same for a banned user is recommended (if I understand things correctly). Blocks and bans are two different things; there are subtle differences in the way they are applied. I think a ban would be useful in this instance. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand correctly. All edits made by block evading editors and by banned editors are subject to precisely the same restrictions.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Identified by whom? Nobody Ent 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Any good faith editor is the prevailing standard. There's no requirement to wait for a checkuser, SPI enquiry, or any form a elaborate consensus-seeking proposal.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you have got that from. The policy says that any edit of a sitebanned user may be reverted, AfD closed etc etc. It says nothing similar about an editor who is simply blocked. Indeed how could it, as many editors are indefinitely blocked for quite short periods of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits made in defiance of blocks have always been revertable, Elen. I don't know why you believe otherwise. WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks details the issue under "Content created during block or ban" in the table.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't said that for very long: it was changed relatively recently. All they way up until that point, there was nothing on that page to indicate that edits of blocked editors could be reverted without question. I don't see any discussion on the talk page relating to that change (I could be missing it), so it must have been a bold one. Noting in the blocking policy says that blocked editors can be reverted without question. Doc talk 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite incidentally, I opened a discussion on a very similar question just a few hours ago, at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#3RR exception for edits by blocked users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was coincident with this discussion. An indefinitely blocked editor that no one will unblock is de facto banned, and we've always treated them that way. Reverting an editor based on "block evasion" has always been accepted, and WP:CSD#G5 specifically includes both blocked and banned editors. Not a very bold edit at all.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, your change had the unfortunate side-effect of all blocked editors, not just indeffed, having their edits reverted without question. Ouch. Doc talk 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not an unfortunate side-effect at all. If someone evades a block, it's block evasion, and the content created during block evasion is subject to reversion and deletion. Content created before or after a block is not.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the unfortunate side-effect is it gives wiki-warriors license to bite any new editor that has the misfortune to resemble a banned/blocked editor without the benefit of consensus and good faith. Nobody Ent 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• As an involved "Any good faith editor" with virtually no grasp of Wikipedia banning/blocking technicalities, I'd just like to add moral support to Basilisk's point that this pseudo-Rinpoche guy continues to disrupt with his smelly-sock reincarnations. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. Over the last several days this individual has been posting from a host of different IPs, engaging in outing attempts directed at a minor, as well as boasting about the off-wiki harassment that he also mentions in the post to Drmies' page linked above. The vast majority of his dozens of posts over these last few days have had to be revdel'd, a fair proportion have also been oversighted, and several rangeblocks put in place to limit the harassment. My presumption was that the person was already banned. If they aren't, then it's way past time. (Information from elsewhere suggests they are better known under another troublemaking name, but I'll leave that for people who know more of the background to either comment on or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The nuances are different for a block and a ban. When there is a question of extending an indef block to a ban, routine approval of the ban is probably the simplest action to take, unless it's one of those indefinite-for-now blocks where the person might be unblocked at any time if they agree to change their behavior. Rinpoche is a guy whose talk edits are now being rev-deleted, so he is pretty far gone from normal editing. I am notifying the two blocking admins in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, wastes community time (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch89#Lede image Major depressive disorder), but even after blocking, was still posting via multiple IPs to MastCell's talk.[45] Good luck with this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is an impressive range of IPs they're employing. I wish I was that clever or tenacious. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support They shouldn't be allowed to edit here again without clear community consensus as they have shown they are unwilling to comply with the terms of the block. The problems at Major Depressive Disorder alone justify the ban, plus I've had to revert a few of their sock comments on my own talk page [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] and sent him to SPI here. A civil sockpuppet is still a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

...and a particularly bad faith one, it would seem. A few hours before User:LHirsig was identified as a sock of Rinpoche, the user page rapidly expanded (diffs nla) to provide personal and family history, together with a committed identity. I found that quite striking. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Drmies (below). I think it's relevant to point out that the standard offer has already been made, and that I honestly believe this editor is past becoming constructive. Under every guise, he has always caused significant disruption, and he appears to enjoy conflict and causing problems more than he does actually editing. I think the project is better off without him. However, if some extremely patient administrator were to be happy to mentor him, then I would take a deep breath and welcome it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I did see the offer, yes, and their declining it. I guess I was here also testing the waters to see if, besides huge disruption (as suggested by Sandy, above) there was something worthwhile keeping here: User:AnotherWeeWilly/sandbox . I wasn't aware of the abuse--and I actually have not seen evidence of it, only evidence of its removal. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: User is indefinatley blocked. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support: Having to look for a reason for reverts in this case is a waste of time. Calabe1992 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban after further perusal of evidence but Calabe, I disagree. Such decisions should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support full community ban. User has no good intentions for the project and no intention of conforming with our norms. --John (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Also would like to see all the sock accounts tied to the sockmaster account. The FightingMac account created a fair number of socks as far as I know they've not all been tied to Rinpoche and I think this should be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you see the SPI? I don't know if anyone ran CU on Mac. Tnxman recently ran CU on the 81 IP and found User:PJBoellaard. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's in the block log for FM & lots of others. But they've never been tied together. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Added these: [52], [53], [54]. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• support The editor has left the community no other option. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban?

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.

---

Eye candy to draw you in. Why is this perspective so hypnotically striking?

Hello all. I'll try to be succinct. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive. The editor done some bad things, apparently, socked around a bit, and is now IP-ing in what appears to be an attempt to set the record straight. On one of the IP talk pages they were referred to as a banned editor but I see no evidence that they actually were banned, though de facto that seems to be the case; see User talk:81.178.38.169. The user seems to have an urge to contribute though they deny that at the same time; I guess that's typical socking behavior. Right now they're hopping about a bit and got in touch with me (I blocked the 81 IP a little while ago).

What I'd like to know is this. Should we ban the user, or should we not? My gut feeling is that acting as if there is already a ban (and some comments from good-willing but in my opinion overzealous editors on that IP talk page) only antagonizes the editor. Moreover, and I've asked for a second opinion on this, I think that the editor can contribute. We could, for instance, consider the standard offer with a topic ban (on some psychology-related articles) for good measure. Mind you, I have no dog in this fight, only Jimbo's miniature schnauzer: I don't necessarily want to break a lance for this editor, but I always dislike the piling-on that sometimes takes place. I think the editor has something to contribute.

I'm going to drop a couple of notifications in various places and hope for some input that goes beyond the standard "turn de facto ban into real ban". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Errm... take a look at the section above this - may be related.. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

S**t. Hadn't looked at anything at all yet. Eh, can someone merge this carefully and elegantly? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 April 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.

AfD discussion getting out of hand

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are lots of civility problems here and it's getting pretty tiring. Another editor "ask[ed] a couple of uninvolved administrators to keep a close eye on this discussion," but I'm not convinced that this will be enough. I haven't notified any of the individual participants of this ANI since there's far too many of them, and we're really talking about the discussion as a whole rather than one individual (at least, I assume that that's the case, but I'm starting to have my doubts). I will put a notice on the AfD promptly. If anyone else feels I should have individually notified everyone, feel free to do it. --NYKevin @683, i.e. 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I posted a similar request today in the section higher up this page: Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion. But in all the other drama here, it seems to have been completely ignored. I contacted one admin on their talk page, but haven't heard back yet. Please if any admins are reading this, your eyes would be appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Immensely tiring and frustrating. And it has spread back to the source article as well. I do think some of the IPs are socks (poss unwitting socks) of some of the participants. There have been a number of instances where comments addressed to IP contribs have been answered by named contributors. Some eys would be much appreciated. Fmph (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the building the school is housed in appears to be far more notable than the school. The building deserves an article; the school one should be merged to it ... Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha, that's a fun suggestion. The AfD, y'all are just going to have to stick it out. Blocks may happen if the namecalling continues; someone may start an SPI. Otherwise, have a bit of faith that the closing admin will sort it out. I nominate Black Kite. And I second. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's only two day's worth of discussion! I hate to be the admin who closes that. BTW, I sometimes think we should follow WP:IAR, close the AfD as a trainwreck, and start a brand new AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen much bigger AfD trainwrecks than this one. :/ Best to let it run its course, painful as it is. It's got another four days to run. I can't see a new one producing anything better, given the strong feelings of some of the participants, several of whom are new to Wikipedia. I was just hoping that a few more administrative eyes there and possibly an uninvolved "word to the wise" might help people to tone it down. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think A Quest for Knowledge had a good suggestion,and I boldly did it. The point of AfD is to discuss articles, and this one can best be discussed by starting over. There's no point adding another two days of interpersonal sniping. (FWIW, I have no fixed opinion on this actual article, & had I !voted, I would have said "Undecided". DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy no consensus. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a couple of gentle reminders about warring on a couple editor talk pages, as they had been busy since the close. Not wanting to get dragged into this, however. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a t-shirt and a mop. You better get involved. The only reason I bribed so many editors to support you is that I want to have less work to do. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All the buttons scare me! Besides, everyone has listened to advice and things are ok in several areas tonight, so no need to use them. That's always my goal anyway. I still have more to read before I get click-happy. And keep talking like that and I might have to break them in on you. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• An absolutely awesome example of why the Elementary Schools Out, Secondary Schools In automatic rule of thumb is the way to go, versus debating the merits of every school in the world for notability. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 27 April 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:Don Cuneo removing the Afd Template

‎User:Don Cuneo removed an AfD template from the article they created. I restored the template leaving an extended edit comment. They removed again. I leaved a notice at their talk page which they reverted. This exhausts the communication avenues available to me. I request a more experienced editor to re-explain them the policy and to restore the AfD template. Note that this is a new user and may require special care. The user will be now notified. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified him regarding the afd policy. Calabe1992 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also restored a tag on another article that he had erased. Calabe1992 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor looks very similar to User:King Genovese: stub articles about non-notable mob characters, and a great deal of blanking of deletion notices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. Let me take a look around at things. Calabe1992 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Stalker is showing an overlap on Carlo Profeta and Michael J. Perna, both of which were created by King and had a deletion template removed by Don (one AfD, one PROD). I've asked the user to disclose if he is the operator of both accounts, so we'll see where that goes. Calabe1992 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Still attempting to get ahold of the editor. Calabe1992 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Insults from user

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_American&diff=489479284&oldid=489444874

"This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll"

Judging by his talk page he's had other incidents too.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified the user of this thread, as required?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well a user needs not to be blocked for single personal attack. I have faced myself, times, trolls and personal attackers against me. Let me drop them a warning. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, dropped them a warning and also notified them of the ANI discussion. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an information B-Machine has previously been blocked for personal attacks, and has had several threads on ANI concerning their behaviour: 1, 2. After several years, this does not look like just a "single personal attack", but a pattern. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The user had already been notified of the ANI further up, just not using the template, so LGW had already properly notified. The template isn't required, it just makes it easier. I left a clear message on the editor's page explaining my concern. Because I saw that the editor in question has been participating in good faith on the article talk page, I would conclude that they lost their cool and needed a firm reminder. Hopefully, this is all that will be required to get their attention and allow everyone to just get back to the discussion. If they conduct any other personal attacks, bring it back here and a block can be considered, but at this point I don't think it is the best solution, and the warning should suffice. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Dennis, that's what I'd told, right? A warning (level-2) would do the work. Plenty of users with personal attacks and trolls I'm seeing these days...... Enjoy your day. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• While there is nothing wrong with a template being placed on the editors page, my experience has been that a carefully worded and calm (but firm) explanation is more effective when it comes to preventing further disruption. People always respond better to real words than generic templates when they are upset, and this serves the goal of defusing situations better. Usually. No one is a troll here, someone just got upset and got out of line, so we assume good faith for single events. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - LGW and B-Machine have been going back and forth in the edit history for a while. LGW has the unfortunate tendency to throw around the term "highly racist" and "is racism", which has caused friction with B-Machine in the past. This line is also not encouraging: "Just an FYI that I will be applying for some form of protection status for this article. I see deep and obvious racism here, with East Asian/Native American/European ancestry being sectioned to a dark corner and African ancestry being put in the spotlight. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)"
  I honestly have no idea what they're arguing about, but just a quick browse through the rhetoric on that talk page gives some context to B-Machine's quoted comment. Some civility would be nice, on both sides. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They both have walked the line, he just crossed it this time, twice. I would hope they can just work it out on the talk page. I'm a bit more tolerant than many when it comes to heated debate, it is part of the process, however, if either ends up here again soon, I would likely be less gentle in my approach, as would others. You are correct that both of them need to be less confrontational. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible class project creating essay-like articles

I came across a few articles that I thought were being edited by socks or meatpuppets. On closer inspection, it appears to be a class project that is using Wikipedia to post their research papers as articles. In one of the AfDs, a number of editors have tried to explain the problem, but there may be a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with the students' worry they will lose marks if their articles are deleted. Can someone please take a look at the following:

Articles (that I have identified so far):

• Civilian perspectives on media freedom‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian perspectives on media freedom)
• Economic Constraints on Media Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic Constraints on Media Freedom)
• Concepts of Media Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Media Sustainability Index (MSI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors (that I have identified so far):

• Zhumengmeng (talk · contribs)
• NinaLanger (talk · contribs)
• Hsmkw (talk · contribs)
• Color1011 (talk · contribs)
• Somkw (talk · contribs)
• 91.89.48.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Talk page discussions

• User talk:Singularity42#Deleting Discussion about Economic Constraints on Media Freedom
• User talk:Singularity42#Zhumengmeng (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit busy over the next few days, so I'm not really in a position to step in here. If an admin or an experienced editor can help out, that would be great. Singularity42 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've just got a dirty mind - or German's a naturally hilarious language - but someone with a basic understanding of German might want to have a look at this one's current user page, which would appear to suggest there's at least some prankery going on. Either way, agreed all the content seems to be dodgy non-encyclopedic waffle. Not quite sure why a school or college would be doing this - is the point to showcase the homework/essays, or is it more of a project to see what you can get onto Wikipedia (and the essay content per se is kind of secondary to that)? Quite good evidence too, more generally, that impressive-looking sourcing and lists of footnotes count for little by themselves. N-HH talk/edits 14:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

About the user page, I was tempted to blank it with an edit summary of "oh come on, you don't really need that, do you?", but then I saw he had already removed it himself. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The MSI article certainly has a future and it's no prank. Come on, we had editors with swastikas on their user pages (I know one editor with tits on their user page), and new users do think of it as their little MySpace. I put Template:Educational assignment on its talk page; the others need that as well. What they need is some advice on what makes encyclopedic writing, and what we need is to know who's in charge, if anyone is. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not harsh in the least. I simply asked the question and asked someone who might be able to confirm either way to have a look. Even if the page really does translate as saying "prosthetic penis", "long and thick", I merely said that would point to some prankery being involved, not that it would be evidence, by itself, that all these contributions were worthless. I only looked at the first two articles - and here I will be harsh - and they simply looked like that kind of random essays on nebulous topics that have no purpose in an encyclopedia other than to inflate the egos of the people writing them. This place is not a blog or an essay-hosting service for would-be academics to publish their brilliant but otherwise neglected opinions and synthesis. The MSI one looks better, having looked at it just now. N-HH talk/edits 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• oh my god. i am so sorry. this is a sendbox accident by a friend of mine, he just wanted to show me how to make headlines. it has nothing do to with the quality of my article. i know this words are really inappropriate and i am so embarrased right now. can someone please show me how to delete this or delete it for me?Somkw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Heh. Sure, don't worry. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Lang und dick, bretthart, like a Wiki admin. Hard als een rotsblok, en daar ben ik trots op! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry for making you feel that way,but please do not misundstand. This is not a showcase or something,by saying that I just mean it's important for me to get this article uploaded and I'll really try my best to make it qualified. Without knowing the details,please not deny our work just by glimpsing at the source lists and the footnotes!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Zhumengmeng, is there an instructor for this project? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, none of them are actually badly written - they seem perfectly decent as essays, and with decent footnoting. The problem is that - in my view, and I'm only one person - the first three at least are about such vague conceptual things that it's pretty hard to write about them without it being an essay. Whatever you do to the content, they're not going to cut it as an encyclopedia entries, which - again, in my view - have to be about something a bit more tangible and defined. Also, I accept it may be important to you, but that's not the criteria for creating articles. And I'm not denying your work, I'm just saying I don't think it should be hosted here. N-HH talk/edits 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding, Drmies! The point by saying it's a school project does not mean the articles should be published or we beg for publishing or something. The point is, we can learn about the encyclopedic writing style by creating articles in wikipedia and we are also trying to figure out its difference from the educational assignments. We are here to learn and please be considerate,it is neither a project nor a prank, and there is no instructor...Please do not be so harsh on us,N-HH,you already make me scaried. Yes, I accept your judgement,the articles are not qualified, I'm just looking forward on some adivices. Thank you!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to scare you, just explain what the problem is (and I've recently run into a whole load of what I consider dubious new content being added here; my view is that WP is more than full enough of such stuff, which might explain some of my exasperation. Even after several years I don't add much new content myself). Your comment above that you're posting enormous amounts of new content as part of some kind of test or learning exercise doesn't inspire confidence though. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, if this is not a school project, tell me what it is--a half a dozen articles on similar topics. BTW, we encourage school (and other) projects, but having someone to talk to, a spokesperson in case of group work, makes things a lot easier. For starters, you should probably all have a look at WP:NOTESSAY: encyclopedic articles aren't like essays, and reading that guideline may help clear up why two of the articles are currently up for deletion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

N-HH,I totally agree with you,I didn't realize the question until I edited my article here and got these feedbacks. The topic I've choosen is too ambiguous to give a defination. I will consider writing a new article instead of revising this one. We are just a 4 students group for a topic on "media freedom",we presented our findings on this topic in a seminar and are supposed to create articles about our findings on wikipedia. We don't mean to put more load on your work by creating some nonsense in your eyes. We've just read some literature and found something that maybe worthful to spread. Right now I've got a clearer boundary,the next article will be better.Thank you very much for all these discussions!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, we now have WP:ENB (an Education Noticeboard), but it's still dealing with start-up issues. I should also add that this suite of articles reminds me of a sockmaster I dealt with years ago-- far too long ago for me to remember who or where, but there is enough similarity for me to say this smells like sockpuppetry and trolling, based on memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So right now the problem is just about the first two articles right? I really think the other two team members have done a great job here. If so, our team will concentrate on creating another two qualified articles and read the instructions more carefully! We are really not meatpuppets and so so sorry for causing you so much trouble!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem at all like trolling or sockpuppetry. The user page of one the editors mentioned above states that she is in the Master's program in Media and Communication Studies at the University of Mannheim. The Program website states lists a course "Comparing political communication (Master-Seminar)" which states (in Englsh):

"During the semester students will collaboratively work on Wikipedia entries about all aspects covered in the course. Therefore, continuous productive engagement during the entire semester is expected of all participants."

The course is run by Professor Hartmut Wessler email adress here. Might be worth contacting him. Voceditenore (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The searching eigine is so effective;)Yes,that's us..But is that necessary to contact our professor? Are we still not clear right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhumengmeng (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be necessary just to let the professor know that in the future, he should be clear to his students that creating essay-like articles isn't really what Wikipedia is about. It's obvious that you're contributing in good faith but it tends to frustrate some editors on Wikipedia that university professors will create Wikipedia assignments for their students without a. they themselves knowing the basic rules of contributing to the encyclopedia and/or b. offering some guidance about how to contribute. Chillllls (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to send good to another project/alternative outlet? I think that would make the students happy. Does Wikiversity accept this sort of thing? Would be a shame to see good free content killed. Dcoetzee 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving existing articles would seem to be a more realistic (and in the end more rewarding) assignment than creating whole new articles.  --Lambiam 07:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Block / unblock review: FleetCommand

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.

---

Moved from WP:AN for speedier input

Can I invite folk to review a block of User:FleetCommand and my unblock of it? A relevant exchange is on my talk page also. --RA (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should have re-blocked him after unblocking - Is this discussion about his actions or yours? Ask yourself, your blocked for a week and you make an unblock request and an admin comes along and unblocks you , accepts your request and then the admin is questioned and so reblocks you and asks for discussion - thats just wrong, you assessed the situation and decided not to discuss with the blocking admin and unblocked the user with a reasoned comment - that is your position you need to defend. Not having well considered the unblock request and not having the depth of faith in your decision and then reblocking the user is your worst mistake. - Youreallycan 20:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-blocked FleetCommand because Toddst1 (the blocking admin) is insistent the block was merited and because I did not discuss it with Toddst1 before performing the unblock. I should have discussed it (as it was not an obvious error). As I did not, I am raising it here for discussion — and my unblock is obviously up for discussion too. I acknowledge that re-blocking FleetCommand is messy but it is better to get consensus rather than having two admins wrangle about it, in my opinion.

I suggest FleetCommand be unblocked. From what I see, the block is unmerited. I cannot see any justification for a 1 week block in this instance. The exchange in question cannot reasonably be called an edit war: it comprised three edits, between two editors, over the course of two days, which moved towards consensus, and ended in agreement.

There is an issue around civility (and battlefield behavior) in FleetCommands comments on User talk:62.254.139.60. In particularly, instantly accusing another editor of "edit warring" is a battle strategy. However, over-all, FleetCommand moved from disagreement to co-operation and so a block for incivility or battlefield-ism is not merited either, in my opinion.

Are others of a similar mind? Or should the block stand? --RA (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is you now - your poor administrative actions have violated the blocked users chance of a decent unblock request. - I suggest you stand up for your unblock and then revert your revert and unblock him and block yourself for the week - take his block onboard. Youreallycan 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"...your poor administrative actions have violated the blocked users chance of a decent unblock request." I disagree. We are discussing his unblock request here. --RA (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well - its your unblock and your revert that is under discussion so far. - Do you think your actions have been fair on Fleetcommand? Youreallycan 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is in FleetCommand's interest to get consensus over whether the block is good in a speedy fashion. Consequently, I've moved this discussion to ANI, which is more highly trafficked. --RA (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two separate issues here: You (and so far, only you) think that FC shouldn't have been blocked. The second issue is that there were numerous issues with your first and only unblock as pointed out on your talk page - not just that you didn't talk to me (the blocking admin) about it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who's addressing who here... and really this issue of "reblock" or not is an unhelpful distraction. Focus instead on if a block is justified. Shadowjams (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The unhelpful distraction was the unblock and the re-block by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid - the unblock request by User:FleetCommand should have been dealt with simply on the users talkpage. Youreallycan 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the block, there were numerous problems with the unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like RA's first unblock, he messed up, Toddst1 called him on it and properly scolded him, RA quickly tried to put things right. I'm inclined to say just leave it alone as it looks like the two admins have already worked it out and neither were acting in bad faith or trying to wheel war here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well put. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the block

• Bad block - This is a 48 hour block, upgraded to 1 week 7 minutes later by Todd... for a non 3RR violation, in a 21 revert "edit war", almost 3 days after the last edit. Fleet's mistake was being dismissive of the IP and throwing around the term "edit war" early on. And then the inartful statement that Todd quotes in the block log.
  As far as I can tell, the IP only had the one set of initial edits that Fleet then called a "war". However, I don't see how 1 additional revert of that justifies a block 24 hours after the fact, let alone a week long block. Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FleetCommand labeled the interaction with the IP an edit war[55]. If FC knows s/he's edit warring, why are you defending it? Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was bad judgement on FleetCommand's part, but I'm at a bit of a loss how this block prevents further disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree Todd... that's why I say... "Fleet's mistake was being..." etc. But I'm not sure how you get from there to a 1 week block, especially given the length of time that passed between the edit and the block. And what Fleet said to the IP is perhaps not incredibly gracious, certainly not a good start, but it's hardly so rude as to be worthy of a 1 week block. Especially when... fleet's second edit had nothing to do with the others. He made 1 reversion the entire time. Shadowjams (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Look closer at the second edit. [56] [57] Also, timing has nothing to do with edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

For context, here's the full offending sentence "Collegial? Collegial in "war"? I make a point of avoiding collegiality with edit warriors. Still, I appreciate your attempt to discuss them matter. Your discussions about links are acceptable. Thanks for cooperating. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)"
Shadowjams (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's very similar to this one: "I do not assume good faith in edit warriors. ..." Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok... So you want to 1 week block him for that? Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the context of yet another edit war: Yes! Look at the pattern: He repeatedly labels other editors' edits as edit wars, then proceeds to simultaneously bully and edit-war. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept that you know the situation better than I, and did what you thought was needed, Toddst1, but do you think that continuing the block is in the best interest of Wikipedia, or that FleetCommand "gets it" and the risk of disruption is low enough to consider lifting? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to lifting the block with the Editor's commitment to WP:CIVIL/WP:BATTLE and not Edit war. (the usual deal) If the pattern continues, the block should be indef. Unfortunately, I saw no indication that the unblock requests show understanding of those issues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have the original block, would you agree to me unblocking him, and then I will leave a message that explains the situation, including his failures in this situation? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You bet. I will offer the unblock on those terms. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Now I just need to figure out how, since my mop is only two days old. It is fine to disagree on the problems as long as we all can agree on the solutions, and I think we have done that here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I can take it from here. My mop is well worn. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already done it. Right now, a little fresh air between you two might be good, let the simmering pot keep cooling down. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I walked away for a while and I guess the issue's been resolved now. That's good. I don't want to belabor the point, except to say that this wasn't a case of edit warring, but rather, badly-considered talk page statements, and an out of proportion block (and then some side silliness about admin unblock/reblock). Here's the quick summary: IP removed links once [58], Fleet replaced them [59], IP removed them again [60], Fleet leaves a non-rude message, the IP responds [61] quite reasonably, Fleet does not remove the links the IP discussed, but does remove the primary sources tag the IP had added. Fleet responds with the edit in question [62]. A day later IP makes this response [63] to Fleet's talk that Fleet removes soon after [64] with a someone rude edit summary. Nobody's edited the Nero article now for 3 days. 4 hours later, Todd blocks Fleet [65] without discussion.

I'm very happy with Dennis' response. I think that it's much better someone uninvolved handled this. I agree completely with Dennis' message to Fleet as well. Shadowjams (talk) 01:56, 28 April 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.

B&Q

B&Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• This UK home improvement chain article is the turf for a running battle between a tiny handful of editors, each with a strong point of view. Could we get some new hands there? I've blocked one of them who had a spamusername; but there are still some hotly disputant folks involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the more contentious material to the Talk page with a note about following NPOV and avoiding attack pages. If the editors continue to insert attack like material without context to give it a neutral tone, it might be helpful to head back here for some blocks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have started a SPI for users that have edited the article to promote. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI linked↑, user notified. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have added the article to my watchlist and commented in talk. --John (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed Schultz‎

Resolved

 – Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone, please, semi-protect the article again. It's been protected for a day, then a week, and the IP sock refuses to discuss his activities - except when it's semi-protected. At RFPP, I asked for 1 to 6 months. Whatever, it needs to be more than a week - and it appears no one is watching RFPP at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Done – giving two months a try. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on NAGPRA - and the Kumeyaay people

If any of you remember Kennewick Man, you'll know of the controversy about the 10,000 year old human remains found in Washington state. This week, three University of California scholars sued the University and its leadership, as did the Kumeyaay Band of Native Americans (Southern California), all of whom have an interest in San Diego human remains dated to 12,000 BCE. U.C. scholars make the assertion that the remains found in San Diego "could have been Irish seafarers," based on dietary evidence found in collagen. This matter is likely to go through the federal courts and will fall under NAGPRA legislation. These pages may become hot-buttons. This is not an action request, just an advisory. I may try some NPOV contributing when more information becomes available. It has so far, only been in local news outlets... http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/17/45671.htm http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/25/u-c-professors-sue-to-stop-ancient-bones-transfer/ Thank you, KSRolph (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox classical composer TfD closure

{{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. Silverseren^C 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Silverseren^C 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. Silverseren^C 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, it's hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

20:02, 21 April 2010 - MSGJ moves draft template to mainspace as part of uninvolved-admin close of RFC. 10:34, 22 April 2010 - PotW nominates template for deletion. 17:23, 1 May 2010 - Plastikspork closes TfD as keep 15:16, 17 December 2011 - PotW nominates template for deletion as unused. 15:56, 25 December 2011 - Plastikspork closes TfD as delete and deletes, but promptly restores and moves to draft space to preserve history. 19:29, 25 December 2011 - PotW replaces deleted article with redirect to {{Infobox person}} 21:49, 7 January 2012 - PotW tags the draft article as "{{Db-multiple|g4|g6|g8|rationale=Draft/ test version of subsequently created, and deleted {{Tl|Infobox classical composer}} }}" 22:08, 7 January 2012 - AngelOfSadness deletes the draft article 17:52, 22 March 2012 - Magioladitis nominates the redirect for deletion as unused, along with several others. 10:46, 23 March 2012 - PotW !votes keep. 15:32, 31 March 2012 - Ruslik0 closes all as keep. 04:22, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa asks Plastikspork to undelete the template/draft. 04:31, 20 April 2012 - Plastikspork undeletes the draft and histmerges it with the redirect. 19:50, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa undoes the redirect and restores the RFC-approved template 20:05, 20 April 2012 - PotW tags it as db-g4. 20:45, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa replaces Infobox musical artist on Terry Riley with Infobox classical composer. 20:50, 20 April 2012 - Antandrus declines the speedy, "being used" 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW reverts Terry Riley back to Infobox musical artist 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW nominates template for deletion 20:30, 21 April 2012 - SarekOfVulcan closes discussion as speedy keep

Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ITYM "reverting a template's use when that template has been improperly recreated after a TfD decision to delete it…". Since when do we close TfDs with only nine comments, mostly from members of canvassed projects, in under 24 hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The recreation was the result of extensive discussion. Just because it had been deleted earlier doesn't make future recreation under these circumstances improper. Merely calling it "improper" doesn't make it so. And TfDs are often closed with much fewer than nine comments, and closed early when the consensus is obvious. After all, the original TfD in which the template was deleted only received 2 comments. Rlendog (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI timing

Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC) We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [66] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "3 editors" <> "the community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I didn't say I was ready to site ban him, I said "I have no simple solution" (banning == simple). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. At to site banning, I remain neutral, not committed. I still have no alternative to ANI banning, but as I stated, feel it would only serve to push the problem to a different board. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would be interested in how you explain thatthis, this, or this, from this month, show evidence of POTW's committment to, and participation in, the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions? MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
• I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
• Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
• You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not seeing much the admins can do at this point. There is nothing immediately blockable, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for any topic bans. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The year-long ban was beyond farcical. Andy is robustly arguing for conventions commonplace, uncontroversial and commonplace across the majority of wikipedia but opposed by a segment of "everyone who edits these articles"; think owners. I'm absolutely convinced he is acting in the very best of faith and deplore your assertion otherwise. I know that Andy sees the connection between regular data elements embodied in infoboxen and metadata / semantic web uses of wikipedia content. It's more than depressing that the reaction to a person who continues to argue against a point favoured by a small group is to seek to exclude that person. Actually, bluntly, it's chilling. Am I to expect that if I support Andy's arguments I will find myself labelled tendentious and a candidate for a site or topic ban? Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is defined in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; this just does not apply here. Neither do I see "frustrate[d] proper editorial processes and discussions", although I'm sure that you're personally a bit frustrated that he just won't let it drop. That's not the same thing, at all. Oppose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban part 2

From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [67]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.

• That's a highly cherry picked comment. One can easily add several examples of infoboxes Andy Mabbett has added that are factually inaccurate and stripped of essential nuance. See the Marian Anderson article history for example.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
• Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
• Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The vast majority of our articles on musical artists treat vocals as an "instrument" for the sake of consistency. The argument that this is somehow "inaccurate" doesn't carry any water at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• That kind of attitude is exactly why I dislike infoboxes. You illustrated nicely how factually inaccurate content can be spread encyclopedia wide for the sake of uniformity. Who cares if it's wrong information as long as it can be shoved into a box? Go to any School of Music and you will find a clear division of performance tracks, one for instrumentalists and one for vocalists. Wikipedia should strive to mirror academic categorizations. Further, one could easily point out errors within other infoboxes to nitpick over. This is just one example of how the musical artist infobox has issues. 4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "wrong information" is just your viewpoint. People are rarely that easily categorised. Was John Lennon a vocalist or an instrumentalist? Was Louis Armstrong a trumpeter or a vocalist? and so on. Take a look at the sleeve notes of most modern albums - the artists often contribute vocals as well as the instruments that fit your definition with no clear division of performance. Wikipedia has no need whatsoever to mirror academic categorisations when that gets in the way of presenting useful information. You are right that there are issues with the musical artist infobox, and there are similar issues with as the classical composer infobox as well. Why are you so keen to rid the area of someone who is intent on making the best presentation of information when an infobox is used? You still haven't replied to my question about whether you support the removal from infoboxes of vital statistics such as date of birth and age, as well as crucial information such as genre and years active. What's your answer? Yes or no? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• What an odd response. If someone sings professionally they are a vocalist. If someone plays an instrument they are an instrumentalist. If someone does both than they are both a vocalist and an instrumentalist. Lennon and Armstrong would obviously be considered both, and the infoboxes on their articles should be designed to reflect that in a clear way. This can be done without placing "vocals" under the subheading of musical instrument as it currently is. On a side note, I agree that crucial information can and should remain in an infobox when an infobox is used. Reguardless, my opinions on that matter are not pertinent to this conversation. My problem with PotW is that whenever the classical music projects have expressed the difficulties the musical artist infobox often causes when utilized on classical musician articles he has repeatedly ignored our concerns. Rather than helping us design a more suitable infobox, he has insisted on continuing to use an infobox that has created factual inaccuracies across many articles. The result has been edit wars across many articles and unproductive conversations that repeat the same arguements over and over for literally years. It's frankly annoying as hell and a waste of everyone's time. I personally would like to see a more friendly infobox designer approach the composer/opera/classical/G&S/CCM/and Wagner projects to help us design some infoboxes which would address the concerns of the various projects. It would be most helpful. That said, I am not a proponent of every article having an infobox. If all the info in the box is the dob, dod, and occupation than it's a rather pointless redundancy in the article in my opinion. Infoboxes are useful when they contain summation of facts and details beyond what is obviously apparent in the very first sentence of the lead.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, and I suspect we may not be too far apart now. I certainly agree that not every bio needs an infobox. We also agree that an individual could be a vocalist and an instrumentalist, but how do you think that is best presented in an infobox (assuming that we might agree it is pertinent info)? The simplest way is to mimic album covers, and put something like "Instruments: vocals, guitar". I understand that you object to that as factually inaccurate, and yet almost all of our audience would understand perfectly what we intended it to mean. Sometimes we have to trade-off precision for précis when we try to cram information into a small space like an infobox. That is where I think you're having disagreements with Andy. Is it possible that there is no "good solution" to the problem we're discussing? Perhaps what you have is a simple disagreement about which imperfect infobox is least worse for the job? If you look back at the example diffs I adduced above, can you not concede that Andy is no more wrong than anybody else who is picking an infobox to use? I understand that you feel frustrated that Andy does not share your preferences in infoboxes, but the encyclopedia does not get improved by silencing everybody who disagrees with you, particularly where they may be at least partially right. I've spent some time looking at the discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines #Biographical infoboxes and I'm not seeing your claims about Andy having any substance there. If I'm looking in the wrong place, then please produce the diffs on which your complaints about Andy rest. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Seeing his conduct at Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox continues to show he doesn't get the community editing process in music articles and has no interest in learning it. I do not dispute that some of his edits are useful, but his usefulness does not outweigh his disruption. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• In light of MoreYschi's comment, I realize I may have sought relief in the wrong forum, I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose to sustain the legal fiction that WikiProjects do not make policy by fiat. --NYKevin @818, i.e. 18:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche Back Via Proxy

User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I wish you had dropped me a line (I blocked the 81 IP)--if you had, I wouldn't have embarrassed myself! (See section below.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not notifying you about the ANI thread. I was just about to signoff for the night when I seen that post by Rinpoche and I posted to ANI. I am actually surprised it was coherent as tired as I was. :) Anywho, my apologizes, will definitely make sure all are notified in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Can we please get evidence (up here, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion) of the harassment? Revdeled is fine: I have magic glasses. I am not aware of it; I apologize if I'm asking for something redundant. I see some oversighted edits but my magic glasses aren't that strong. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• You can probably see this: User:FightingMac/Van Gogh "dark" debate. I can't remember what's on it to be honest; he has a habit of attempting to out people. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

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.

---

Further to the above, as this guy incessantly returns to cause more disruption in various places under various sock accounts, I propose a full community ban from wikipedia, so that his edits can simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified.

• Support as nom Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Superfluous As an indefinitely blocked user, his edits can already simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified. The only thing a community ban does is prevent admins from unblocking his accounts once they are aware that the account is a sock of Rinpoche. Is there really a risk of that happening?—Kww(talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, but to give an example of why a ban would be useful: my most recent interaction with him involved an RfC started by a sock of his regarding an issue which had already been addressed. After he was blocked he could no longer flog the horse, but the RfC still had to be allowed to run its course because redacting comments made by blocked users is against guidelines, whereas doing the same for a banned user is recommended (if I understand things correctly). Blocks and bans are two different things; there are subtle differences in the way they are applied. I think a ban would be useful in this instance. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand correctly. All edits made by block evading editors and by banned editors are subject to precisely the same restrictions.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Identified by whom? Nobody Ent 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Any good faith editor is the prevailing standard. There's no requirement to wait for a checkuser, SPI enquiry, or any form a elaborate consensus-seeking proposal.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you have got that from. The policy says that any edit of a sitebanned user may be reverted, AfD closed etc etc. It says nothing similar about an editor who is simply blocked. Indeed how could it, as many editors are indefinitely blocked for quite short periods of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits made in defiance of blocks have always been revertable, Elen. I don't know why you believe otherwise. WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks details the issue under "Content created during block or ban" in the table.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't said that for very long: it was changed relatively recently. All they way up until that point, there was nothing on that page to indicate that edits of blocked editors could be reverted without question. I don't see any discussion on the talk page relating to that change (I could be missing it), so it must have been a bold one. Noting in the blocking policy says that blocked editors can be reverted without question. Doc talk 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite incidentally, I opened a discussion on a very similar question just a few hours ago, at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#3RR exception for edits by blocked users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was coincident with this discussion. An indefinitely blocked editor that no one will unblock is de facto banned, and we've always treated them that way. Reverting an editor based on "block evasion" has always been accepted, and WP:CSD#G5 specifically includes both blocked and banned editors. Not a very bold edit at all.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, your change had the unfortunate side-effect of all blocked editors, not just indeffed, having their edits reverted without question. Ouch. Doc talk 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not an unfortunate side-effect at all. If someone evades a block, it's block evasion, and the content created during block evasion is subject to reversion and deletion. Content created before or after a block is not.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the unfortunate side-effect is it gives wiki-warriors license to bite any new editor that has the misfortune to resemble a banned/blocked editor without the benefit of consensus and good faith. Nobody Ent 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• As an involved "Any good faith editor" with virtually no grasp of Wikipedia banning/blocking technicalities, I'd just like to add moral support to Basilisk's point that this pseudo-Rinpoche guy continues to disrupt with his smelly-sock reincarnations. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. Over the last several days this individual has been posting from a host of different IPs, engaging in outing attempts directed at a minor, as well as boasting about the off-wiki harassment that he also mentions in the post to Drmies' page linked above. The vast majority of his dozens of posts over these last few days have had to be revdel'd, a fair proportion have also been oversighted, and several rangeblocks put in place to limit the harassment. My presumption was that the person was already banned. If they aren't, then it's way past time. (Information from elsewhere suggests they are better known under another troublemaking name, but I'll leave that for people who know more of the background to either comment on or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The nuances are different for a block and a ban. When there is a question of extending an indef block to a ban, routine approval of the ban is probably the simplest action to take, unless it's one of those indefinite-for-now blocks where the person might be unblocked at any time if they agree to change their behavior. Rinpoche is a guy whose talk edits are now being rev-deleted, so he is pretty far gone from normal editing. I am notifying the two blocking admins in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, wastes community time (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch89#Lede image Major depressive disorder), but even after blocking, was still posting via multiple IPs to MastCell's talk.[68] Good luck with this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is an impressive range of IPs they're employing. I wish I was that clever or tenacious. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support They shouldn't be allowed to edit here again without clear community consensus as they have shown they are unwilling to comply with the terms of the block. The problems at Major Depressive Disorder alone justify the ban, plus I've had to revert a few of their sock comments on my own talk page [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] and sent him to SPI here. A civil sockpuppet is still a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

...and a particularly bad faith one, it would seem. A few hours before User:LHirsig was identified as a sock of Rinpoche, the user page rapidly expanded (diffs nla) to provide personal and family history, together with a committed identity. I found that quite striking. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Drmies (below). I think it's relevant to point out that the standard offer has already been made, and that I honestly believe this editor is past becoming constructive. Under every guise, he has always caused significant disruption, and he appears to enjoy conflict and causing problems more than he does actually editing. I think the project is better off without him. However, if some extremely patient administrator were to be happy to mentor him, then I would take a deep breath and welcome it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I did see the offer, yes, and their declining it. I guess I was here also testing the waters to see if, besides huge disruption (as suggested by Sandy, above) there was something worthwhile keeping here: User:AnotherWeeWilly/sandbox . I wasn't aware of the abuse--and I actually have not seen evidence of it, only evidence of its removal. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: User is indefinatley blocked. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support: Having to look for a reason for reverts in this case is a waste of time. Calabe1992 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban after further perusal of evidence but Calabe, I disagree. Such decisions should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support full community ban. User has no good intentions for the project and no intention of conforming with our norms. --John (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Also would like to see all the sock accounts tied to the sockmaster account. The FightingMac account created a fair number of socks as far as I know they've not all been tied to Rinpoche and I think this should be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you see the SPI? I don't know if anyone ran CU on Mac. Tnxman recently ran CU on the 81 IP and found User:PJBoellaard. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's in the block log for FM & lots of others. But they've never been tied together. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Added these: [75], [76], [77]. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• support The editor has left the community no other option. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Motion to close.... - Since no editor has made a comment in this entire section in over 24 hours, I think concluding it and carrying out the will of the community is in order, if an uninvolved administrator is willing. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:55, 28 April 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.

To ban or not to ban?

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.

---

Eye candy to draw you in. Why is this perspective so hypnotically striking?

Hello all. I'll try to be succinct. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive. The editor done some bad things, apparently, socked around a bit, and is now IP-ing in what appears to be an attempt to set the record straight. On one of the IP talk pages they were referred to as a banned editor but I see no evidence that they actually were banned, though de facto that seems to be the case; see User talk:81.178.38.169. The user seems to have an urge to contribute though they deny that at the same time; I guess that's typical socking behavior. Right now they're hopping about a bit and got in touch with me (I blocked the 81 IP a little while ago).

What I'd like to know is this. Should we ban the user, or should we not? My gut feeling is that acting as if there is already a ban (and some comments from good-willing but in my opinion overzealous editors on that IP talk page) only antagonizes the editor. Moreover, and I've asked for a second opinion on this, I think that the editor can contribute. We could, for instance, consider the standard offer with a topic ban (on some psychology-related articles) for good measure. Mind you, I have no dog in this fight, only Jimbo's miniature schnauzer: I don't necessarily want to break a lance for this editor, but I always dislike the piling-on that sometimes takes place. I think the editor has something to contribute.

I'm going to drop a couple of notifications in various places and hope for some input that goes beyond the standard "turn de facto ban into real ban". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Errm... take a look at the section above this - may be related.. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

S**t. Hadn't looked at anything at all yet. Eh, can someone merge this carefully and elegantly? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 April 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.

COI editing on Darrell Issa 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.

---

This may or may not need some attention, I'm not sure. There has been an off-site call (Reddit) for editing of the Darrell Issa article. Thread on Reddit: [78]. Edits so far: [79]. Again, I'm not sure if this is a problem but I thought I'd bring it up. 98.201.94.232 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit has been removed. If it becomes disruptive, we can seek protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 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.

Ongoing disruptive page moves by Tryde

Yesterday I discovered Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has either moved or created tens, possibly hundreds of baronet articles with incorrect page titles. The naming convention for baronets can be found at WP:NCPEER and the relevant part reads:

• Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name, e.g. George Albu (rather than "Sir George Albu" or "Sir George Albu, 1st Baronet"). However:
  • If the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator between the men of that name, use the full style as the article title: Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet (with both prefix and postfix); John Brunner is ambiguous with his father and with John Brunner (novelist).

I left a message at User talk:Tryde#Baronet page moves regarding this and moved the affected articles (not requiring disambiguation) with a summary clearly referencing WP:NCPEER. Despite this, Tryde is in the process of moving every single one back without attempting to explain their actions or even saying why in the move summary. Can anything be done to stop this ongoing disruption please? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently "contributing so massively to this encyclopedia for the last seven years" means you get a free pass for disruption, surely not? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know of atleast '2' pages, that I wish he'd move. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned this editor not to continue and I am prepared to block for disruption if they continue. I sincerely hope they take the warning and avoid this. --John (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks John. It's difficult dealing with intransigence such as common name used for baronets is used when the naming conventions say the opposite and they have been made aware of precisely what the naming conventions say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme BLP violation

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

The second message in this edit accuses a respected university professor of "essentially pedophelia". I am reporting this here, partly because the severity of the attack seems to warrant immediate administrative attention (I would think a revdel is called for), and partly because Erikvcl's previous response to BLP warnings was to say "Your reference to WP:BLP is laughable and irrelevant". Would somebody intervene? Jakew (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

His web page links to circumfetish websites and discussion groups. He is not respected in the medical community. He associates with the Gilgal society. He is not an MD. It is odd that you would defend him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikvcl (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending text but cannot revdel it as I am not an administrator. Erik: no matter how you feel about someone, speaking about them like this on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you do it again - even in talk space - someone will block you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Do note you should always remove the info immediately as KG has done. Revdeletion (whether with suppression or not) can only hide entire revisions therefore everything between the time the material was added until it was removed needs to be hidden or suppressed. In case of an extreme BLP violation like effectively calling someone a paedophile, you generally can't go wrong with removing the info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this defamatory material from the edit history and messaged the offender. I haven't had time to look into the background of this issue or this editor. If there is any hint that they may repeat this they should definitely be blocked indefinitely, in my opinion. --John (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the matter in a little more detail and left a longer message warning them not to repeat this behaviour. If any admin feels I have been too lenient and wishes to block, I won't be offended, but I personally would rather leave this as a final warning for now. --John (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him once already for such behavior, and I'm not encouraged that he won't repeat it, but the final warning should stand. He's here with an agenda and a battleground mentality. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As the victim of his previous attacks, I'm admittedly biased, but I feel this is extremely lenient, too. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I likewise feel that a warning is too lenient. As Laser brain correctly states, this guy has an agenda and a battleground mentality. What's worse, he just plain does not get it: that his beliefs are subordinate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no matter how heinous he believes his targets to be. Such people don't generally flip over to believing in our civility and editing policies. Ravenswing 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on his reply to my warning, I am tentatively standing by my warning rather than immediately blocking. I would not regard it as wheel-warring if another more draconian admin wished to block. I would think it evident that the next block would be indefinite if the user repeats the behaviour. I would certainly apply such a block if there is anything similar in the future. --John (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lb here. The signs of he/she not repeating this sort of behaviour aren't good. Last time when they was blocked for fairly similiar behaviour Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#Inappropriate administrator conduct, it was clearly explained to them such behaviour was not acceptable, I presume they read it since they started asking for their account to be deleted. While it's true that case concerned an editor (and therefore policies like NPA) rather then the subject of an article, it's hard to imagine someone who still doesn't understand their strong personal opinions of various people aren't relevent is going to 'get it' any time soon. However as Lb and John both said, let's just let the final warning stand, with an indefinite block coming if they repeat similar behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of War by user:Hashem sfarim

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 this edit war was formally declared on two other users (myself excluded) by user:Hashem sfarim without any provocation that I can see. I have not been involved in the reverts that took place, but I can not edit or improve the page given the sudden outbursts that clearly breach WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:Civility, WP:AGF, etc. This case may not call for an immediate block, but user:Hashem sfarim needs to be notified to stop aggressive behavior that suddenly turns a friendly and good-hearted content discussion that compares Johnny Depp's page views to those of God into a tense situation laden with accusations that impede content improvement. As stated here no page improvement can take place as long as threats of war persist. Hence a message from an administrator that stops the outbreak of war will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave them a note and see if they are prepared to be a little less aggressive. --Fæ (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding. There was no "declaration" of war...merely a prediction that there would be warring going on....BY OTHERS. I never said "I will war on this". I said clearly, I will NOT violate any WP rules or policies. History2007 is a whiner and has personal bias against me, and is whining on this page...instead of talking to me directly to understand what I meant. Not cool. But then he's not cool. Instead of focusing on the substance of the dispute and the edit problem, he harps and nit-picks on this nonsense, only to get me in trouble. A real class act. I said clearly I won't violate 3RR, and will leave this whole thing to others after this weekend. The "war" I mentioned was a PREDICTION, because I know how others are gonna be acting. Not a "declaration". History2007, as usual, over-reacts, and whines, and wastes my time. Not cool. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment left for you at User_talk:Fæ#No_need...History2007_misunderstand_and_complains_as_usual. Feel free to follow-up there if you feel the need to persist rather than being tempted to wind up History2007. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks , and no worries, I do not get wound up. Editing here is supposed to be fun after all. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I restored some of PiCo's words and points on the lede, per discussion. See Talk page. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:01, 28 April 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.

Vladimir Katriuk

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.

---

Hello, the article Vladimir Katriuk is becoming controversial and an IP account 213.104.254.110 keeps deleting cited information. He seems to want to revise history the way he wants it. Would you please intervene. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the parties involved that you mentioned them here, and give them warnings for what they did wrong. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As no one else, I've notified the IP of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Junobeach appears to have WP:NPOV issues I made a couple of corrective edits and they have also reverted me - we still need to report from a npov position even in regards to living people accused of war crimes. - There was a report at the BLPN about the biography - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vladimir_Katriuk - Youreallycan 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Now hold on there. What POV issues does Junobeach have? What exactly do you mean by "corrective edits"? What did you "correct"? Isn't it more accurate that you actually started an edit war here (and he walked away)? Here's how it went:

With this edit Junobeach added a section headed Canada re-examines case. It was informative content, adequately referenced.

You removed his edit by replacing it with something which was somewhat similar, but IMMHO not as well written. Your edit summary said "remove undue weight - no offical investigation - add attribution - according to ...". What undue weight? That was a pretty inaccurate and unfair summary. Also note, that it is you who made the first revert.

Junobeach then restored his paragraph (as well as other stuff) and he gave the accurate edit summary "Place back cited information".

You then again reverted him, but only his paragraph summarising it as "again - remove undue weight - there is no official investigation and add attributon to the claim".

What did you mean? His version said "that the Government of Canada would re-examine the case" and yours says "they said that they would investigate it", (the they being govt spokespersons). The reference goes to an article headed "Ottawa to re-examine former Nazi’s past". How can you possibly say "there is no official investigation", given the reference? If it is a semantics problem, then your comment applies equally to your version.

ANI expects frankness and clarity from anyone complaining about another editor, and I think your post here could be unfairly prejudicial to Junobeach in the event he was subject to any future discussion. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My sense is any problems with the article can be worked out at BLPN (where the IP filed a report) and on the article Talk page. Why bounce back and forth between BLPN and ANI, especially as, in my view, it has not risen to the level of requiring administrative action. YRC has already made some helpful contributions to the article based on the BLPN report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 29 April 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.

Teen delusions of grandeur, vandal in progress

I've just corrected repeated vandalism on half a dozen articles by someone who is apparently 15 years old and would really, really love to be knighted by the Queen. He has no user page, but his contribs are here. Would someone who knows proper procedure kindly give this kid a warning against continuing his fantasies on Wikipedia article pages? I'm all unsure of how to handle this, so I'm giving you guys a heads up here. Textorus (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left a level 2 edit test warning, informing them that if they continue it will be considered vandalism. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, please see How to respond to vandalism. Vandals should be reverted and warned, then reported to WP:AIV if they fail to heed the warnings. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Captain. And thanks for the link, DoRD, I will bookmark it for future use. Textorus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at Brighton125's works, mostly because I've introduced teens to Wikipedia contributing. I'm of the view that if not sociopathic, teens can become experts and long-term contributors. I am not sure if Brighton125 wants to be: "Joseph Anker, 1st Duke of Brighton," but maybe a few thoughtful words about how to get there, and some patience will send him on his way, a bit less fantastically? It seems to me, that he should have a chance, and know that others are hovering over. He could become a new user, of course, but if the same pattern continues, (presumably) he'll be easy to recognize as a new duke, prince, HRH, etc. I do wonder if the world of online gaming for kids has inspired some of this. I am considering a creative barnstar that emphasizes the importance of reality and dreams, and the distinction... Comments colleagues? KSRolph (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I put a less menacing message on their talk page, welcoming them and inviting them to ask me anything if they needed. In cases where it isn't obvious and clear vandalism, I agree that a more gentle approach is usually sufficient. No need to bite the little boogers. I know exactly nothing about the subject matter, but it is entirely possible they added this in good faith, correct or otherwise, and no one has said anything here about how this info is utterly impossible, so my ignorance makes me conclude that this isn't a clear case of obvious vandalism. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always up for learning something new. Regardless, when in doubt, it is better to gently welcome the new editor than to scold them. Then if they screw up, feel free to template away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow up Their only contribs now are on their user page. Likely more of a sandbox thing, but I don't see the harm at this time. It would *appear* that their edits were in good faith all along. This is why I always suggest we assume good faith and be careful to not bite the newbs, even when they are making mistakes. Again, being a yank, I'm clueless as to the content and will leave that to more capable hands to determine. While I am assuming good faith here as well, a read of WP:VANDALISM is in order for you Textorus. Calling someone a vandal when it doesn't clearly fit that criteria is a capital offense here. It would also be big of you if you went and offered some help on their talk page, since you called them a vandal in front of god and the Queen here at ANI. That seems fair and then I would call it even. Maybe User:Captain Screebo will help you out, to avoid the much lesser penalty of being put into the stocks for a day. The proper tag would have referred to "unsourced material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought maybe an admin had deleted something of Brighton125's edits, not seeing great offense myself. If he wants to be the 1st Duke of Brighton, then I still believe a light-spirited barnstar would be just as much fun for him, as if he were stirring up a little imagined-honor mischief. A clever barnstar would call him on it in a kind way, and do no harm. I don't want to offend anyone here, so let us all push ahead with NPOV and assuming good faith. I will drop 'the Duke' a message myself, when I think of something appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bite me, Dennis Brown, and the high horse you rode in on. The reason I came to this noticeboard instead of confronting the user directly was to get someone to handle the situation in the most appropriate way, whatever that is. Instead, you sling shit and insults at me, an experienced, mature, responsible editor. Who is, btw, strictly a volunteer and not in any way subject to your precious jurisdiction. So in your regal fantasy, go ahead and decree my head be taken off all you like, I'm just laughing at you, man. Textorus (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• We all, myself included, have a tendency to throw the word "vandal" around. We all need to be more careful when it comes to new editors, or we limit the pool of future experienced, mature and responsible editors down the road. If my light-hearted suggestion offended you, well I'm sorry, as the goal was to remind us all to be careful and us the proper tags and proper terms, and I simply attempted to say it with a little humor. I thought the dramatic overtones and links to capital punishment and the stocks would have been enough to make that clear, but I guess not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Constant personal harassment of User:DIREKTOR

I have a question: is User:DIREKTOR allowed to constantly attack me personally like this? Please see examples of his recent posts:

• - another Balkans article that has a disruptive local user personally "attached" to it...PANONIAN does not really have a sound argument of any sort, nor is he at all willing to openly accept that as a fact (you can see him right now, talking about some OR propaganda posters and coins)...He will change his claims and his position continuously depending on whether it will specifically help his agenda on that article, namely the creation of a non-existent country...Because we do not "compromise" between personal opinions and POV-pushing...PANONIAN is just POV-pushing, and is wrong, whereas Peacemaker and I are just plain right...PANONIAN's "disputes" would be laughed-off the talkpage on any more prominent article. This is about a user, not a real factual dispute...What is necessary here is that the problem user be made to abide by Wikipedia policy
• PANONIAN is on an agenda, his goal is not improving Wikipedia
• I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch

My point is: no matter of the content dispute that we have, this user simply should not trash my name like this and he should not to constantly accuse me for "nationalism", "POV pushing", "agenda", "disruptive behavior" etc. I wrote several hundred articles and created numerous images for Wikipedia and I did not deserved that somebody harassing me like this. Can somebody please notify DIREKTOR that he should respect Wikipedia:Civility policy? PANONIAN 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha. This is basically a preemptive report by PANONIAN. An "accuse him for accusing me before he can accuse me" sort of thing.

These are not personal "insults" or "harassment", but very real issues with regard to this user's behavior on this project. I can show conclusively that User:PANONIAN's behavior is indeed highly WP:DISRUPTIVE, indicative of extreme WP:OWN issues, and that he's very clearly on a "POV agenda". That's blatantly obvious and hardly even debatable at this point. He's frustrated the discussion to such an extent its effectively demolished, and he's taken the whole article hostage. His constant "sockpuppeteering" allegations even got User:Peacemaker67 to use caps lock. One can spend an hour researching and copying down sources quotes he's requested [80] - only to find he's simply dismissed them and started a new talkpage thread repeating the same nonsense all over again [81]. To the above list of "harassments" I will add that the user has very mediocre English skills and a poor to non-existent understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is repetitive, insulting, consistently and brazenly ignores policy and sources after they've been painstakingly quoted over and over and over again - and to discuss with him is a nightmare. He never ever concedes a single point, and there isn't even a semblance of a logical structure to the discourse with this person. he knows he can force users to compromise with his baseless position, and can afford to do ignore anything anyone could possibly write. The issue should be transferred over to WP:AE, for a thorough review of teh user's disruption on that talkpage. Its become impossible to carry on. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about: DIREKTOR constantly accusing me for all these things without any evidence presented. As for quotes, I only asked from DIREKTOR to support his claims with sources. Instead of presenting sources that would confirm his statements, he copy-pasted some quotation that does not confirming his previous statement (so how exactly is disrupting that I say that "I do not see that anything from quoted text supports his position"? Am I not allowed to say my opinion about text from the source? This is exactly the problem: instead to have civilized and serious discussion about the subject this user discussing my personality and accusing me for all kinds of disruptions without a single evidence (even on this same page). PANONIAN 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As for "preemptive report" accusation, I really do not know what DIREKTOR wants to say by that. Is that supposed to mean that DIREKTOR wanted to "accuse" me for something and that I was aware of that? Just another example of personal accusation and harassment. PANONIAN 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN's conduct in this arena has been absolutely reprehensible as well. I agree with DIREKTOR, this is an AE issue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe someone else will come along and try to get to the bottom of this, but at first glance, it looks like Panonian tried to "mediate" the disputes on this article's Talk page. User:Steven Zhang commented he'd prefer to do it at MedCab. Then, Direktor took it to Steven's Talk page, which seems to be the principal source of Panonian's complaint (the comments Direktor made there). I don't know precisely where it belongs, but my strong sense is that it doesn't belong here as it's essentially a content dispute with aggressively worded comments thrown in (what else is new in these sorts of articles?).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the issue of sockpuppetry accusations, I said already that I will not accuse Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet and I am not doing that any more (or DIREKTOR can provide some recent diff which can show that I again accused Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet?). PANONIAN 19:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen, seems that you remember previous discussion from this page that was opened because of my accusations for sockpuppetry - you can see that I did not continued with such accusations. I never again said that Peacemaker67 is a sockpuppet. In this case, however, I am a victim, since DIREKTOR now accusing me for all kinds of disruptions - if I accused someone for sockpuppetry that does not mean that I am also nationalist, POV pusher (and who knows what else). I am only asking that my own integrity here is respected in the same way as you asked from me to respect integrity of Peacemaker67 and not to accuse him for being a sockpuppet (I fully accepted that and I never again said that he is a sockpuppet). PANONIAN 20:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, when you make accusations against other editors, like you have in the diffs and your comments above, you need to supply serious diffs at the time of the comment to support them. Panonian has supplied diffs, what do you have to support your allegations?--v/r - TP 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am describing a behavioral pattern, not a particular incident. To actually convey it with diffs would be an immense undertaking, and an unnecessary one. I understand evidence is always necessary, but it isn't like I'm withholding it - the whole discussion on Talk:Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) is fully visible and savailable for review. Unfortunately, the only way anyone could responsibly confirm any of my allegations (and the only way one could truly support them), is to read through the the whole damn thing. I really can't ask anyone to spend his free time in such a way, which is a good part of the reason I did not report all this already. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not how this works. If you want to "describe behavioral problems" you do it in the form of diffs. Otherwise you have engaged in personal attacks. Directing (no pun) others where to find the evidence isn't enough. Either provide diffs demonstrating the behavior your claiming exists or back off the accusations (and redact).--v/r - TP 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If by "that's not how this works" you're saying admins don't read through discussions in order to more accurately assess the validity of accusations, then I must say I have encountered such an alleged impossibility on many an occasion. The best I can do is provide examples of various sorts of disruptive behavior, if that will satisfy. I can't (or rather I won't) relay the whole weeks-long discussion. I will have to do it tomorrow as it is nearly 01:00 here (CET). -- Director (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By "that's not how it this works" I'm saying you can't make attacks on other editors without providing the support for those accusations and insisting others go find it. You know this dispute better than I, you know where the support for your argument is located. Panonian has supplied diffs showing poor behavior by you and has not sent us all out on a hunt. Show us what you know or take it back.--v/r - TP 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are diffs in his post... maybe those have been added in the interim, I don't care enough to check the ANI history because if we have a policy on having to add diffs when you complain about someone that's news to me. TParis is largely correct: diffs make your argument well (although there's a soundbite-culture aspect to it that's not great).

None of these diffs seem to be personal attacks aside from claiming eachother have agendas, which is tame. Also, aren't some Balkans related articles under an ArbCom restriction? Would someone more knowledgeable than me comment on that please? Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any case for administrative action and recommend the thread be closed. Try to use dispute resolution, although the subject matter (Balkan politics) may not attract many editors who have not already formed strong opinions. Director, administrators do not "read through the whole damn thing". Editors read what you present here, decide what to do and administrators then take whatever action is recommended. TFD (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I've come late to the party - daughter's birthday today. I think that there are flared tempers here and hashing it out on the talk page is not going to help. Some form of dispute resolution is needed. Of course, dispute resolution is voluntary, the other option being this cycle continues till everyone gets topic banned. I recommend the former, and am willing to conduct the process, but it's not up to me. The parties need to come to the table. Steven Zhang ^Talk 06:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of salted page under new title, using copy/pasted text

Can someone take a look at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are multiple issues with the page.

First, the page seems to have the same issue that was addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (2nd nomination) ... namely, no reliable sources for the majority of the content, and the one that exists is simply a commercial site to reference the price on iTunes. Note: the original article name from the AfD was also salted.

However, even if the page were viewed as sufficiently different from the originally AfD'd text, there remains an issue that the new page was originally created as a copy of http://ed.wikia.com/wiki/Ed,_Edd_n_Eddy%27s_Big_Picture_Show ... it was stripped down and re-edited, and I've revdel'd the oldest edits which were the original copy/paste material. However, I'm not familiar enough with the copyright issues to know if that's adequate, as several of the remaining diffs still contain significant portions of that original text without appropriate attribution.

I was tempted to simply delete the page due to these issues, but wanted to get additional opinions to see if I should instead start a third AfD for the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikia uses the same license that we do but it needs to be attributed. I think it's likely that the user who created the article was unaware of the AFD decision to redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy. Since the section that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show was redirected to was removed without an edit summary, he probably noticed the absence of coverage and BOLDly decided to write a new article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• My (non-admin) opinion: salted means salted. Delete and salt again. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell does it matter if you're not an admin? ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Because all editors have the right to chime in on things like this; adminship is not a promotion to a higher station so much as a few extra tools to be used responsibly. Coming to a consensus on how to resolve an issue is the domain of any editor, not just ones with extra buttons. GRAPPLE X 03:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What's more, it matters because Strange Passerby doesn't have the ability to perform what's being suggested. It's potentially lazy if I suggest that something be done and then don't do it, but Strange Passerby's observation theoretically will keep people from asking him to do it. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is assuming that someone offering an opinion is an indication that action has been taken then we have a broken system or a naive editor. Moreover, expecting anyone who offers an opinion to act on it is a wonderful way to shut down discussion and discourage people from offering opinions and suggestions. ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my point: Why should non-admins' opinions be treated any differently and marked as being different? ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This again...oyyy, this has been a four year battle with something that has had more than enough time (five years) to find plenty of sources, and never has (this one is even worse, with the only source being to an iTunes purchase link). Will definitely ask for yet another delete and salt on this. It is nothing but an overlong series finale that can be best described in the show's episode list. And I'm not willing to assume AGF on this; the EE&E community knows darned well that if they want this to have an article it needs plenty of sources and criticism to be created, but it has never been demonstrated. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, why delete it? The series article is established and nobody doubts its notability; why can't we just redirect this title to the series and protect the redirect if necessary? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a copy-paste without attribution, it is a copyvio. In that case, deletion is the only option. Though that does not preclude recreating as a protected redirect. Resolute 02:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I overlooked the copyvio issue — and I'm definitely one who routinely deletes unattributed copies under G12. I thought the problem was solely that people kept creating (wholly newly written) articles on this topic, and that the sole problem was that it wasn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie should be deleted, missing attribution can be repaired without deletion. WP:Copying within Wikipedia does not apply to external sites, but the requirements of CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensing are the same. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated, there has never been any true sources for this 'movie' at all beyond just the usual fancruft that is par for the course when it comes to American children's cable network series. At best, it was a 90 minute episode that can be just described in four paragraphs in a "list of" article (which it already is). The editors continuing to push this article have had four years to find at the minimum, one source that isn't a bulletin board or fan wiki 'type what I see' recap, and they have failed miserably. The redirect lock should be restored at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and this new title, which both fails to meet MOS as the actual title of the film and with this version, reads as a end-around of consensus. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For any unfamiliar readers, the film's title is Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, according to the Internet Movie Database. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, as the one who started the thread, my personal opinion is that the article at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: The Movie (which is the one originally created as a copy/paste with no attribution) should be deleted. Then, the redirect at Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show should be changed to point to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film (because the original redirect target was an article subsection that has since been deleted). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Going by date and page size, this revision was copied from Wikia. According to the tag at its top, this early revision of that page was copied from Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just now looking at the article here and the Wikia page, it occurred to me that we still have substantial copying — even the first sentence in the intro is excessively close paraphrasing. Since this content is found in all revisions, we'd have to RevDel the entire page history to get rid of it, so simply deleting the page is substantially simpler. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

• King Genovese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

King Genovese has been creating non-notable pages and performing occasional copyright infringements, despite being warned to stop several times. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] I think they may need a short block to show that we are serious about our policies on these matters. King Genovese seems to be creating these pages in good faith, but I think their persistent editing against policy requires action to protect the encyclopaedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a friendly but firm notice on his page, telling him to go here before editing any more. Hopefully he will take is seriously and not edit any more, coming here instead. I'm very hesitant to block a user when no talk has been initiated outside of a template and there exists a chance that they are acting in good faith, however, good faith disruption is still disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  They have removed quite a few of their talk page messages, so some of the discussion may have been obscured by that. (I think my diffs above got the most important ones, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  The problem appears to be communication or possibly an inability to understand that words won't fix. They are navigating quite well, however, so there may be more to this but I'm going to assume good faith. They left a message on my talk page, I've tried to direct them here and offered more advice on their page about mentoring. They quit adding content. Templates are often not very effective, they look like automated system messages. As is often the case, a personal, friendly but firm message got their attention. I recommend them early and often. If they start back in, a block may be justified to prevent disruption, but wouldn't be appropriate right now since they have stopped. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I've joined in and encouraged more talk. Found he was on my watchlist but I can't remember why. (All sorts of things I can't remember appear there - bit like my house...) I'm assuming 'he' from 'King'. Shouldn't really - amongst my hollies I've got one with 'king' in the name that is female and a 'queen' that is male. They seem quite happy about it. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm doing everything I can to keep my "block" button in the original packaging, it might be worth something someday. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This may be related to the Don Cuneo thread above. I've attempted to contact the editor to see if the same person is operating both accounts. Calabe1992 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Was trying to compliment your find and an EC bit me. I notice all of Don Cuneo's contribs fit neatly into the gaps of Kings. Perhaps someone smarter than me can take a look before we get all excited about the coincidences. I don't see any glaring problems here, yet, but good to know. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a placeholder put here so that the thread won't be automatically archived - I am hoping that King Genovese can come over here and comment on this matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• So this is where the FBI headquarters are. What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sure you can. I think we are all grateful for your efforts to contribute to our crime articles - it's just that we also need you to follow Wikipedia policy while you do it. If you can agree to follow the policies and show that you know how to apply them, then the problem will be solved. So, the $64,000 question: are you willing to check that the pages you create follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  I would also add that you are now part of this community, one of "you guys", so you get to say and do as well. Our concern is that you aren't familiar with the guidelines on adding information about real people, and adding a lot of material without sourcing. A few of us have offered to help get you up to speed on sourcing, so you can properly contribute as part of the community. We are all a little trigger happy when it comes to article on living or deceased people, as it can affect the living when you make strong claims that are potentially inaccurate. The only way we can be sure that they are accurate it to expect solid sourcing, so the standard is pretty high for sources, and articles about people without good sourcing generally get deleted, thus wasting your time. This is why we were trying to help you on your talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't this just go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?--Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because it isn't vandalism. Instead we assume good faith and try to help the editor become an asset instead of a liability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal by User:Altenmann

On 11 April 2010, User:Altenmann was desysopped and community banned, which the user would like reconsidered. Accordingly, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee seeks comment from the community on suspending the ban and interested editors are invited to participate. For the committee, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Appeal discussion

Request BLP and NPA review at Sandra Shevey

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.

---

Regarding OTRS ticket 2012022710003812, I'd like to have an administrator review the article's talk page. With permission to disclose here, the subject of the article contacted us and expressed her view that the talk page was 'anti-semitic' and attempted to denigrate her reputation by questioning whether she should have an article. There's also a reference to her off-wiki social media activity which she was uncomfortable with. She has said that if the comments aren't removed she wants the article taken down. I'll respectfully say that I don't see it from her perspective, but I would like a third opinion given her upset. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing even remotely antisemitic on that Talk page! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that could possibly be connected with anti-semitism in the smallest respect. Notability does look pretty doubtful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Update: now at AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add because it was part of her complaint that Talk page discussions about a subject's notability are commonplace, and the brief discussion in this instance was remarkably tame. Shevey herself attempted to blank out the comments and insert her own self-assessment; that was resolved. Nomosk has taken it to AfD, so maybe she'll get her wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 29 April 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.

Personal attack from IP

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.

---

Can someone review this personal attack from a random IP for me please, and take any appropriate action if needs be. The IP also posted several other personal attacks across a variety of article talk pages, as well as refactoring messages and editor's signatures, as shown in their special contributions. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 16:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that request; discospinster (talk · contribs) has blocked the IP. Thanks anyway. Wesley☀Mouse 16:18, 29 April 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.

Admin required to get user to stop restoring personal attack

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.

---

History, an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gemini_Wars, a couple of tetchy comments a bit late in the day, [90] [91]. This morning I struck through, and apologized for, the juvenile, uncivil comment about the fanboy sites [92] and also removed the personal attack directed at me by SL93. [93]
Despite having tried to AGF this outright personal attack, and requested that the user in question leave the {{rpa}} tag in place, they are repeatedly and obstinately restoring their comment, which I do not accept even if it's struck through (and I have cited the relevant text from WP:NPA). restore tag, request, revert of tag, restore tag and revert by user SL93, final request, WP:NPA quote (again), final tag restore with warning, latest revert to attack text. Could an admin have a quiet word with this person as they have also decided to come and pitch in on my talk page on a completely unrelated subject? I would like the personal attack removed and that this person stop removing the tag. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh man... you both need to get a different hobby. What's the point in insisting it be removed when it's struck? What's the point in insisting it be struck instead of removed? Seriously... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Because he refuses to remove (or even strike out) all of his personal attacks towards editors. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." It is not a talk page. I crossed it out which is the same as taking it back, but you have not crossed out or remove any of your personal attacks as per the Wikiquette Assistance against you and what I posted on your talk page (which you quickly removed without response). SL93 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Captain, unlucky I guess. Some people don't want to shake hands and forget about it after fisticuffs. Their loss. My advice would be to take a deep breath, move on and don't take it personally. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Screebo called an editor intellectually dishonest and said that he doesn't understand the English language. He still has no problem with that. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey don't shoot the messenger, I was just trying to calm things down. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But ignoring the over-arching issue does not help anything. A comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Wars‎ from a different editor - "I haven't New Page Patrolled, no, but I don't appreciate how Screebo is talking down to me, (and everyone else), so much. I've spent much time here at AFD. Please, Screebo, try to tone it down a bit." SL93 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(several ec later) I have asked this user to stop rushing all over the place and stirring things up, (takes deep breath), thanks Basalisk for your calm and balanced approach, I will go and do some cooking or some other soothing activity and not lose any sleep over this user's insistence on trying to make me out to be some sort of ogre. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hesitant to move fast in a situation where both parties have been less than civil and have likely share some blame for escalating the situation, to the degree that "who is more guilty than who" isn't clear, and likely not relevant. Can't we all just get along? In the real world, I would just buy you two an beer and we would sit down and talk about something else for a while, cool down, then go do the right thing, be it strike or remove. Help me out a little please, I'm slow today. Briefly, and preferably without contradicting each other, what do each of you think the solution should be? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • All that I did was call him a jerk (which I crossed out), but Screebo is still fine with his incivility previously and I don't mean towards myself. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe I wasn't clear. What do each of you think the solution should be? Not the problem, but the solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution could have been letting me just cross out the comment instead of continually reverting me. It would have been left at that only with me, but not others. If the editor withdraws this ANI, I will gladly leave him alone. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Simple and clear. Excellent. And now I would love to hear what Captain Screebo feels the proper solution should be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I promised myself that I wouldn't get into any drama, but then I saw incivility to just one of the many editors that I respect. It was wrong to call him a jerk though. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• The related matter with two separate instances involving Captain Screebo are currently posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Captain Screebo. The notice for WP:ANI says, "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette assistance." Captain Screebo has been involved in that page. I am not sure if this is proper to say, but shouldn't the matter be handled at the existing discussion at WQA since the editors were involved when Captain Screebo made this post here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I had been only focusing on the comments in this one AFD, trying to demonstrate that their ideas for solution were almost identical and that this ANI wasn't needed, but yes, you are correct Chris, that would be the proper place to handle the larger issues. And it is always proper to bring that kind of issue up, and appreciated as I don't want to step on anyone's toes. And since you have, and the situation has cooled enough that I don't think anything must be done here this very minute, feel free to archive this thread, pointing to that discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am no admin, I must politely refuse to close, but I'll cite the matter at the WQA pointing to this discussion. It all happened quickly so I just wanted to make mention of it since that was a relevant discussion area directly related to that AfD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to close, but I will since you are involved there, I just want to shut off this thread. Good find, seriously, thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:59, 29 April 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.

Advertisement on 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.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The greater policy question can be handled at another venue (let me suggest WP:VPP) however there was not any consensus for administrator action during the last discussion Red Pen participated in; in a few hours that is unlikely to change. Let me suggest moving the discussion over the policy issue to the more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The user page User:Cla68 contains an advertisement, listing specific serivces for hire for specific prices upon contacting specific address.

Advertising is prohibited by policy, including user pages, and without regard for whether the services may or may not be related to Wikipedia.

The introduction to WP:SOAP reads as follows: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

The inappropriate content has been removed multiple times and been returned, ostensibly because there was not a clear consensus in a previous discussion. The previous discussion may have ended without consesus on a number of things such as whether a particular phrase of a guideline might or might not apply, and whether or not paid editing is appropriate.

I am now asking the community to affirmatively address specifically whether there is consensus to disregard policy and allow an advertisment on this user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn that was what this thread was about? It closed as no consensus for administrative action regarding his advertisement within the last 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think his userpage – or a particular part of it – should be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at MfD. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: if your interpretation of policy differs from another editor's the solution is not to edit-war. I see you've attempted to remove the material from that user page twice; fortunately an admin has protected it or else there'd be some edit-warring blocks coming if it kept up. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 26 April 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.

WP:SOAP prohibits advertisement and as WP:SOAP is policy, the advertisment must be removed and consensus must be shown for it to stay. Red Pen of Doom is right! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus, now that he's commercializing things, file a Better Business Bureau complaint about his editing - it's deserved :-) Not to suggest a violation of WP:NLT, but he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My word, such a pronouncment would seem to be intended to have a chilling effect on an editor's work →StaniStani  17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone attempting to make a profit off of the "free encyclopedia" should not only be chilled, but ashamed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that right? Once an editor is paid for writing something he or she is legally responsible and so could be personally sued for libel? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You can still be sued for libel (and successfully too) regardless of whether you're being paid. There's been numerous discussions about recent court cases that have resulted in this, so being paid has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, please stop your implied threats. Also, if you're being paid by a client to improve their article, then I don't see how libel comes into it at all. Silverseren^C 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

While the legal and liability implications of paid editing (both for the paid editor and for Wikipedia in general if paid editing becomes prevalent) probably warrant futher discussion somewhere, a (nominally closed) ANI discussion about the actions of an individual editor is clearly not the place for such discussion. Concentrate on individual editors and their behaviour here please.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel, will do, apologies. I used to think closed meant closed, until I saw a new comment from Kosh here and lots of replies. But I'd like to know, Silverscreen, why is it "furthermore" and what exactly are these "implied threats" that you tell me I have made? As for libel, might not one organiusation or person want to pay for a "more accurate" article about a rival? User Cpla68 seems to make to distinctions in their advert. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you guys that the user is new and these comments could be perceived as a legal threat. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a relevant RfC on this topic at WT:UP#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages, if anyone is interested in continuing the discussion there. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

...and Cla68's userpage is nominated for deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 27 April 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.

The RFC is bollocks....we ALREADY have a policy SOAP which prohibits advertising. What the (certain) admins need to do is enforce that policy , not run another un-needed RFC.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

IP edit-warring

An IP who recently dropped by Croatian Liberation Movement article is hell bent on inserting potentially controversial claims, namely that the organisation is terrorist. Although there are tertiary sources who described CLM as a terrorist group back in the 1980s and 1970s they were never held responsible for any actual act of terrorism and they were never listed by any country as such. Nowadays they are a marginal political party. The IP engaged in discussion at Talk:Croatian Liberation Movement, making sweeping statements about the group's "real nature" and the quality of the WP article (which he described as "blog and history whitewash"). He started a thread titled delete this article and in spite of being asked four times about the specific "bombings, hijackings and assassinations in the 1970s" which allegedly the group is responsible for he failed to provide any, simply listing a number of tertiary sources which happened to mention terrorism and CLM in the same sentence. He deleted my comments from talk, I restored them. He deleted them again, I restored them again, and he deleted them again for the third time. On the article itself the IP insists on useless cleanup tags, claiming incessantly that the article is a "blog and history whitewash". I left a message at his talk page warning him not to engage in disruptive editing, but he simply deleted it claiming that the message constituted "personal attack". I restored the warning, he deleted it again. So all his latest deletions at article, article talk and user talk currently stand but this seems far from constructive editing. Timbouctou (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The article was written without any valid reference. This user deleted tags claiming accuracy disputes which are clearly and fully supported by 11 references in the talk pages. Instead of making his responses as a separate entry he inserted his comments into my text making it spaghetti-unreadable. That forced me to re-edit text and take his insertions and put them back in a readable manner. In addition, this user does not support any of his responses by any valid reference; he superimposed his point of view to scholarly proven and referenced facts about this organization. I did not delete anything inside existing text: I just inserted a few which is a legitimate way to ask for proofs. Moreover, another user (R-41) objected to the quality of this article in the same line as I did. [94]--71.178.101.2 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing conspiracy theorists is not what WP editors have in mind when they talk about referencing. User R-41 had the same problem as you did - mainly the lack of evidence in real life for his extraordinary claims. This is a common case of ignorance mistaken for vigilance. - Timbouctou (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the dispute for the moment, 71 is correct - the article has no sources, not even an external link. On what basis does it even exist?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This was debated some three months ago. R-41 failed to insert a single reference and then a somewhat nationalist user came along in March and inserted a source, a Croatian-language article which is no longer available online. Then 71 started tagging it insisting that the article is a whitewash, following which I re-wrote it, removing questionable parts and the single unavailable source with it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw that in the history, but that doesn't address the problem. The article must be sourced. I'm very tempted to stub it pending further discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference - their page from party registry with the Croatian Referral agency which gives an overview of its history. It is in Croatian. Timbouctou (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That helps a bit, thanks, I did a Google translation, and it seems to support some of the basic material in the article. What about all the material it doesn't support? Couldn't you remove all the unsourced material? You can add material back in as you find reliable sources for it, but some of it is fairly controversial. You should be aware, though, that you're edit-warring just as much as 71 is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is really controversial. IP's problem is that he thinks the article should have a more negative slant simply because it was quite openly ran by ex fascists who escaped Europe. But the group was never engaged in "bombings, assassinations and hijackings" as IP claims, and he claims it because he read it in a book by a guy who in turn read it in a book by two journalists whose thesis is that there is a conspiracy involving anti-communists and ex-fascists. And I think Wikipedia has bigger issues to tackle than counting reverts. Timbouctou (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and btw the prod tag which IP is abusing is supposed to be removed by editors objecting to it so long as they provide reasons in edit summaries and talk pages. Which I did. Twice. And which he reverted again, even after a reference was provided. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • The reference added is the Croatian Liberation Movement page, therefore not a valid reference! About true nature o this organization and its history references, scholars, university professors are writing, not me! Australian Senator O'Rurke gave clear evidence to the Australian Parliament about the terrorist activities of this organization in Australia!--71.178.101.2 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG how impressively ignorant you are. The Croatian Information-Documentation Referral Agency is the state agency responsible for all political party registrations. It is a government agency which keeps track of all registered parties in the country. Timbouctou (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remain civil, Timbouctou. I've left 3RR warnings on both of your Talk pages. I've reverted 71's reinsertion of the prod tag as it's wrong for him to put it back in once it's been removed (also he's doing it wrong and it looks like it's already expired). As for controversial, calling the party marginal, saying the party "fared poorly", and the legal problems section, just to name a few.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

These things should be easily referenced but they are not what 71 has problem with. His problem is that he heard somewhere that they were bona fide terrorists back in the 1970s but in reality there are no actual terrorist acts they were ever held responsible for or which were attributed to them. That is the gist of it. Timbouctou (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has correctly reverted the material back out. When adding controversial material, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who is changing the consensus version and adding the material, in this case, 71.178.101.2. There is nothing wrong with being bold and adding it once, but after it has been reverted, WP:BRD tells us that we should take it to the talk page. I would suggest everyone leave the article as it is now, then discuss it on the talk page, as their is ample justification to block anyone here who reverts back. If reliable sources for the controversial changes can't be found, then it should not be included in the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would have preferred to remove the controversial, unsourced material first, but if you (Dennis) and others don't mind leaving it in for a while, I'm okay with that. One other point: as far as I can tell, the controversial material aren't "changes" - they've been there for a while, unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I stand corrected on that point, I trust your judgement and would ask you finally restore the article to the previous consensus, then we leave it that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Make that "appropriate status". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've removed the section Legal problems until a discussion can be had on the talk page and until sources can be found, and left a note on the talk page. In general, we don't include claims relating to genocide without there being reliable sources. WP:V requires this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

NPAs from anon user 71.79.255.136

I've been dealing with an unpleasant anon (who I suspect is an indef blocked user who I've interacted with before) who posted a completely over the top comment in an article discussion page. Someone else removed it, and I posted a civility warning on the user's page (anon's do see their talk page - who knew?). Their response? "Suck my dick". I know the anon only has two posts, but - like I said - this doesn't seem like a new user. I'd recommend an SPI, but frankly, the user would likely just abandon this IP for yet another. Might we simply block this IP as a troll and I'll start looking for similar posts as they pop up in the future. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a warning. Anyone that feels more is needed, feel free, you won't hurt my feelings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that Mr. Sebastian has ruffled plenty of feathers with his history of not-so-pleasent remarks to other users. It has been noted that he does tend to BITE other users fairly frequently and I concur with that assesment. That having been said, I doubt that there is only one user that are at the breaking point with his behavior and have lashed out at him. He tends to like to tell other users how to behave (in an obnoxious, pious kind of way, IMO) but has no interest in adhering to said guidelines himself. I do agree that the remarks in question may be over the top, so to speak. But I also feel that, in some small way, Jack may have "had it coming". Simply not liking a user does not make them some unnamed "banned" user. It may just mean that JS has a way of bringing this behavior out in other users. Oh, and according to wikipedia, IP editors are not "anonymous", those with account are since your account somewhat sheilds you from tracking your IP. See how that works? Suggest cooling down and considering how your own behavior may cause others to completely lose their cool. 65.204.124.130 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX on No Country for Old Men (film)

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 problem on No Country for Old Men (film), where JTBX refuses to follow the policy on consensus after he has been invited to discuss possible changes to the plot summary. This follows on his personal attacks on me in the context of a failed complaint he filed against me regarding edits at The Godfather. He never edited on this page before, while I have edited at No Country... for a couple years. I think a reasonable person would have realized that it was not a good time to broaden our interactions. EdJohnston has suggested a interaction ban. Can an admin intervene in some useful way on the page? Perhaps a temporary block would be useful. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTBX&diff=489597300&oldid=489529397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

Ring, when reporting here you are required to notify the user, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}, i find your behaviour fairly bad faith, as you do not sign your comments, link to the discussion or follow procedure. [95] [96] [97] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith? Lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight does not indicate bad faith. Nobody Ent 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For a user who has been on-wiki since 2008, [98], and made over 1,000 edits, [99], I am a little concerned about their attitude to other editors who wish to improve plot synopsis (cf. The Godfather talk and No Country) and apparent ownership issues. I just happened across this, we all forget to sign from time to time, after four years on-wiki, lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight? Really? It's just an opinion, mind. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to see that Captain Screebo has noticed the same things I have. As a long time editor since at least 2008, I have only been blocked once for edit warring for a 24 hour period, for trying to move a page title. I have never been involved in such a large conflict as this one. I don't wish to spend a day writing a gargantuan essay or adding in hyperlinks, So I will keep this as short as possible.

User Ring Cinema and I first met during The Godfather conflict about over a week ago. I tried to edit the plot to better reflect WP:PLOT. However, Ring Cinema reverted my changes and told me to bring it to the talk page. When I managed to make the word count of this draft to about 702 (keep in mind the article summary is 750) it was continually reverted again. I simply did not see, (on the talk page of The Godfather this can be read) any reason for him to be doing this. He claimed it was consensus and this that the other, but it was solely him. [100] If you look through the history, it appears that he was warring with User: Wrath X as well. We were also joined by a third editor, Gareth, a neutral party of sorts who was trying to help. After Gareth and I were editing the draft for a while, Ring added that it was pointless because my draft "had already been rejected" but by whom? Again, you can read all of this on our talk pages.

It was about this time that I decided to look into Ring's user history. It appears the editor makes little contributions other than reverts or slight trimmings, is possibly a WP:SPA, but certainly violates WP:OWN and as mentioned has been blocked numerous times, including for personal attacks against adminstrators. Call me a vigilante, but I decided to take up the case other wise this editor will continually block any meaningful changes to articles. I reported it to the 3RR notice board but it ended in a war of words in which the adminstrator, EdJohnston, (possibly due to time constraints) protected the Godfather page and stated he would nearly sanction me for personal attacks, though I don't think, as you have done, pointing out this user's history or agenda should be considered personal attacks, as well as his falsifications to dress himself up as the victim.

I edited a ton of plots yesterday, which included No Country for Old Men. How did I find this film? Well, when looking up the user's history I saw he was having a conflict with another User:El duderino using the same tactics he used against me, and whom I contacted for support. He may way in on this issue. I edited the plot fo No Country because it was over 700 words, that is it, and actually thought Ring might help if he was still editing the article, but was reverted by Ring 3 times in less than an hour. I had already brought my changes to the talk page and another User is already helping with it, but Ring feels I have violated his article and refused to discuss changes with us, instead creating a new talk section. But he has already a history of conflict on that talk page. The years he talks of editing No Country, are mostly conflicts and reverts with different Users.

I don't think the Godfather article will go anywhere. EJ's protection has ended and I tried to edit but was reverted this time by Gareth, who appears to be taking Ring's side (perhaps being misled) and discussing with him changes behind my back, including this ridiculous message he wrote to Ring, here which I replied to. Apparantly, this is getting serious because I edited an article I am entitled to, and because I contacted others to way in their opinion on the Godfather article. I think it is shameful Ring can run his ownership cabal with Gareth and obscurely edit articles without interference. Its completely against policy, and know that I simply tried to stop this editor after finding out about him. I am not worried about this report aganst me because I feel it can be an avenue for the truth to finally be revealed and to not repeat what happened on the 3RR notice board.

Again, just read the sentence by Gareth, and think for a moment :"As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!"

And you mentioned how he had left a notice without signing or linking, well his disingenuousness shows. He is also trying to create an argument on EJ's page which I have avoided. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• STOP This is clearly a content dispute. The talk page on the article clearly shows you have been talking about the issue, both of you a bit snippy but below any threshold for administrative action. You have come to an impasse without outside participation. Take it to WP:DR, not here. All this talk about faith is a sideshow and doesn't belong at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was I accused of failing to notify JTBX when I notified him at 10:22 28 April 2012? No, no bad faith on my part. It's true, I've never asked for intervention from an admin. So no bad faith on my part and ownership issues are involved. I've been following the policy on consensus and JTBX doesn't seem to respect it. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I had said that the faith issue on the ANI tagging wasn't action worthy. I trust you will remember next time. For now, I'm still recommending you both need to discuss on the talk page, and both agree to seek dispute resolution at WP:DRN along with the others who edit that page. That is what that board is designed to handle, not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:11, 29 April 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.

Copyvio image about to appear on main 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.

---

The image File:Megitza at Copernicus Theater.jpg is about to appear on the main page as part of a DYK item about musician Megitza. The image is a fully-protected local copy of the same image at Commons. This appears to be a cropped version of this image from Megitza's website. The original image says "U Szterner photography" but that is not visible in the cropped version uploaded to Commons. Can someone please take a look at this image and perhaps also the other images uploaded to Commons (it may be helpful to compare them to the image gallery on Megitza's site which has the photographer's names)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The uploader shares the subject's name and seems to be implying here [101] that she actually is that person, which doesn't seem too unlikely, so the licensing claim may well add up after all (if the photography was done for hire), but I agree according to our usual standards we need OTRS confirmation or something similar. I've removed the image from the queue for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The photo was created by a Commons account "Megitza".[102] The Megitza website includes a gallery of photos, some of which are [103] by "Urszula Szterner i Arthur Partyka". In the talk page of a now deleted album cover [104] the user Megitza wrote "Boleritza" album cover was designed, created by me, and the photo on the cover is my personal photo. Please do not delete this file. I don't see it as unlikely that the user has legitimate rights to these photos. Given that the user doesn't know the talk page of a file facing deletion is ignored (why is that anyway?), OTRS was probably never considered. (Also consider the language barrier). It is possible that the photographer could hold copyright in the photo and the user is unaware of this because it was a work for hire that isn't. But do other countries have the lunacy like in the U.S. that you could hire a wedding photographer and then be told that they're not your photos? Wnt (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A friend of mine in the UK is a photographer, and does weddings too. I remember not so long ago, she mentioned about the wedding couple bizarrely asking who would own copyright to the images. From what she told me, she owns copyright to the negatives/digital back-up images. But once she hands over the developed images to the newly-wed couple, then she is also handing over copyright ownership to them too; and if she was to publish the images onto her own website to update advertising of recent "work done", then she needed to seek permission from the couple first, despite the fact she was the photographer of the images. Wesley☀Mouse 13:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how UK copyright works (although I don't think it's that different), but that's not how it works in the U.S. Copyright ownership is about authorship and the photographer is the author of those images, and copyright is distinct from the physical ownership of the "copy". Of course there are a billion exceptions and caveats, but the scenario you describe does not sound accurate to me. All of that notwithstanding, copyright law is generally insane. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would that be bizarre? It's quite possible that the couple had heard of the concept of work-for-hire and that they thus wondered if it applied when they were paying a photographer to take pictures of them. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I said "my friend thought it bizarre", not me personally. Wesley☀Mouse 14:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no limit to how stupid copyright law can get. [105] Though an entire industry would doubtless disagree, my opinion is that photographers claiming to hold copyrights on photos they were hired to take is simply a predatory practice, no different than, say, "predatory lending", taking advantage of naive customers who just can't imagine the law would be that stupid. My guess, however, is that a musician or other professional operation will know the law well enough to demand ownership of photos taken by those hired to do so, if their country has such an interpretation in the first place. Either way, I don't think it should be necessary for Wikipedia to do more than believe that this person is/represents Megitza and take their word for it that the web gallery, there or here, is not a pirate website. But I'm not a lawyer... Wnt (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There's something about UK photography copyright at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright - Unless there is a legal agreement otherwise or the photographer is an employee of the party requiring them to take the photographs, the photographer retains copyright - even with wedding photographs. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't really comment as to why my friend rescinds the copyright of photos she has taken once they're developed. One can only assume that's her personal choice, as its her own photography business. It could be a matter of each photographer decides whether to retain or rescind copyright status as part of their business plans. Who knows!? Wesley☀Mouse 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the picture possibly too quickly if it needs to be brought back then please override my hasty action Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed Megitza using the email stated on her website asking if it is her Wikipedia account, and if the image can be used on the Wikipedia Main Page and article. If I get anywhere, I will send it to the permissions WP email address. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Got permission, forwarded to permissions-commons email. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How can permission restricted to the article and Main Page be enough? It certainly isn't for text. Bielle (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not - Megitza replied saying that it is free to use and doesn't violate copyright (2nd email to me). See the commons OTRS Noticeboard. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If the image is not CRed to "U Szterner photography", and Megitza gave you permission, why not just ask her to upload it to Wikicommons, as "own work"? — GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

She's not replied, and it goes on the MP in 16 mins. Quick solution? She gave permission, however basic. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: By the time the above was posted the image had already been replaced by another in the DYK queue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 30 April 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.

Repeated vandalism

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.

---

A group of anonymous IPs have been repeatedly vandalizing the Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Douhua articles by adding the obvious hoax claim that Charles V "created the recipe for soybean pudding" in 1535. The soybean wasn't known in Europe until it was introduced in 1712 by the German botanist Engelbert Kaempfer, and didn't become a popular crop until the 19th century. Numerous editors have spotted the joke statement, and have attempted to revert it (including User:Gunkarta, User:Brad Rapstars, User:Pmarshal), only to have it undone by some very persistent IP vandals (86.180.114.60 86.147.193.232, 213.249.223.165, 86.148.235.107), whose focus has recently been primarily on the two articles. One of the IP vandals, 86.180.114.60, has been warned before for vandalism. The original vandalism was done on an IP address registered to the University of Hall, so my guess is that this is an in-joke among students. Could an administrator look into this?--Indiandrum (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

...and have you asked for page protection? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Was about to say the same thing. The book isn't searchable online, and the vandalism isn't often enough that RPP is likely to jump in, so not sure what the solution would be, but yes, page protection would be the first stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the hoax in both articles and RPPed the Charles V article as well as properly warned the latest IP. Any further attempts at reinserting the hoax should be a matter for WP:AIV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 29 April 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.

Need an uninvolved admin to close a POINTY MfD

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.

---

After a recent edit made by User:Cla68 to his user page, much discussion on the appropriateness of self-promotional material on user pages has taken place. An RfC was begun by User:Scottywong at 20:06, 26 April 2012, in an attempt to get community consensus for this issue. Over a day later, fully aware of the ongoing RfC, User:Bwilkins started a MfD at 22:04, 27 April 2012 on Cla68's user page.

Bwilkins notified Jimbo and others of his action with the comment "Somebody had to have the balls". I attempted to close the MfD as a misuse of process and WP:POINT since there is already an ongoing RfC on the exact same issue and User:Bwilkins posted his comments at the end of the thread announcing that RfC (on Jimbo's page).

In addition Administrator:Ed17 placed the page under protection because of edit warring over removal of the promotional content, and that protection had to be overriden for Bwilkins to place his MfD tag. This is one admin overriding another, which I believe is technically defined as wheel warring. (striking the wheel comment since it seems to be serving to distract from issues)

I believe it is a frivolous and vexatious use of time and resources to conduct an RfC seeking community consensus for this and then to have a second separate discussion on the same points and issues that may reach a different local consensus. Bwilkins knows better and should not be creating a situation like this, and until the RfC has completed, I believe discussion and consensus should be arrived at in one place, not two. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• As someone who has defended Cla68's right to keep it on the userpage, I don't see the MfD nomination as wheel warring. Full protection does not restrict anyone's authority to nominate a page at XfD, and once nominated the placement of the notice itself is merely a clerical act. I have never seen an edit request asking that an XfD tag be placed on an article be rejected. Monty₈₄₅ 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but considering the ongoing RfC, is it a POINTY MfD? -- Avanu (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it have been better to wait until after the RFC? I think so, but there are enough people in favor of deletion that we should AGF as to the nomination. It is clear at this point how the MfD is going to end, lets all just put down the sticks and wait for it and the RFC to conclude. Monty₈₄₅ 01:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to RfC. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I explained on Avanu's talk page, the RfC and the MfD are only loosely related. There is nothing preventing them from happening simultaneously. The RfC is only intended to bring a guideline closer in line with a policy. The RfC does not need to be successful in order for Cla68's user page to be deleted and/or the advertisement removed from it, as the advertisement on the user page already violates policy, specifically WP:NOTADVERTISING. Therefore, there is no reason to close the MfD early. Accusations of wheel warring clearly are being generated by one user's misunderstanding of what wheel warring actually is. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 01:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like an odd thing to be so certain about when the policy is 'What Wikipedia is Not'. Obviously there are many varying opinions as to what might or might not be permitted under a 'NOT something' policy, entirely subject to interpretation. If it was this obvious, I'm not sure I understand why you started an RfC on it. Wouldn't that be a waste of time? -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to my very good faith MFD as "pointy" is about as far from an WP:AGF statement as is possible to get on this project. That nomination was made according to policy, and for the good of the project as a whole. It has zero to do with any open RFC, policy discussion, or anything else. We have an editor who is violating the most basic rule about advertising. He could be advertising his Ebay site, selling horses, or whatever - it's still selling, period. He is refusing to take down his ad. For the good of the project, and as per policy, it was nominated. Closing it early, referring to it as pointy would be inappropriate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:54, 30 April 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.

Editor continuously adding copyvio and potentially promotional things

The editor in question I'm discussing is User:Bacdezsdf. I took notice of this editor after looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LEGO songs. Upon doing a little research, I noticed that this article was completely copied word for word from a Lego wiki called "Brickipedia". I continued looking at the user's edits to see that they'd added other copyvio articles (some of which have already been deleted or tagged) such as Lloyd Garmadon and "Dig Those Dinos" Minifigure. They've also added several navigational boxes and attempted add several categories and templates, all of which tend to be themed around the Brickipedia. I'm trying not to be a "bite the newbie" person, but this is more than a little extreme. The edits appear to be pretty promotional in nature in that it's promoting the website, with the template for Template:MP-welcome saying "Template:Heading Welcome to Brickipedia, a free online LEGO encyclopedia written collaboratively by its readers known as Brickipedians. The site is a Wiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can edit almost any article right now by clicking on the Edit link that appears at the top of a page. This wiki is based on the MediaWiki software used to run Wikipedia, and with the help of editors like yourself, we strive to be the best LEGO reference site out there." (I'm writing this here since it's probably going to be deleted very soon.) Some of the edits seemed like it was an attempt to add the Brickipedia entirely on here.

I'm trying to assume goodwill and that the editor really is unaware of Wikipedia rules, but this is just extensive enough that I wanted an admin to look into it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Brickipedia is hosted by wikia. Wikia's licensing terms say "Except where otherwise specified, the text on Wikia sites is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA)". I can find nothing to indicate that Brickipedia is an exception to this, so there seems to be no copyright problem. Nevertheless, there certainly are other problems with this editor's editing, and I agree that it does look rather like an attempt to import Brickipedia wholesale into Wikipedia. I will drop the user a message explaining the problems. At this stage i see no need for any other action. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA requires attribution (that's what the BY is for), which isn't present in these edits. It appears all of the rest of the user's problematic edits have been deleted, and this one will almost certainly follow. A final warning for copyvios should be fine here. FWIW, it is very unlikely that we could accept unedited Brickipedia articles here whether they were attributed or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, Chris. I had forgotten about the need for attribution. I also agree taht tehre are other reasons (several of them) why the content is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fresh admin eyes to review talk page access for KW?

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.

---

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have grave concerns about the way we are heading. I'm all for civility (to the extent where I have a Civility Police label …) But … and this is a big "but" … "The Civility Policy is not intended to be used as a weapon." Silencing the critics is not good. Even when we use the excuse / reason that the criticisms were voiced in an unacceptable way. Fine, we call them on the way they asked, but we shouldn't then also fail to address the questions. I have attempted to get KW's talk page access reinstated, and expressed my concerns relating to this here. (Please note: I've left a note on SW's talk page to let him know I'm asking this here.) Others have also voiced some concerns about the whole situation on the same page. And, to me, the atmosphere feels … retributional. That may be my deep misinterpretation of them. I'm not at my best, at the moment.

Does any admin feel able to reinstate KW's talk page access, at all? I am trying to work on better and more humane ways of dealing with one of t'pedia's most deeply-entrenched problems (civility / unequal enforcement / injustice / communication), and I would like to have the chance to communicate with KW (two-way communication!) openly, on-wiki, on his talk page. That can't be done if he can't respond to me there. I hope, I sincerely hope (and I feel, too) that KW would not disappoint me or let me down, here, if his talk page access were reinstated. But, whatever, I'm prepared to stick my neck out for him and be made to look like a complete pillock, if it goes wrong.

And I feel that even bringing this up puts me at risk … From that article: " … it was one of the few days of the year when the average Romanian put on a happy face, since appearing miserable on this day was too risky to contemplate." (Sebetsyen, Victor (2009). Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire. New York City: Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-42532-2) I feel … how long will it be before I too am labelled "disruptive", just to stop me from asking uncomfortable questions? Pesky (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence would seem to suggest that in actual fact you are "all for civility" right until such point as it actually comes to sanctioning anyone for breaching our policy on it. Indeed, you've opined on at least one occasion that actually acting on CIVIL is grounds for desysopping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've possibly misunderstood me, there. But never mind. Adding: in fact I very recently left a politely-worded message on a user talk page about name-calling; said editor both stated that we are far too lenient on civility (after having been name-calling), and refused to apologise, instead giving a justification for the name-calling. Sometimes it's very hard to know what to do. Things are so unequal. Pesky (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The provided diff does not support the allegation. Nobody Ent 09:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been in email contact with Kiefer.Wolfowitz (something which surprised me, given the nature of our past) - and I have to say that I wouldn't object to his talk page being unlocked for the purposes of 1) requesting an unblock or 2) responding to queries. It should not be unlocked to complain about other people, grumble about the state of wikipedia or edit by proxy. KW himself suggested that if his talk page was unlocked, he would "agree to drop discussion of Sarek's block and BHG, unless [he is] responding to a comment left on [his] page and [he is] responding in a decorous civll [sic] manner". Worm^TT · (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd really prefer it if my communications, trying to guide KW (lol! He may trout-slap me for that remark, if he wishes!) were open and visible. @Thumperward: where I;m coming from is that civility is important, but sometimes we're oh-so-heavy-handed with some editors. I'm sure there must be better ways of dealing with incivility than being so heavy-handed, jumping for the big weapons, overlooking kinder responses. I've done an awful lot of animal-rehab (behavioural problems), and beating them up is never a good method. Getting some decent lines of communication (a two-way thing) going works better. Slower, but much better. Less loss-by-destruction, less having to put them down, and so on. Pesky (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

People are not horses, or any other animal. Similarities may be drawn but...they're just not problem animals - they're people. Not that I think beating people up fixes them, but giving them everything they want when they have a pattern of speaking abusively to other editors isn't too great either. I'm getting a bit sick of all this. KW does great content work but, and this is an important point, I don't feel like I could ever approach him about a dispute, whether a content one or otherwise, without getting my head ripped off. On a collaborative project, that's not the kind of image you want to present. Still, I would support giving back talk page access if he's agreed to be civil in his discussions. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support restoring KW talk page access -- revoking was an overreaction to typical post-block venting. Nobody Ent 09:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose revoking KW's talk page access was discussed here and should not be restored without consensus. It was revoked for good reason. KW was abusive in his conversations, and I see little likelihood he has has changed that. I disagree with Pesky: Kindness is not the answer here. There is no doubt in my mind that KW was trying to diminish other editors in his posts. That should not be tolerated, and the fact that we lack effective means for deterring that does not mean that KW should be coddled. If he has anything to say to the community, let him email it and someone can post it for him. Then we'll see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate everyone's points here, but I can understasnd KW's frustration, too. Particularly about the accusation of canvassing; I honestly can;t accept that a neutrally-worded message on a talk page which has hundreds of watchers (of various persuasions) can seriously be called canvassing. For example, I myself gave a support vote in the RfA, not an oppose. Pesky (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did comment here, but since this is about opening the talkpage and not the merits of the block, I've moved my comment to User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner#On CanvassingWorm^TT · (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I commented too, but that's a good idea to save this getting derailed. Moving my comment there also. Let's try keep this about whether or not KW should have talkpage access, not the canvass question or original block. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Pesky: Does any admin feel able to reinstate KW's talk page access, at all? - the short answer is no, I'm sorry. I think quite highly of KW as he is obviously an intelligent man who chooses his words carefully. If WTT has correspondence to share, then I'd most certainly be willing to read through it and any replies, but at this point I fear that restoring talk page use would go against too large a contingent of the community. Now, having said that - I will also say that I do indeed have some very strong concerns in regards to many of SW's actions recently. I don't know if it's a matter of feeling emboldened by his recent RfA, or something else - but I do think there are some issues which I suspect will eventually come to a rather unpleasant head in the future. I love the tools he's created, fantastic work there - but I am concerned about the "He needs to understand, and I'm going to teach him" approach I'm perceiving. That said, I'm open to reading through anything posted in this discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think I have much to share beyond what I've already shared. KW emailed me in response to this comment, we discussed the events leading to his block and he remained perfectly civil throughout. He did ask at the time that I talk to Scottywong re his talk page access, with the quote above - though further correspondence has rendered that moot. I'm sure he'd be receptive to anyone who does choose to email him. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just my tuppence: while silencing those who criticise Wikipedia is certainly wrong, the fact that a person is a known critic should not be used to give him carte blanche and excuse his violations of policy, claiming that every block is just retaliation. The rules ought to apply to everyone, no matter his stance regarding Wikipedia's problems. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the length of the talk-page access revocation just feels like "That'll teach him a lesson!" kinda punitive, retaliatory, and so on, rather than constructive. Adding: and bearing in mind the long history of bad blood between KW and SW it just feels ... wrong ... Pesky (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly as long as any other user who had been talkblocked for the same reason would have gotten (duration of block). It is neither punitive nor retaliatory, and banging that drum against all evidence to the contrary is precisely the problem here. As for bad blood, show me an admin who doesn't have either a covenant never to block KW etc. or "bad blood" caused by some poor interaction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's practically a meme now, but we have 730 active administrators, I have interacted with less than 10% of them and I expect KW has interacted with a similar number. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's "practically a meme now" for good reason: "you've got history" is usually the first thing that gets uttered in these discussions, and it's no less ugly simply because it's being repeated by a (self-described) member of the civility police. Either the block was cromulent and should stand, or it should be overturned and SW cautioned for it. Hand-wringing about how "wrong" it is simply smears a good admin for taking what appears to be a broadly-supported and fairly routine action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thumperward, I appreciate you're probably not meaning to do so, but I'm feeling that you're directing an awful lot of aggression towards me, here. I'm trying to work a way forwards, I'm doing the best I can (in probably too many stressful areas of t'wiki at once, maybe), and I feel attacked. I don't feel that I deserve to be attacked. Pesky (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Since part of the reason for KW getting blocked was his overreaction to something I said at his ANI (which has only been reinforced by this entire event), leading to much drama at my RfA, I feel I need to pipe in. KW putting the RfA on Malleus's page was not the best judgement, but it was neutral in tone, and I think Kim Brown probably best summed it up as "quazi-canvassing" rather than overt canvassing. It was pointless anyway, as I am confident that Malleus can make up his own mind and putting more eyes on the RfA doesn't guarantee success or failure, just more !votes. I would have been more surprised if Malleus had supported me, to be honest, regardless of KWs actions. KW's comments since the initial block have been less than flattering, but I'm much too old to be offended by reactionary comments by someone who clearly doesn't know me, and I didn't consider them personal attacks, just uninformed mischaracterizations. I'm a bit more tolerant than some, I suppose. I've refrained from discussing "the event" until now because it would only have made a bad situation worse. I don't hold any ill feeling against KW, even while disagreeing with the choices he made. If he were to come back and become disruptive, the situation could be revisited, but I'm not convinced that continuing the talk page block is useful at this point, and I would be willing to assume good faith and allow him access to state his case for unblocking (if he chooses to) or simply to talk with Pesky, who I trust to handle the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Awww, hugz, Dennis! Thank you! Interestingly, my first major interaction with KW wasn't good, but we kinda realised that we could understand each other and communicate with each other despite that. I will carry on keeping the lines of communication open for as long as possible. And he has improved. Still a long way to go, but the trend is there. Pesky (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is genuinely my hope that we can help each other. I could learn a lot about editing from watching him, and perhaps he can learn something from me. Even when both are equally effective, an olive branch is a much better tool than a big stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to commit to not discuss my block, as he suggests above -- he just needs to commit not to insult my honor, rational abilities, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. Normal restrictions should be in place and nothing else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've decided to restore talk page access. My explanation is on KW's talk page. This thread can probably be safely closed. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:02, 30 April 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 needed

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.

---

Username issue and two edits...both vandalism.MONGO 14:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:40, 30 April 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.

Hundreds of faulty geographical templates needing deletion and edits reverted

Maxtremus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created hundreds of geographical templates based on Wikis and other non-reliable sources that are being spammed into too many articles for any one editor to revert, cleanup, remove and AFD. This editor is also removing data from articles to replace it with this new "default template" (which are not "defaults" at all, they were just created, and they aren't based on reliable sources). A massive revert, delete, and cleanup operation is needed-- I don't know where else to take this. Here are two samples only:

• {{Largest cities of New Mexico}} is sourced to a German site citypopulation.de, here is the contact page, which reveals it to be a personal website.
• {{Largest cities of Venezuela}} is sourced to Geonames.org, which is a Wiki, not a reliable source.

In multiple instances, Maxtremus has removed local and correctly cited data to replace it with these non-reliably sourced templates, hundreds of which need to be deleted, and these edits reverted. There are messages at Maxtremus's talk page about the non-reliable sources going back to April 8, so the continued insertion of these templates is disruptive. It has also resulted in at least one deletion discussion so far, {{Largest cities of Saint Lucia}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for any incovenience, i'm doing hundred of templates and i don't have enough time to search individually for each source in each official sensus in each country or state, even because i don't know all languages spoken in the countries. So I used a general source and anyone is free to modify to official sources in the templates. I'd like to, please, do not put the templates for deletion. Instead of it, try to search for more trustable sources. Thx. Maxtremus (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You used general non-reliable sources, and the problem is not only in the creation of and spamming of these templates into articles; it is that you are deleting reliably sourced information to replace it with these templates, and adding it to Featured Articles in ways that disrupt the flow and layout of articles. Have you created a single reliably sourced template? Having seen how many of these you have done and inserted, it's unclear to me that there is any way to repair the damage except via mass deletion and reversion. In many cases, the information is not only not reliable, but irrelevant (ten largest cities of Saint Lucia, indeed-- how about Aruba?) In Featured articles, text of this nature is covered in prose. I'm unaware of any article where these templates are useful, or correctly used. Open to ideas, but for now, I hope I've at least removed it from all featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely out of my element here, but I'd still like to put in my 2₵ worth. I noticed Maxtremus's template first at Illinois, and as I noted on the Saint Lucia deletion page, I do generally prefer prose, but at Illinois, Maxtremus's template replaced another table, providing the same information with an aesthetic improvement. I also agree (as I stated elsewhere) that it might be a bit unnecessary to have such a template for say, Nauru (cue the smiles), but for larger entities, many of which probably have home-made tables as Illinois had, perhaps this isn't such a bad thing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously if the data Maxtremus is providing is inaccurate, I would not support what he is doing. But that simply means there are two issues here, the template itself, and the data. I rather like the template, which is what I have been defending. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I strongly disagree these templates are an "aesthetic improvement" (they aren't to any article I've seen-- they are disrupting prose, flow and layout, and in some cases, adding useless information). Second, even if they were an improvement, please review WP:RS-- every one of them I have checked is based on a Wiki or a personal website. Third, please moderate your tone in edit summaries, and review WP:3RR. If you had inquired on talk, you might have avoided the revert war and the insult via edit summary. Fourth, please see WP:V-- it's policy. Text must be verifiable to reliable sources. Finally, how are we going to cleanup this mess? We have perhaps hundreds of templates based on non-reliable sources added to as many articles. I've asked Maxtremus if he intends to clean up after himself; otherwise, I'd like to know if they can all be admin deleted, and I'd like to remind you both to review WP:OWN#Featured articles and gain consensus before dropping something like this into FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran into this today at Nevada. The template itself is problematic. It appears to require at least 10 entries, it does not appear to deal with cases in the US where a city is not part of any county, it may not correctly handle images for the first entry, does not allow for a title on the source link, poor documentation, no footer for comments, poor management of column widths and probably a lot more. So there is the issue of what to do with the template. The issues of sourcing can be fixed, and clearly replacing data which may be better sourced with potentially unreliable sources should end. So I suggest that Maxtremus abstain from adding this template to more articles until the issues raised here and elsewhere are resolved. In the meantime, Maxtremus can work on improving the template in case the consensus is that it is a good tool to keep in the toolkit. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The meta-template that Maxtremus is using, {{Largest cities}} was created in February 2011 and was only designed to list the largest cities in a specific country. It was not designed for states, provinces or other sub-national entities, especially where a different table or list may be more appropriate. I put the one created for Hawaii on TFD because there is a lack of cities in that U.S. state per se -- most are unincorporated places or census-designated places. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) There are several ways this is going wrong, and Maxtremus might adapt. First, {{Largest cities}}, like {{Weather box}}, provides a blank template that users familiar with the data sources and conventions can fill in: Max tried to do them all him/herself with generic, unreliable data, not knowing local regulations regarding cities (see the AFD on Hawaii above). Second, he spammed the templates into articles where the format often disrupted flow, layout, etc. Some of the articles already had templates in formats that fit with the article and with reliably sourced data, and a section of "Largest cities" alone isn't warranted (he might have suggested these on talk rather than adding them to every article without discussion, particularly FAs). Third, he removed reliably sourced data in many cases. Fourth, he assumed the ten largest cities was relevant to every article (it's not to a small island.) My suggestion is that he delete all of these templates (to save the community the cleanup, he can db-author them), revert all of his additions (they *all* added non-reliable data to articles), and let users familiar with the articles and the data decide if they want to use that master template. I'm not aware of any article where I would find them useful, and the images add clutter. I suggest all of this work needs to be reverted, there are already two AFDs up because the format and data is faulty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, really unfortunate situation, combining overenthusiasm with lack of consensus, lack of accurate data, and undue haste. I agree with Sandy, I hope the good-faith editor in question will agree to delete his own good-faith work. This was unfortunately a personal enthusiasm that got out of hand; I think this sort of enthusiasm and haste/speed is better expressed on a personal blog or personal website/endeavor, not on Wikipedia, which needs to be accurate and needs to be a group/consensus endeavor. It's unfortunately a bad fit for Wiki because of the bad data, lack of comprehension, and poor design, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The addition of the template has been reverted on quite a few country pages before this AN/I (a couple by me). SandyGeorgia is right that it created formatting problems and messed up TOCs. There's no reason to have a header just for one often undue table. While I doubt it's Maxtremus' fault, as some articles had this already, the propagation does mean a lot of cleanup needs doing, which is often quite a problem when editors decide to change many country articles. CMD (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandy; I hope the editor will revert these before they're reverted. The only proper answer to Maxtremus' response that he doesn't have the time to source these templates properly is "Take the time or don't make the changes in the first place." We are not in a race here. Ravenswing 21:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cut and past move

Cut and paste move from John Marquez to John Márquez at 01:07, 30 April 2012. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You could have, you know, asked him to undo the improper move, telling him it was the wrong way to do it. Or just undone it yourself and told him the same. Anyway, I've undone the edits. Also, you failed to tell the user in question that you were bringing up one of his actions on ANI, as required by everyone posting complaints to this board. (I let him know for you, by the way.) Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The man spells it with the accent and one single user keeps insisting on removing it, even though the man's bio and the ballots use the accent. Its common for the media to omit such accents but how he spells it is most important. The user then insisted that was all right but it could not have the accent since the title didn't. Since the move button didn't work and one person did disagree I did a request for move and per consensus I moved it, I spose I did it wrong.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Third AfD is showing a pattern with an article

(Note: I added this the other day, self-rv'ed, and have since discovered more about the situation that I think merits re-addition.)

I have come across Martin Faulks the article recently. I have actually had discourse with Martin Faulks the individual on Masonic articles well in the past, at which time he was basically interested in promoting himself on WP. All his edits had to do with himself wrt Freemasonry. I happened to be looking at an article we have on Robert Lomas, and lo and behold, Martin Faulks is bluelinked!

Having looked at the page, and being aware of past behavior, I have cause to believe that he wrote his own article yet again. I don't have access to the old articles, but a major point in both previous AfDs was that the info had to come from Faulks directly because there were no sources to verify a single thing other than Faulks himself.

As a summary of the latest article's history, the article was created by a redlink account User:Curt henning who put a comment on talk, and has no other contribs previous or since. Article is further added to by User:Wong fu hung (SPA, no other contribs). Article is prodded, and prod is removed by a redlink user User:Billmcelligott (6 contribs in six years, 4 to this article). Also note one edit by User:Marymidge (1 contrib) and some IP edits. It was apparently a high draw article for new users, especially since it hasn't been touched, aside from minor things, in over a year. In short, strong evidence that Faulks creates multiple throwaway accounts to edit his article several times.

I tried to CSD it, and it was declined. On AfD, my suspicions on having done this before were proven right, because the article was AfDed and deleted twice before in 2006 and 2008. I'm pretty sure this will be deleted again, but is there anything that can be done to verify the pattern of behavior, or prevent it, even though the edit history is stale? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• If the article is deleted at AfD, a possible concurrent remedy may be a consensus to WP:SALT the article, which would inhibit future creation. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued AfD on MMA articles

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 sure plenty of admins and editors are aware of the ongoing disagreement regarding MMA (specifically UFC) articles. Thankfully, the likes of admin Dennis Brown, editor Anna Frodesiak, editor Hasteur, etc. have been working hard at coming up with a compromise toward a RfC rather than dealing with multiple AfDs (per Scottywong in the close of the UFC 142 discussion). Unfortunately, new user Newmanoconnor didn't get the memo and recently nominated 9 more UFC pages for deletion today. Whether it is a Deletionism agenda or something else is not for me to determine. However, it is time wasting and detrimental to the aforementioned work being done to sort things out. I hope an admin will take note of this and revert his nominations. Udar55 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with your notice, as I was posting one of my own about bundling AFDs. I've left a note asking them to consider withdrawing in favor of whatever consensus is emerging at the RFC - but note that "There'll be an RFC at some point" isn't sufficient criteria to simply shut down or revert a set of AFDs. Do you have a link to an Active RFC, or a discussion approximating one? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The only discussion currently is the one I linked to in my previous post. It is a mess right now, obviously, but the building has been going extremely well. Honestly, seeing as Newmanoconnor has only been on Wikipedia 16 days or so, I don't think they really know what they are doing. In the end, it is just opening up a salvo for more I hate it and I love it arguments (not to mention wasted energy), which end up getting nowhere and the fine folks in the MMA notability section are trying to avoid. Udar55 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My length of time as a registered editor has nothing to do with my ability to interpret policy as any other editor has the right to do,like I said I notified Scotty and am trying to notify Dennis, though I'm busy here and on my talk page at the momentNewmanoconnor (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a deletionism(sic) agenda against anyone, other than UFC articles that fail current notability guidelines. I also notified Scottywong about what I had done, and stated (if he or anyother admin thought I was wrong to close them. I also limited it to FUTURE events that fail WP:FUTURE. The last I checked Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability,Hasteur, and Dennis Brown had spent the last few paragraphs fending off useless and baseless attacks.Not tomention the agreements so far, would still have all of these pages deleted or merged to the Omnibus until notability of at least one source that passes WP:RS( I.E. not Sherdog or MMA websites could establish notability other than general sports coverage.

That said, I did not see all of the work Dennis Brown has been doing, nor did I see that he made it through his RfA ( Congrats Dennis, I think you deserve it). Had I been aware he was the admin defacto handling this stuff I would have gotten his opinion. I have no issue if he wants to reverse any of this. Or if they want to protect them until they are done....with discussion ( however long that takes ) If thats even possible. You will get no argument from me.

I think it's important to have all sides represented, and considering how beat up TreyGeek and MTKing have been from this thing, I'm just stepping up and doing what I believe is bet for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm entirely too involved there to serve as an admin here, so as a fellow editor let me say that I think it would be in the best interest of everyone if we held off from nominating articles for a while. Let me be perfectly clear: I don't dispute your right, your logic, or your good faith in doing so, and in different circumstances I would likely agree with some of your points, but I would humbly ask that you consider voluntarily withdrawing the nominations for now, not because they are in any way defective, but because it would be helpful while we prepare for the RFC and find a larger consensus. Call it a personal favor. We are making progress, albeit slowly, but it is indeed progress. Regardless of your decision, I invite you to join the the discussion and help us find a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I just posted this on all the AfD's, **NOM REQUESTING CLOSE I would like to request this AfD be closed until Dennis Brown and the others in the MMA notability discussions have a chance to try and come to consensus on a plan for moving forward. I stand by my nomination and rationale, but I do not want to impede good work by good editors and admins, and would like to thank UltraExactZZ for his advice and assistance.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I should have read the Notability discussions more thoroughly, but it appeared the latest stuff was backsliding. I have other questions, I'll move to the MMA notability discussion or your talk page for them.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Since you have already talked to Scottywong and he is sufficiently removed, you might ask for his assistance in closing them. I appreciate your open minded attitude and look forward to working with you at the MMA notability page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks for the cooperation, Newmanoconnor. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like Ultra's got it covered. I'll close the thread. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Legal threats from anon IP

This appeared on my talk page this morning:

• If possible I would like the user information for Avatera as his statement is false and I plan to pursue a defamation suit. I have never had any criminal record and would like this statement removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.141 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC) this edit

The request relates to User:Avatera and, judging from the discussion to which it was appended, refers to some AFDs from last September, likely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Gumo, a nightclub DJ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2greendollars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (3rd nomination) may also be related. Since I have no way of getting contact information and wouldn't hand it out to an IP editor if I could, I'm not particularly concerned; just passing it along. Notifying Avatera for the sake of ritual purity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you also notify the IP? I have blocked for NLT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That too has been done. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on how dynamic this ISP is? 1 month may be too long, as their IP would have already rotated by then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The IPpage says it is shared and may be widely shared (Singapore). Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Tendentious and disruptive editing by Jimbo1qaz, Part 2

This user has been making tendentious, disruptivue and POV edits for many months, vandalising articles, and ignoring all the countless warnings he got (see his talk page history). He has been brought to ANI before ([106]), and the admins, while they agreed that this was not acceptable and that he should stop doing it, decided to give him one more chance, saying that if he does it again, he would be blocked from editing. Of course, as expected (and, might I add, it was really obvious to anyone having any sort of experience on Wikipedia; I consider this second ANI case a silly waste of time), he has been doing it again since then, for example by changing the title of the linked article ([107], changing "Copyright is Even More Right in the Digital Age" to "Copyright is Even More Wrong in the Digital Age": I really consider this unambiguous vandalism, too, not only a POV edit, as the article title is not a matter of opinion, whether we agree with it or not), or by forcing his POV into the article ([108], [109]). Furthermore, has has not been doing any "normal edits" anymore, basically everything in his recent history is driven by his agenda.

This user has made it repeatedly clear that he has absolutely no intention to change anything about his behaviour in the future and that he will keep doing it forever no matter what, even after an admin personally explained to him that this really cannot be tolerated [110], [111], [112]. A direct quote from the message by Drmies: "next time you will be blocked". I really cannot see how anything else than a block would make any sense whatsoever this time.—J. M. (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did I say that? Well, I guess I did. I was just looking at the original ANI report, wondering again what we're doing here. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes and he did it again Nobody Ent 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ent. That leaves me little choice. 1 week. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to argue against copyright protection. His early edits were blatant vandalism. I'm surprised he escaped the block-hammer until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So am I. (In fact, for me, the handling of this case was one of the most inexplicable things I've seen on Wikipedia.)—J. M. (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had user more words before you started the first ANI thread we wouldn't have had a second one. Simple. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Precision and format are factors. The edits in question are not vandalism, they are POV pushing ... using correct terminology produces greater confidence that an editor knows what they're talking about. Likewise, fewer words and more diffs are usually more effective. Nobody Ent 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, I guess this might be a subliminal "POV push". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't considering edits from last July in the set "edits in question," just the ones relating to DRM. Nobody Ent 02:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RFP

The Protection section could use some help. All these requests are giving me RSI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

New user directed here re: sources for Traditional Britain Group

I write to formally complain about the activities of one particular editor who has deliberately and maliciously attacked this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Britain_Group and now seeks its removal. It is my firm belief that he has a very clear agenda, for whatever reason. His comments on my personal Talk Page are rude and arrogant and self-righteous. If this is the way you greet new users then you don't deserve them. TomTower (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: It was suggested this user post here on his User_talk:TomTower. LongTone does have an agenda; however it appears to be to maintain Wikipedia's longstanding but confusing inclusion standards. Contrary to LongTone's assertion on the talk page, he has been very mildy rude -- describing the newsletters as "completely ignored" is unwarranted. Nobody Ent 13:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You need to...

1. Actually tell us who you are complaining about.
2. Notify them of this report here. (See the orange banner when you edit that says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so"?)
3. Specifically identify this allegedly bad behavior. (See where it also says "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors"?)

As an aside, I've had a look at your Talk page, and I see nothing remotely "rude and arrogant and self-righteous" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He's a new user (unless SPI concludes otherwise). LongTone incorrectly said 'go complain here' with a link and he followed it, and banners are invisible. So now he gets bitched at. Nice. Nobody Ent 00:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look at the article history and talk page, it looks like both of you have been making good faith edits, even if you disagree on several points. The exchange on your talk page is a bit snippy for my tastes, but neither of you is outright attacking each other and certainly nothing I would want to see anyone blocked for at this point. The conversation seems to be on topic. The AFD has been opened, and he has been pretty forthright about his edits to the article. Wouldn't it be better if we all focused on the merits of the article there, instead of here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• And thank you Nobody Ent, for placing the ANI notice on TheLongTone's page, as TomTower failed to. TomTower, you are obligated to do this when talking about an editor, even if you don't mention their name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, User:TheLongTone told him to come here after their exchange, and even provided a link. As a new user, would it make sense to notify the person who just told you to come here, despite what the orange banner says? I know that non-notification is a pet peeve of many (including myself) but in this case it really appears kind of bitey to harp on that, and Tom has had quite a bit of mild biting already in his first attempt here, being referred almost immediately to ANI after not understanding one of our more confusing policies, and having the page in question put up for AFD equally as quick. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it looked like harping, my timing on edits made it so I didn't see Boing's point first, or I wouldn't have repeated it. I've struck mine as to not labor the point. Even though TheLongTone told him to come here, it was said in an off the cuff manner, and I wouldn't expect him to know that TomTower really was going to, so Boing's point still holds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It was just the repeating of Boing's point that made me cringe. Thanks for striking it :) Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to say that isn't already on the complainant's talk page or the afd discussion, other than that I don't think its particularly rude to say that the press releases have been ignored, given that these people have had no press coverage., an I don't think the afd is bitey, since Tom Tower has had bag of time to address the issues with the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the tone of Tom Tower's posts and his editing interests, in particular ones only relating to a certain British "politician" (and I use that term loosely) it looks like David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sussexman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

On one hand I hope you're wrong, b/c I just went out of my way to defend/provide reassurance to what I believed to be a new user. On the other hand, I kind of hope you're right, b/c if not, then we can add a sockpuppet accusation to the list of things new user Tom has learned about today. :( Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing, but I will be the first to tell you that I'm not an expert at SPI. If someone smarter than I am feels there is a connection, then they should fill out an SPI. My spidey sense was tingling with the passive-aggressive nature of the initial report, but in the interest of good faith, I don't want to pick the person apart here without an SPI or clearer evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll file an SPI later on, I'm more than familiar with this sockmaster due to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the OP (Tom) originally posted his complaint incorrectly to the end of the above discussion without a header. Other editors (myself included) corrected that for him. That's a pretty common newbie mistake, though I suppose it could also be a clever tactic by a sock (though one I have personally not seen used before). I have a feeling we might be chasing duck-snipes here. I'd really like to see this SPI expedited since the possibility exists that we could be dealing with a good faith new user. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 15:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Lauder. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• After digging around the IPs and previous cases, I am hearing a loud quacking sound as well. I've also said so at the SPI, which hasn't progressed yet. From the looks of TomTower's last edits, it would appear he has left us. Nice memory and catch 2K. I would bet money on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, a checkuser has apparently declined the case. I generally stay as far away from these things as possible, so could someone in the know explain to me, and more importantly, to User:TomTower, (in plain English please) what this means? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• The decline at SPI was a technical decline, due to the reluctance of CU to link names to IPs, and the previous name being too stale, so the refusal to act wasn't based on the merits. Additionally, my own (albeit inexperienced but detailed) look into the previous sockmaster's activity led me to believe that the claim had merit, and in fact, was possible if not probable. No admin has taken it upon themselves to block via WP:DUCK and the editor in question has already indicated in their contribs that they have no intention of staying at Wikipedia, which renders the situation moot at this stage. If the editor does come back and edits, then the edits can be examined and compared to make a case for blocking under WP:DUCK at that time, in a separate report. I recommend taking no action at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI remains open; the CU simply declined to perform a technical check for reasons. One of two situations exists; either TomTower was a sock and we have somehow "protected" Wikipedia from something (not exactly clear to me what that is), or he was new user who has been found Wikipedia an unwelcoming environment. Would it really have cost very much to actively apply good faith in case the latter case is true? (In case it's not obvious, quack quacking a user is actually rude -- if there was a question, could no one have simply posted a polite query on their talk page if they had ever edited under another account?) Nobody Ent 19:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't tend to find socks of community banned editors answering "yes" to questions like that, to be fair.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a little put off by the whole thing. I thought the point of AGF was to, well, do that. But as I said, I try to stay far away from SPI's and the like, so I'll AGF that I am missing something in the above case. No one seems particularly concerned that the user, new or or sock, is gone now anyway, so I will move on with my Wiki life, and most likely avoid involving myself in helping newbies in the future. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately (it seems to me) that ani admins deal with so many vandals and edit warriors and socks and just general jerks -- and the 10,000th editor who doesn't post the ani notice -- it's easy to lose track of what a horrible place this is to the non-wiki savvy. LongTone's suggestion TomTower post here was one of the worst things one could do to a new user (I'm not familar with LT so I have no reason to think it was done out of malice -- struck me as just frustration with a clueless newbie.) In self-honest hindsight, I fucked up, too -- I should have just iar reverted TT's post off of here and had a chat on their user page before the ANI feeding freenzy started. So while I share Quinn1's frustration I encourage them to redouble, not abandon, their efforts to help new users. (Understanding every once in a while we'll get "burned" by a clever sock -- but I'd rather waste time on ten trolls then let one new editor get chewed by the system.) Nobody Ent 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My quack didn't come until he made it clear that he wasn't editing here anymore. I'm not exactly known for being trigger happy with blocking or issuing sanctions. I didn't pass judgement lightly, and not before researching and comparing one hell of a lot of contribs and logs, including his exit, the methods used when starting the ANI, perfectly pocketed edits with the named and IP accounts (which match the geo location of the puppetmaster, btw), starting the article near complete with proper wikicode, and the hit and run nature of the ANI itself, with no replies to legitimate questions by Boing. You might not be looking close enough at the little tell-tale details to get the full picture. Any one or two, or three alone is insufficient but adding so many together (along with 2k's personal experience and the sock data) paints a fairly vivid picture. Additionally, comparing he or I to "ani admins" in a generic fashion is simply stereotyping and not particularly helpful. If you want to comment or question any action I made, I will always answer them, but I would ask you be more specific in your claims so that they could fairly addressed. I would suggest reading through the previous sock investigations, comparing IP addresses, tone and timing of contribs and the same data that is available to all of before judging, however, so you can judge my actions based on the same data I used. I'm always open to constructive criticisms, but less so to sweeping generalizations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Given you're not an SPI expert, why not simply file a SPI? No discussion of quacking required.

If the editor had, in fact, stopped editing, why not simply put a close tag on the discussion? (Not every editor who declares they're leaving ends up staying away -- no need to take additional actions to ensure that result). Nobody Ent 02:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I read most of Long Tone's comments on the AfD and the OP's talkpage and found them civilised and to the point. Not even snippy. Greglocock (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider it good advice to refer a new user to ANI in a circumstance when clearly no admin action was taken. Nobody Ent 02:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nobody Ent: I now realise I should have directed him to Wikiquette assistance. And , yes, I was simply frustrated because Tom Tower was refusing to address the real problems with tha article & treating it as an attack on him or the page.TheLongTone (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)