Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777

Idle threat????

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § elizabeth_chan

Special:FeedbackDashboard/61351 See RosePetals talk page for the threat itself (from an IP). I don't know how to respond. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it could be a problem, depending on whether something further happens. IP's tend to come and go, so a single posting often doesn't result in a block, though a warning could be appropriate. As regards the general subject, I once scared away an intruder by raising my statue of Elvis as if to strike him. But it was only an idol threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whatever. It's an IP making a threat against a newish vandal account. Unless the vandal's username is used elsewhere on the web, I can't see the police doing anything.--Peter cohen (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No further admin action needed - User:Baseball Bugs has been blocked before, but in this case he opines that the other feller should escape any such sanction. Here at WP:ANI we find Baseball Bugs' opinions to be of key importance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. I said often doesn't result in a block. That does not mean I'm calling for no block to be issued (nor do I deny that past blocks against me were justified), I'm just reporting the typical action (or lack thereof) often taken by admins. Also, my comment originally was in part a response to an editor who basically said "So what?" and then erased his own comment. Feel free to look for it in the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Like I said, no admin action is required, either against the OP, nor against User:Baseball Bugs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Given that, this section could be boxed up. So what's stopping you? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ignoring the above that appears to be more Demiurge1000 baiting Baseball Bugs than addressing the subject at hand, note that someone with access to the block tool had already seen this when it came up on the BLP noticeboard. I'm keeping an eye on developments. Neither 69.204.251.91 nor RosePetalCrush have behaved well, here. Qworty has since pointed out some further problems in edits by 69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs), and Qworty and another editor are already addressing the article. If anyone seeing this discussion on this noticeboard wants to be productive, helping out with the article, per the BLP noticeboard discussion, is what to do. It has been the almost exclusive domain of three single-purpose accounts since March 2012. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer try to edit this article. I don't want to waste people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosePetalCrush (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat over the speedy deletion of Kidd Cole

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 tagged the article Kidd Cole for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. The creator, User:TeenHollywood, subsequently made a threat of legal action against myself and Wikipedia for "Defamation of Character". The threat can be seen on my talk page, this diff. I have warned the user on their talk page about legal threats, this diff. -- Patchy1 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably some socking going on at GOOD Music as well. I'm on an iPad, so opening an SPI is an issue for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef'ed as a spammer (promotional username, promotional material added). --Rschen7754 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to rev delete the legal threat as it contained a phone number and seem to have made a mess of it. I'll chalk this up to the perils of editing right before bed. AniMate 07:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the revdel. --Rschen7754 07:38, 1 December 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.

Miguel Melendez his manager the page wasn't suppose to go wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Filter 139

A little help would be appreciated on monitoring filter 139 - all hits should probably result in a block, but I can't keep up with the rate myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You know about User:Animum/easyblock.js right? --Rschen7754 07:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I do now, thanks :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by Deonis 2012

User:Deonis 2012 has made the following copyright violations on Syria-related articles:

1. National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, 19 Nov 2012 (cf [1] AFP)
2. Siege of Base 46, 25 Nov 2012
3. Battle of Aleppo (2012), 25 Nov 2012
   • source of both: AFP
4. Rif Dimashq campaign, 16:31 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP)
5. Rif Dimashq campaign, 18:35 UTC 1 Dec 2012 (cf AFP, NOW Lebanon)

He gave a source in each case, but didn't understand that giving a source does not justify copy/pasting into a Wikipedia article.

He was warned on his talk page on 20 Nov, 25 Nov and 1 Dec shortly after each of these incidents. He apparently is a fairly new user (started 7 Oct 2012) who has never given an edit summary, and has never edited any talk page. Despite his talk page being filled with warnings, he has apparently not realised that he has to talk to other editors and come to consensus. Apart from copyright violations, there are several claims by other editors (see his talk page) that he has been involved in edit warring.

It seems to me that at least a short block is needed in order to convince him that free-licensing of our material is critical to the project, and that he needs to read and understand Wikipedia copyright policy and communicate with other users through talk pages and edit summaries rather than let (at least) perceptions of edit-warring continue. Boud (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A new copyvio, and no response from Deonis on his talk page (nor any other obvious place):

1. Rif Dimashq campaign, 2 Dec 2012 (cf [2] AAP or the source that Deonis gave)

Boud (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they violated copyright in two edits to that article. One was rephrased by another editor. I reverted the other one. I have left a final warning on their talk page that any more copyright violations will result in a block. Please feel free to update this topic or leave a note on my talk page if they do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• They did it again. I think they're clueless, probably mistakenly believing that attribution eliminates the violation. I conservatively blocked them for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User Anarose.antonio

• User being reported: Anarose.antonio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Still introducing copyrighted images after talk page warnings and a previous block for copyvio: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Anarose.antonio seems to be motivated to improve articles related to Asian TV stars. Unfortunately we don't know whether they understand talk page messages, as they do not respond, nor use edit summaries. It is hard work picking through a long list of trial-and-error edits to find the problems. – Wdchk (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that they do not understand talk page messages as they are able to navigate around the project just fine, heck they even know to upload the files to Commons. Additionally, they are currently serving a one week block on Commons for copyvios. I'm thinking that might solve the issue for now. Tiptoety ^talk 21:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

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.

---

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [9]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Some editors around here need to stop threatening with the ANI-bomb and creating drama-storms every time they get into a c/d. Keri (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) creating drama-storms

• Wrong venue, Andy, but I will stop by and opine. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue [10]. He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources [11]. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It was already reverted to your version [13]. Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Wikipedia policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requesting bans in this delightful little thread is particularly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. [14]. I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

A query regarding discretionary sanctions

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.

---

~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 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.

IP

Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page [15]. I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to respond to that. Following his revert(without an edit summary and IMO unjustly), I contacted the user [16] to understand the reason for the edit, reiterating waht I already said in my edit summary, that the information is already covered in another section and don't belong in the current section. To which the user responded [17] "Well, you are seriously POV-pushing right now" which ignores my concerns and just none constructive replay about my post rather in response to it. I guessed that this reasoning with guy is unlikely but still, I offered him one more chance to explain/resolve this before I report this to one of the arbitrary committees. Which sums up my part.

Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism [18] and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him [19] and when this failed as well, he came here.

This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, [20], [21]) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.

Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Case closed move on. Basically nonsense discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BabbaQ has yet to provide an explanation of this edit that has no explanation in its edit summary, despite being asked three times now for one. Yes, responses of "nonsense" and "you are seriously POV-pushing right now" are deflections and non-responses to a civil request for an explanation. A more reasonable response from BabbaQ might have been along the lines of "Your edit removed information. If something is in the wrong section, place it in the right section. Don't remove it.". But I'm only guessing here. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me IP 109 is making good faith efforts to discuss changes where BabbaQ is making invalid AIV reports, not using edit summaries and, rather than respond with logic or reason, so accusing 109 of POV editing. Not constructive. NE Ent 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice 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.

---

Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Bbb. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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:76.189.126.40

IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" [28] "Stay off" [29] "You think you have any authority Rushyo" [30] and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats [31] "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" [32].

Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" [33] "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" [34] "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Wikipedia works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." [35] "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" [36].

I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment [37] [38] [39] and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo ^Talk 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Wikipedia for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A note: I am very likely going to be away from Wikipedia for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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 recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Wikipedia. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Wikipedia instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Good block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 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.

Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem

User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ‎ (see archives: [40]) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Wikipedia articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see [41]). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". [42] This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Wikipedia articles with whatever he feels like (see for example [43]), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Wikipedia policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Wikipedia policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion. As far as the disputed full sentence in the article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is concerned, I still maintain my opinion that this rather long sentence has no sufficient inner logics and does not offer a proper consecution of arguments (see also the Talk on this page). It is composed from two or three sentences of different origin and with different points of view as intended by their authors. I maintain that this is no proper way how to argue on Wikipedia. Please look at the lede to the article. And I cannot think of any disruption of any discussion if the right for freedom of opinion and information is briefly mentioned in connection e.g. with the choice of sources. At times, however, during my participation in discussions, I had the impression that my participation was not welcome, and my views were fiercely rejected and not discussed properly. Of course, I have to take for granted that there is a policy of WP which maintains that there are mainstream theories on one side and a so-called fringe theories on the other side. My view is that in the past some theories previously labeled by the majority of scientists as fringe were later proven as correct, e.g. (but not only) Wegener´s theory of continental shift. So I suppose that it is within the limits of serious discussion on scientific fields if there is a certain scope of freedom for discussion on noticeable fringe theories. The existence of several articles on SAQ is a good evidence that there is such discussion on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response to my complaint that you were dragging the talk page discussions off-topic seems to me to consist largely of yet further off-topic irrelevances. Wegener´s theory of continental shift is of no more relevance here than the US constitution was in the original discussion - and we are not discussing the content of the lede here, we are discussing your behaviour on the talk page. You are hardly going to improve your case by once more demonstrating the problematic behaviour that lead me to raise the issue here in the first place. Once again I'll ask you - are you willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions like 'freedom of speech', and likewise argue that Wikipedia policy should be ignored where it suits your objectives? If you get the impression that your 'participation was not welcome', does it not occur to you that it might be because you fail to actually participate in discussions in the way expected? This is what is being discussed here, and this is what needs to be sorted out. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs - it is an online encyclopaedia, written according to the best available credible sources (or at least that is the intention, if not always the outcome), and if such sources fail to reflect your opinions, you have two choices. Either work within Wikipedia according to the policies arrived at by consensus, or find another arena to promote your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions. I would only like to ask you, AndyTheGrump, who decides that someone has argued for irrelevant abstractions? Up to now, only you have objected my contributions using this terminus. Likewise, I would like to read a very precise definition of irrelevant abstractions. If there is such a definition, please give it to me, then I would be better informed. Although I have got some education, it is not quite clear to me that it should be easy to decide about the content and quality of irrelevant abstractions. Besides this, there is no information that you personally would have the rights as administrator of Wikipedia. So it is possibly not quite correct if you, AndyTheGrump, give me very pointed advices and treat me as a pupil. Up to now, in this section, no administrator has objected my recent behaviour on Wikipedia, no administrator was engaged in the way you did in the above text, and also in the whole discussion which we had. My objections are now only towards the personal conduct between you and me, and could be made a case on my behalf. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I'm not a Wikipedia admin. I have never suggested otherwise. AS for the fact that so far no uninvolved individuals (admins or otherwise) have commented, that is unfortunate - I too would welcome such input, and it was in the hope of getting such input that I started this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk)

If no one is listening here, you could consider going to [[WP:AE}] with a case for a topic ban. This thread seems to contain typical examples of Zbrnajsem's witterings and it shouldn't be too hard to put together plenty of documentation of his persistent tendentiousness in the SAQ area despite frequent reminders of Wikipedia policy. Doesn't address the BLP problem you originally raised, though presumably BLPN would be the place for that.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem wrote: "I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion." that may not have been your intention, but it certainly was the result, as evidenced by the edit war that you instigated with your comments and participated in.

You also directly above respond with irrelevant abstractions when told that you indulge in irrelevant abstractions.

As to Andy's choice of language in trying to explain policy to you, how many times do we have to repeat a point before you finally get it and modify your behavior? Either your command of the language is deficient, or you're stupid, or you refuse to get the point. Which is it? Because it's been explained to you over and over. Nobody says you have to like it; but you do have to conform to it if you want to participate here. If you don't, that's fine; there are plenty of Oxfordian echo chambers where you'll be hailed as a hero and a champion of free speech. Make your choice what it is to be.

I haven't chimed in on this before now because I'm sick to death of his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him--I've had years of it. For some reason they seem incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and attribute their unsuccessful attempts at promotion to evil "Stratfordian" control. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"...nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions...." Oh? What happened to your little "freedom of speech" idea? I calls 'em like I sees 'em, and I didn't call you any name; I said I was tired of your bullshit, and I am, which is why I've been ignoring your droppings on my talk page and the deVere talk page. I'll now return to my ignoring you. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that Paul Barlow has been involved in discussions on the de Vere talk page, he isn't 'uninvolved'. As for Tom Reedy's comments above, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why so many people seem to find engaging you in any sort of discussion so frustrating that they resort to incivility? I know I'm sometimes inclined to respond in this manner myself, often with less justification than might seem appropriate, but if you get this sort of response from so many different people, shouldn't you perhaps ask yourself whether you may somehow be at least partly responsible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don´t think so. I cannot be made responsible for the conduct of other contributors. I have a certain standing, the others have theirs. I normally keep my actions pretty restrained, comes what may. It´s good to see that you lowered the tone of your previously temperamentful comments, AndyTheGrump. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to stop using the article talk page as a platform for off-topic waffle about 'freedom of speech' and the like, and instead stick to using it for its intended purpose, or aren't you? This is the issue here: you aren't being 'restrained' at all when you climb on your soapbox and sound off about the injustices of a world that won't let you portray de Vere in the manner you so desire. Like it or not, Wikipedia isn't going to abandon its policies solely to place a long-deceased noble on a pedestal. If we were in the business of putting the world to rights, I somehow think that this alleged 'injustice' would come somewhat low in our list of priorities anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you start it again? You have absolutely no right to tell me how I should think about Edward de Vere. And just deleting one half-sentence, when there is no inherent logics in it in combination with the other part of the sentence, this is no disruption of an article. Moreover, you are not obliged to take part in any discussion if it is too complicated for you to understand what is in stake. Paul Barlow is not so vehemently engaged here, he is interested in serious discussion. He in fact made a proposal for a cooperation of Wikipedians who are Oxfordians in their ideal world, but want to be part within the limits of WP. Furthermore, you can´t make me responsible for actions of other contributors. They are also free people as you and me. No administrator took part in this discussion, no administrator supported you, so please stop your comments. I don´t intend to waste more time with further answering. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More bullshit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If Zbrnajsem continues to waste the time of other editors at Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford admins will consider imposing a topic ban under WP:ARBSAQ. Should he want to offer a well-focused content proposal for a decision on talk he should consider opening up an WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrew 3770

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.

---

Not sure if I'm at the right place, but IDK what's apt. This appears to be a single-issue account, dedicated to adding Diego Firestone here. It also suggests to me a sock of User:AndrewFirestone777, since the singular emphasis is the same & the usernames are so alike. It's also a possible COI, IMO; this has the smell of said Diego Firestone angling for his own page. Any action would be appreciated. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. as an account used only for spam. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:09, 1 December 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 tagged both accounts for sockpuppetry as well. Obvious sock, may help with CU later if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

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.

---

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [44]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also recently had a problem with "Trust is All You Need", who renamed the Harmonious Society article (a well-known concept in Chinese politics and written about in English too) with his neologism "Socialist Harmonious Society", based on his personal understanding that "democracy in the Chinese sense of the word means Socialist Democracy, that is democracy that will not hurt one-party rule" (incidentally, China, like East Germany and unlike most Marxist-Leninist states, permits the existence of multiple political parties, although they don't act quite like Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Without a move discussion, and with nary a response to my inquiry, he has also replaced all wikilinks to his preferred title. Shrigley (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does AndyTheGrump consider it an "opinion" that East Germany was a single-party state? It is well-known that East Germany was governed by one political party.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. Our article states otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of a primary source. As you are well aware, the supposed 'single-party state' had no less than five parties in the ruling alliance, including the Christlich-Demokratische Union Deutschlands, the Demokratische Bauernpartei Deutschlands, the Liberal-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands as well as the Marxist-Leninist Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands. It is simply factually incorrect to describe a five-party 'alliance' as a single party, and even more so to describe the first four named as 'Marxist-Leninist' - and yet you chose to add this, with not even a token attempt at discussion, into an infobox clearly intended for uncontroversial factual material. You knowingly and intentionally added misleading information into the infobox. That is a policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Some editors around here need to stop threatening with the ANI-bomb and creating drama-storms every time they get into a c/d. Keri (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC) creating drama-storms

• Wrong venue, Andy, but I will stop by and opine. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• East Germany was a puppet state taking its orders from the USSR. That's hardly a news flash. That's why Reagan asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is taking place at Talk:East_Germany#Single_party_in_info_box. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just would like to note that edit warring by User:AndyTheGrump in this article continue [45]. He made four reverts during just over last 24 hours; he also refuses to constructively discuss sources [46]. Since this article is under discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe, I think he (and possibly User:Trust Is All You Need) should be officially warned about the discretionary sanctions, unless they were warned already. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That it's continuing is because no admin has taken any action to stop Trust repeatedly inserting clearly incorrect information without consensus. It would make no sense to reprimand Andy since he is not the cause of the disruption. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, I left TIAN this notice, and he also makes unconstructive comments [47]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the forth edit - I'd forgotten that I'd already reverted three times, and that it was that recent. However, given that My very best wishes chose to alter the disputed infobox content with no consensus whatsoever while the discussions were ongoing, I think that any comment regarding sanctions might better come from someone not already skirting close to violating such restrictions themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert.I don't have to explain to you that 3RR is a bright line that you don't cross.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)One editor violating 3RR does not permit another editor to edit war while reverting them, so it makes perfect sense to sanction ATG. And TIAYN has yet to actually cross over 3RR. With 4 reverts within 24 hours and 18 mins, ATG should be sanctioned: " Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." He needs to at least self-revert. Keri (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I've not crossed it. However, if it makes you both happy, I'll revert - but with the proviso that I shall then expect My very best wishes to do the same, and restore the infobox to the state it was in before the entirely inappropriate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It was already reverted to your version [48]. Honestly, I think this discussion about "single-party state" is simply ridiculous. Even Soviet history textbooks always claimed that GDR was a single party state, just like Soviet Union, where the primacy of Communist Party was officially stated in constitution (which did not exclude "real democracy"). Based the article edit history, this is a long-term battleground between multiple parties. I must avoid such places. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion. Andy the Grump is arguing that describing East Germany as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' is against policy. If we have any trust in reliable sources, whatsoever, we have to tell him outright with no hesitation that he is just plain wrong, and will be banned for disruption the next time that he brings it up. Shouting "Black is white" multiple times, and then arguing that people who disagree with you are breaking policy, has no place on Wikipedia.

I'd like to point out something even more remarkable. At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes All You Need is Trust asserts that North Korea is not Communist. (And, in-context, it is clear he is arguing that it "never was" Communist). If you allow 2 people to scream "Black is white," and "No, white is black" and then ask for protection from Wikipedia policy because the other guy is being disruptive, then you are asking for every fringe quack in the world to come here and pollute our pages with their gibberish. Admins need to take some responsibility for this. Ban them both. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think requesting bans in this delightful little thread is particularly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we ban Trust for pointing out on an article talk page that some sources have asserted that regarding North Korea, rather than seeing it as being 'communist', 'we should instead regard the Kim Jong-il system as a phenomenon of the very extreme and pathological right. It is based on totalitarian "military first" mobilization, is maintained by slave labor, and instills an ideology of the most unapologetic racism and xenophobia'. [49]. I was unaware that agreeing with Christopher Hitchens was bannable under policy, though I can see the occasional benefits of such a proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

A query regarding discretionary sanctions

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.

---

~Since this has come up, and a quick look at the relevant page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe doesn't seem to resolve the issue, can anyone clarify whether East Germany (which by geographic standards at least is in Central Europe) comes within the remit of the Digwuren/Eastern Europe sanctions? From the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren it appears unresolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my view is that edits to East Germany would be subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The remedy says "Eastern Europe" and Wikipedia says: The term has widely disparate geopolitical, geographical, cultural and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile, and there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region". So -- who knows?? I'd run it past WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification_and_amendment. NE Ent 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As with most of these kinds of topic restrictions, the language says, "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I also note that if you look through the sanction log, you'll see editors being topic-banned from articles related to Germany, even though I'm not saying that Germany itself is subject to discretionary sanctions. Obviously, if you or someone else feels the need for increased definition, knock yourself out, but I think it'd be a waste of time and resources.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the dispute that provoked the DIGWUREN case (original name without the hair-splitting baggage of EE) revolved around "East-Bloc" issues, I'd be inclined to include East Germany as within the scope of the decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 2 December 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.

IP

Im not taking this too seriously and I was unsure if I should report it here or not.. But an IP made this comment to me recently at my talk page [50]. I think a warning is appropriate as I have remained civil, a threat of reporting me just because I tell the IP my opinion seem quite drastic by a one-day IP. Im not the only one being somewhat POV-ed by the IP I guess. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to warn them about. Let him report you. Not sure for what, but it could be humourous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. (Personally, I prefer to mock them a bit first, but that can be construed as rude or battlegroundy or somesuch.) An extra step is to check the IP's other contribs to see if they're doing similar to other people who may be more easily pressured, or if they're resorting to legal threats (as opposed to just threats to "report") elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! You both made my day:) I think this this edit summary by me at my talk page sums it up:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to respond to that. Following his revert(without an edit summary and IMO unjustly), I contacted the user [51] to understand the reason for the edit, reiterating waht I already said in my edit summary, that the information is already covered in another section and don't belong in the current section. To which the user responded [52] "Well, you are seriously POV-pushing right now" which ignores my concerns and just none constructive replay about my post rather in response to it. I guessed that this reasoning with guy is unlikely but still, I offered him one more chance to explain/resolve this before I report this to one of the arbitrary committees. Which sums up my part.

Meanwhile unknown to me. Just after my first attempt to resolve the issue, the user tried to flag my "seriously POV-pushing" edit as vandalism [53] and after it was rejected, he tried the same with claims I threatened him [54] and when this failed as well, he came here.

This guy maybe "civil" and "not taking this too seriously" as he claims, but that not how I see it. While I was upfront with him, he instead of communicating went behind my back and misusing the vandalism mechanism to fast track his requests( btw same with his next/last two requests, [55], [56]) and same here he ignored the "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" part. So Yes I find this user behavior not social, constructive nor contributing to a positive atmosphere.

Also I would still very much like to know the reason for the revert, so that I know how to proceed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Case closed move on. Basically nonsense discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BabbaQ has yet to provide an explanation of this edit that has no explanation in its edit summary, despite being asked three times now for one. Yes, responses of "nonsense" and "you are seriously POV-pushing right now" are deflections and non-responses to a civil request for an explanation. A more reasonable response from BabbaQ might have been along the lines of "Your edit removed information. If something is in the wrong section, place it in the right section. Don't remove it.". But I'm only guessing here. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That the whole point, I don't know if he think that it should be moved or ? (Because that information is already presented in the section I specified, its first word linking to an article that deals with this subject specifically, providing an uptodate figures from 2012 in the lead.) So by ignoring attempts to resolute, providing a simple explanation or offer his versio, he waste all of our time with this elaborate process, leaving me one edit short of 'editing warring'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have responded already. If that response was not what the IP wanted to hear that is not my problem. I think the IP was POV pushing and stand by it and the IP was reported to ARBPIA for a reason, and that is my final comment to this meta debate. I think that users Bwilkins and Demiurge1000 responses to my request is quite telling about the general consensus concerning these kind of debates. Especially this comment sums it up "When someone (IP or not) puts something on your talk page that's manifestly silly, it's quite adequate to respond by just blanking it and carrying on with your day. " Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of further concerns, maybe you can help solve the issue and explain how exactly this edit was "POV pushing", after all my edit summary, contact to you and explanation here are detailed and technical enough for that.(the rest of your post is just more attempts to deflect, all of which related to your conduct here which I already covered in my previous post).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me IP 109 is making good faith efforts to discuss changes where BabbaQ is making invalid AIV reports, not using edit summaries and, rather than respond with logic or reason, so accusing 109 of POV editing. Not constructive. NE Ent 14:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment, NE Ent. I think there are some long-standing WP:CLUE issues here. Against the current (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice 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.

---

Hi. Not sure if this the right place so please redirect me if necessary. If you examine some of my recent edits you will see I have overwritten certain material which in my opinion should not be on the site, even if the original editor does have justification through "history". Can you advise me if I have acted correctly and point me towards relevant guidelines in case I should need to explain myself. How does one go about becoming an admin, subject to first gaining sufficient experience? Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time I have posted this today. The first was summarily removed by User:Widescreen without any explanation. --Old Lanky (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you post your first question at WP:EAR. It would also be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits you want others to look at. As for your second question, I think it's a little early for you to even think about becoming an admin, but if you're feeling really masochistic, you could start watching places where admins hang out (heh), like here, WP:AN, WP:RFA, and a whole slew of other administrative noticeboards. Also, it never hurts to read up on policy, guidelines, etc., to become more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Bbb. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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:76.189.126.40

IP account is engaged in edit warring on a talk page (removing posts by others) [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. Any attempts to diffuse the situation have been met with hostility. "You have been educated" [63] "Stay off" [64] "You think you have any authority Rushyo" [65] and any notices/warnings have been deleted and ignored with threats [66] "You've been warned, stay off my talk page" [67].

Diffs demonstrating further incivility towards others: "Do you not understand English" [68] "As I said, thanks for revealing that you are a stalker. The losers who do that aren't usually dumb enough to actually admit it in writing" [69] "Go away, sock. Your use of so many different accounts and laughable interpretations of how Wikipedia works make you someone that cannot be taken seriously. You don't even know how to spell your own name." [70] "Bullshit Qwyrxian, there is no consenus at all" [71].

I'm only just scratching the surface of this behaviour, which appears to be systematic towards a variety of editors. Add to that really quite absurd accusations of harassment [72] [73] [74] and I find it hard to find anything redeemable in this user's editing, he's just combative and uncivil. Attempting to de-escalate this behaviour is not working. -Rushyo ^Talk 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and request the same thing. The user is perceiving personal attacks where there are none. As I advised the user, removal of comments from talk pages should only be done in very serious circumstances (either ongoing WP:NOTFORUM contributions or clear personal attacks), and only be done by involved contributors in the most obvious and extreme circumstances where everyone would agree. I get that 76 believes there is sockpuppetry going on on that page, but s/he has yet to provide any actual evidence of that. Yes, that page is a mess, with a variety of people misunderstanding policy, and attempting to use Wikipedia for to advance their own personal causes...but especially in the last 24 hours, I think we're starting to get somewhere. The attacks on others are not helping. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked the IP address for 1 hour. I have done so despite being WP:INVOLVED. The user was edit warring to remove comments on Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi that contained no personal attacks despite claiming that they did. Furthermore, the editor is making baseless threats against a number of editors, although, I must admit, including myself. I know I broke WP:INVOLVED. I did so because I felt that any other admin would have blocked, at least temporarily, to stop the disruption. I accept this puts me at risk. I invite any other admin to unblock (or, of course, to extend the block if you don't think I'm wrong), and place myself at the mercy of the Dramahboard, asserting that I merely wanted the disruption to stop long enough for us to actually discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I reported this at AIV at the same time Qwyrxian was blocking. A simple shortcut would be for another admin to act on that report (which the bot has already marked as done). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Good block, as has been pointed out even WP:INVOLVED may be ignored in blatant cases. A 1 hour block is hardly a draconian measure. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A note: I am very likely going to be away from Wikipedia for a few hours, so I won't be responding here rapidly; more importantly, I won't be here when the block expires, and comments on the user's talk page make me think the user may not be done reverting. So, eyes would be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see this - I have extended the block for 48 hours. IP is definitely WP:NOTHERE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

N-Word

Resolved

Not sure if this should be for AIV or here. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

AIV will work fine in the future, but either way I have blocked the IP. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've RevDel'd the diff, and the edit summary of another containing the same phrase. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There's probably an embarrassingly obvious answer to this, but when I go to the page i'm still seeing the image in question. I've done WP:PURGE which seems not to make a difference. DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

someone's now rv'd it but the image itself doesn't appear to be rev del'd DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to delete the image. FWIW, E4024, if you get trash like that on your talk page you're probably doing something right. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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 recent AN/I discussion ended with me blocking two litigants on opposing sides of a court case who had brought their fight to Wikipedia. I unblocked one of them, Mary Cummins, after she agreed not to continue the legal battle on-Wiki. She subsequently started to comment on her own talk page, discussing the case and presenting her side of the argument. I warned her not to do this again, but she subsequently took the argument to another editor's talk page. I have blocked her and said I'd bring the block here for review. I will notify her immediately now that I have done so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If parties to a legal case are fighting each other here, they've not violated the letter of WP:NLT, because they're doing more than threats: they've already sued. Blocking them is the only way to follow the spirit of WP:NLT. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No issues, as per Nyttend. Of course, stating your case on Wikipedia instead of holding onto it until your court date is pure stupidity ... but I digress. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins's comments were not a legal threat, but they were a direct violation of her agreement in the last unblock to stop commenting on the legal issues. She's clearly too involved here to be a useful Wikipedia contributor. She needs to walk away, settle her real life legal problems, and not worry about what a WP article says (especially since it doesn't mention her by name anyway). The block is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Good block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This editor is now requesting unblock. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins declined the unblock request. I was about to do the same, but he's faster than I am. In her previous unblock request, the editor stated, "I further agree not to post about Amanda Lollar or Bat World Sanctuary on wiki." There are other reasons to decline the request, but her violation of that alone would be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 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.

Widescreen and psychoanalysis

Widescreen has been involved in numerous disputes regarding psychological articles, often pushing a pro-psychoanalytic POV and removes well cited material that contradicts it. Recently he's been in slow moving edit war in the Psychoanalysis article and has been told multiple times not to and is editing against consensus.

• First edit
• Second edit
• Third edit
• Fourth edit

Previously Widescreen has been blocked twice for edit warring in psychoanalytic/psychological articles.

Because its the third time this came up and because its specifically in psychological articles, I think its worth considering a short topic ban. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that while Widescreen can go OTT, CartoonDiablo hardly comes here with clean hands. In a previous dispute between the two CartoonDiablo was proved wrong on the content issue and Widescreen right when other members of the community got involved. In that case CartoonDiablo was pushing a strongly CBT position. On that occassion CartoonDiablo used an ANI report to obtain a ban for Widescreen. So if there is to be a topic ban I'd be tempted to make it for both of them. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Some further background is at this old arb request. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats such a cheek of CartoonDiablo! Thats no Editwar, that was the result of the discussion [75]! CartoonDiablo starts this WAR. The last edit of CartoonDiablo on Talk:Psychoanalysis was at Okt. 16. --WSC ^® 09:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who drafted the material (cited to reliable sources) that WSC twice blanked (first and second edits linked in the OP. I have to say from my point of view that did feel like a short burst of edit warring. I had the suspicion that WSC seemed to be removing any material that described psychoanalysis as ineffective. We have discussed things on the article talk page however and I would like to AGF a little longer. I've invited WSC to add references to articles which he thinks should be cited, if he feels the article is poorly balanced. That would be a better way forward than removing material he disagrees with. I'm not in favour of a topic ban right now; what is needed is more editors with knowledge of the field and of WP policy to be active here (ideally in drafting additions to the article, and not merely talk-page commenting.) Sadly, as in many technical areas, editors who are knowledgable are likely to have a strong POV and those without a POV may not know the literature well! Full disclosure: I probably fall into the former camp, as a psychotherapy researcher and a cognitive analytic therapist. WSC's relatively poor written English (though better than my German!) does not help, but can we wait a little before invoking sanctions? I'd rather not ensure a quiet life at the cost of excluding an editor who seems familiar with the area but might just need some guidance. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, it seems like no one is really interested in high quality. Kim Dent-Bronw drops two selected studies in the article by ignoring about 10 others ([76]). But it seems like no action is required. There's "material (cited to reliable sources)", the autor itself called gold standard (Cochrane Collaboration) are still excluded. No sense of responsibility for our contens we presented our readers is apparent: "Maybe anyone will balance that in five years or so..." In my view that looks like lousy work mixed with indifference. I would call this a kind of "naive positivism" in wikipedia. What is verifiable by a more or less good source is right. But thats no quality at all! --WSC ^® 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

KDH's advice about WSC sounds good. Looking at the talkpage with WP:AGF, I didn't as much get the impression that WSC was "removing material he disagrees with" as trying to put the section into balance. If the literature about some topic represents views A and B about equally, and the Wikipedia article cites 90% view A, then view A is overrepresented (wp:undue weight) and the long term remedy is to research and add citations for view B until the representation is equal. But in the short term, the article has a neutrality problem (WP:undue weight for view A) and WSC's doubts towards "naive positivism" (also called m:eventualism) are understandable. In WP practice it's generally not ok to remove well-cited material from an article without consensus, and certainly anything removed from the article in that situation should be transferred to the talk page for possible later re-use. A collaborative approach (not always feasible) is for editors (using their general familiarity with the literature) to agree ahead of time about how much representation each view should get in the article, and then collect citations and draft text in the talkpage until there's agreement that it's well-balanced and ready to put in the article. If that fails and there's a dispute, then yeah, our practice is to put a neutrality dispute tag into the article and WSC did that[77] per KDH's advice.[78]

KDH and WSC, is it reasonable to say that the two of you are getting along ok now? WSC, can you live with the current situation of having a temporarily unbalanced section with a neutrality tag, until more material can be added to balance things out, or else trying to reach some agreement on the talk page about what to use before removing stuff again? That leaves a possible issue with Cartoon Diablo and I wonder if KDH has any thoughts. Maunus in the checklist section of the talkpage makes the interesting point that "psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis." From that standpoint, maybe the entire clinical aspect is overrepresented in the article. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick response to the above: I don't think WSC and I (I presume you mean me when you type KDH above) are collaborating terribly well, no. But he has stopped blanking the material I added and I can tolerate the NPOV tag he has placed. I don't by the way agree that the section is currently unbalanced - there is some material speaking to the effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment and some saying it's less effective. That seems balanced to me and to reflect the current scientific consensus. But we are straying into content discussion here and the main issue, one of conduct, is not currently a problem as far as WSC and I are concerned, in my view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is about adding a POV tag, notice WSC removed material and then added a POV dispute tag without discussing it. Later Snowded did the same (diff) and made no mention in the talk page as to why. It seems clear that WSC and Snowded are trying to remove anything critical of effectiveness, and if not, to insert POV tags without discussing why they did so to make it look like the section is flawed when it isn't.

And to the other point, Psychoanalysis has been considered a clinical since the 1890s which is why there is a vast literature of its effectiveness to begin with. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

At present the main person I can see actively edit warring is CartoonDiablo with this latest reversion to remove a NPOV tag yet again. Now myself I don't think the NPOV tag is justified, but I don't think I'd be right to unilaterally remove it and nor is CartoonDiablo. The right thing to do is improve the article to provide a fuller, more balanced and fully detailed picture. Warring over the addition/removal of the tag does not improve the article for the average reader of Wikipedia who is in ignorance about what goes on under the bonnet. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Back in October Arbcom came close to accepting a case about the edit war on Psychoanalysis. At least one arbitrator thought that the community would be unable to deal with this. What I get from the comments that the arbs made then is that they hoped the community would take this to a content RfC. That still seems to me the best option. If an RfC reaches a conclusion and then someone edit wars against the result, an admin can take action as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Kim Dent-Brown above. CartoonDiablo has twice removed a NPOV tag before the issue is resolved. This is exactly the behaviour which resulted in the Arbcom case. I'm not taking sides in the content dispute, other than to say I think it could be more balanced, but that is not the point. Unresolved con conflict = PoV tag, RfC etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the distinguished mediation. I can't live with the current situation. Thats why I try to phrase a own paragraph [79] with my poor written english. No fear! It will be proofread by an english user. If its disires by Kim, we can discuss it on the talkpage befor adding it to the article. But I doubt that CartoonDiablo will accept that, whatever I write. After the last revert [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychoanalysis&curid=23585&diff=526070740&oldid=526054964 in the article] I doubt a consense with him. I don't expect problems with Kim but with CartoonDiablo. I hope Kim will give a comment to my paragraph. I don't know but I think, the NPOV-box is a good interim arrangement. CartoonDiablo don't edit the talkpage since oktober but requires a discussion about the box. But Kim and I alrady discuss that? Here's my proposal: I try phrase out the paragraph and we can discuss that on talkpage. I try to add it to the article, but CartoonDiabolo will revert that. Than we can start another RfC or DRN? That seems to me the most "efficient" way. --WSC ^® 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) KDB, I'm sorry I wrote KDH, I'm not sure why I did I can't even think of a good joke about a Freudian slip. Yes, Cartoon Diablo's reversion was inappropriate and its edit summary is inaccurate since you and WSC did discuss the tag. WSC's objection about balance, I thought, was not the presence of your cite about schizophrenia, but about the absence of a bunch of other stuff that he mentioned. Unless you're saying that the stuff he wants to add is either irrelevant or already sufficiently represented (in which case you shouldn't be telling him to add it), it sounds like the section is in fact currently unbalanced.

Maybe some mediation could help for the long-running conflict in the article? Has it been tried? As for the clinical thing: I don't know anything about the subject (psychoanalysis) but I know that figures into non-clinical work. For example, Sherry Turkle has used it to study interactions between people and computers,[80] Marvin Minsky called Freud the first computer scientist and suggested simulating the ego, superego, and id in AI software,[81] and Freudian theory is apparently influential in political science.[82] This type of thing seems more interesting to me than the clinical stuff, and nothing like it is in the article at all. So it sounds to me like Maunus is onto something. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is both a fundation to understand mind and a clinical discipline. Just like cognitiv science aims to understand mind and developed clinical interventions. I think you can't separate that. The conflict would be relocated to other articles but not resolved. Futher the article psychoanalysis could be a example in this area. --WSC ^® 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User:L'carpetron Dookmarriot

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.

---

Vandalism-only account, has been given a short-term block, possibly treated leniently because of an apparently-erudite userpage which in fact has been copied from User:Seraphimblade. Please consider converting to a permanent block. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

A moving war on A.C. ChievoVerona

I think A.C. ChievoVerona to A.C. Chievo Verona is controversial. However i probably started a moving war. Would admin first blocked the page to move first in order to let involving parties to sit down a give citation for and against on proposed name? Matthew_hk tc 12:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that either version has ever been protected in any way, shape, or form, so I'm confused: what do you mean by the "admin first blocked the page"? If you could provide a link at which the page was blocked, it would help. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I request to protect it first in order to avoid moving war continues . Matthew_hk tc 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that you already asked somewhere else, or is this thread the way you're asking? I'm not trying to make it hard for you; I just don't want to respond to your request only to find that you asked somewhere else and got a response different from what I gave. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked for somewhat intermediate measure on that page, as i moved back to the original namespace twice already. Or as lease someone with admin status to have a look. Or did i solved already by edited the page A.C. Chievo Verona? Matthew_hk tc 15:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It now won't be able to be moved back there, but it could be moved somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"In fair Verona, where we lay our scene". Romeo and Juliet, Prologue, line 2. I am working with my therapist about my compulsive Shakespeare quotation problem, though it is minor amongst the many of my other problems. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has been protected; I strongly suggest all parties stop warring and start a RM on the talk page before we hand out any blocks. I'm an English major but will refrain from any quotes ;) GiantSnowman 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Association of Business Executives(UK)

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.

---

• Association of Business Executives (AfD discussion) Special:DeletedContributions/EconomicTiger
• Association of Business Executives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The above article was re-created by me was deleted by User:JamesBWatson under G11. I request any Admin to verify whether it is promotional and provide the deleted content to re-create the page. Association of Business Executives(UK) is a Notable educational institution in Africa and Asia on providing affordable business education at low cost. In Africa only it has 12, 000 students. I couldn't understand how without placing the service tag on the article on promotion(if that is the case), a speedy deletion is possible?EconomicTiger (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "providing affordable business education at low cost" looks like promotion to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In most of the Africa and Asia, you can't promote Ivy League programs with their very low Per capita income.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • In most of the English-speaking world, one wouldn't refer to "the Africa and Asia" if one wished to claim any sort of academic credibility. The "the" is redundant - or more likely just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, I am wrong. I am not from the English-speaking world, I mean my mother tongue is not English.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • But I did a Google search and found its usage - "the Africa and Asia", in various places.EconomicTiger (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A little investigation of the web site and some of the sponsors would make the case (assuming the web site is accurate) that this is not just a promotional site, but something that is worthy of an entry ----Snowded ^TALK 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• perhaps this is too much of an obvious question, but why would "a Notable educational institution in Africa and Asia" be calling itself "Association of Business Executives(UK)"? How exactly are they 'UK'? And why is this relevant, even if it is meaningful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • AndyTheGrump, you should do some research before you cast your opinion. That is a British institution providing business education globally and it's programs are popular in Africa and Asia.EconomicTiger (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No idea on the origins of the name Andy, but I do think you owe it to the community to have a look at the web site content before you come up with an opinion. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • … as well as the link to the actual article title, given right at the start by EconomicTiger and cleaned up by me, at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this -- I'm in East Africa. I'm happy to consult a colleague at the British Embassy here and ask if they're familiar with this organization. It's not dispositive, but if they say yes, it certainly would indicate legitimacy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually their site indicates that they're more active in Namibia; I'm reaching out to a colleague there who would know if they're legit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• You can ask whether it is legit or not from Rt Hon. Nahas Angula, Prime Minister of Namibia, Hon. Anna Kachikho, recently Minister for Local Government and Rural Development for Malawi, Dr. David Namwandi, Deputy Minister of Education for Namibia, and the Hon. Abubacarr Jah, Honorary Consul from the Republic of The Gambia to Malaysia.EconomicTiger (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because it says these things doesn't mean that it is true. Those could be honorary positions bestowed unilaterally by ABE without the knowledge of the "recipients". That sort of thing sometimes happens here. Or it could be completely legit. I've already asked and will let you know what I find out. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 10:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, getting too much into the weeds. The article was originally AFD'd here in 2010. Not long after, Economic re-created it with the text "The Association of Business Executives (ABE) is a professional membership body and an examination board. It develops business and management qualifications at Certificate, Diploma, Advanced Diploma and Postgraduate Diploma level. ABE qualifications provide progression routes to degree and Masters programmes worldwide". That text was as close to identical as possible to the original AFD'd text. There was nothing that showed anything remotely close to notability, and to be honest, the article should have been CSD'd immediately in 2010. Fast-forward 2 years however, although notability might have been partially established, it certainly had become a gigantic promotional piece that basically advertised the services (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Bwilkins, you are wrong. Even before the advent of internet and Wikipedia, the Association of Business Executives is there since 1973. Most of the coverage about this institution is offline and not online. It is because of the Wikipedia page, the institution gained notability shows, your depth in assessing offline world and other networks. If I could remember in 1989, a powerful former president in a South Asian country participated its award ceremony; it's not because of the Wikipedia page, it is because of the powerful people and influential network behind.EconomicTiger (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What am I wrong about? I gave a history of the article and its deletions, and a comment about the wording and promotional tone of the article, confirmed possible notability, and tried to corral people back into a discussion about the CSD, not educational notability. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And we on Wikipedia should not be carried away being as Administrators and Editors, we are above the rest of world and the various universities' senates and boards who recognize the Association of Business Executives(UK.) are inferior to us.EconomicTiger (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• ABE's Chief Executive has an honorary degree from Anglia Ruskin University in the UK, according to the University's own pages. It's hard to find really good RSs on a first skim but this fact alone makes me think there must be an article here. Universities don't award honorary degrees to completely non-notable people or leaders of non-notable organisations. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are random UK "universities" still RS for anything? Some are, but the title of "university" in the UK has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • .....the title of "university" in the UK has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Who says?. It is not the same Oxford or Cambridge which were there 200 years ago; there are lot of changes. This could be applicable to every other modern Universities in UK.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There are number of colleges and Universities in UK and they have got a page on Wikipedia; are they always featured in the reputed British media?EconomicTiger (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• People, let's not get sidetracked into issues of U.K. educational politics. Andy Dingley, you know better. Kim Dent-Brown, I refer you to recent history when it comes to honory degrees from U.K. universities. Everyone, the issue at hand is the speedy deletion of the re-created article given the prior AFD discussion. And the simple answer, which could have been given hours ago, is:

  EconomicTiger, the right thing to do is go to User talk:JamesBWatson and simply ask, not to come here. If JamesBWatson declines to talk to you (and remember that xe isn't necessarily even on the same continent as you) your next port of call is Wikipedia:Deletion review.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • My point about the honorary degree was not that a University website constitutes a citable RS. Rather that from our point of view as editors it's a point in favour of the notability of a subject. The existence of such a degreee speaks to the possible notability of the recipient and the organisation for whose work he was honoured. I don't understand the Jimmy Savile link. Surely you're not suggesting that he is not notable? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The issue at hand is the speedy deletion of the article. Bwilkins has tried to put this discussion back on track, as have I. Why are you continuing to de-rail the discussion? You know full well the procedure for challenging a speedy deletion — the usual "just talk to the deleting administrator for starters" routine. EconomicTiger now knows what to do, at long last. You're confusing the poor editor with irrelevancies. It's rather saddening that it took six established editors (Yes, I'm counting myself. I'm probably established by now.) more than four hours just to provide an editor who has come to the wrong place with the simple directions that can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions, which we all (or at least the four of us who are administrators and who would like to have this happen if it were our speedy deletions being challenged) supposedly know. JamesBWatson is a reasonable person, and is willing to discuss xyr speedy deletions, in my experience. Let that discussion happen, and stop confusing the poor editor. For all we know, JamesBWatson might be convinced without any fuss by a reasoned argument on xyr user talk page as to the application of the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. Even in the AfD, other than the nominator, there was only one delete vote. I don't think so there is a wider community consensus to delete it. I will take this issue to User talk:JamesBWatson and will ask him to comment here.EconomicTiger (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is what you should have done in the first place ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:13, 3 December 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: CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT

Blocked for the username and an unambiguous threat of prosecution. This edit summary [83] references a "denunciation to the National State Police. I've left them a note as well, but am leaving for the day and won't be able to follow up. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be a case of Don't overlook legal threats. Something fishy is clearly going on at those articles and it is for me very hard to determine what are facts... I have tried to engage him in moving his behavior from focussing on his legal position to an information-based argument, and am a bit disappointed (although factually fully correct, and possibly the outcome of a discussion anyway...) this has led to an immediate block... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

L.tak is right. There's more than just an account issuing threats of involving the police, here.

• IIMSAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DrManini (talk · contribs)
• Jageshwar (talk · contribs)
• Elena.dalis (talk · contribs)

What a mess! Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

L.tak is right. However, now we have another account making similar denunciations to the police. Their objections shouldn't be overlooked, but neither should attempts at criminalizing edits be overlooked. If there is some sort of disinformation campaign going on, that needs to be dealt with too, but not by calling the police. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In trying to sort this out, Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization, Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute, IIMSAM, Sulaiman Al-Fahim and Diego Maradona (with peripheral activity at Monica Seles) and others appear to be the targets of a number of role accounts, some of whom are making unsupported or poorly supported allegations of misconduct, while others are removing them. Several editors have cut much of the junk from IIMSAM in particular (thank you all), but it looks like severe pruning may still be needed, with protections. I am particularly concerned about Jageshwar (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs), but IREOtruth (talk · contribs) raises the traditional alarms for usernames containing "truth." A number of other accounts may by organization staff. Acroterion (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is basically a fight for power/true UN representation of (disputed) subsidiairy bodies of Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI). That organization seems notable (it is established by international treaty and has UN representation). However IIMSAM is either a separate organization (standpoint of (former?) CISRI boss Manini) without UN representation or a subsidiary program of CISRI or both (2 things, and the suggestion of the IIMSAM org that it is affiliated with the IIMSAM program of CISRI). In both cases it doesn't need an article (as a non UN accredited org, I see no shred of notability; as part of CISRI it should be merged...). I will therefore propose a merge (I am telling that here, as many of those editors are clearly against any association between the two names, so a merge proposal is likely to be controversial)... L.tak (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems like a sensible course. I'm quite certain that it'll result in more denunciations, but so be it. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

← From a purely technical standpoint CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT (talk · contribs) and DrManini (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed and as such I have blocked DrManini. Jageshwar (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely and Elena.dalis (talk · contribs) is  Stale. Hope this helps, Tiptoety ^talk 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jageshwar (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for putting back poorly referenced defamatory allegations from primary sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone do the honours for Unirev (talk · contribs)? L.tak (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and another note left on the advisability of explaining what the actual problem is so that it might be dealt with in some constructive way rather than the unlikely-to-succeed method of complaining to the Italian police about English Wikipedia content. Other editors are welcome to engage. Acroterion (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste copyvio fix

Hey Wikien2009 blanked User:Auric/Lia 19 with this edit then created Lia (actress). Auric's copyright was violated because attribution was not given in the cut and paste move. There was also some poor form on the part of Wikien2009 by even creating a page using Auric's content even if he had correctly given attribution. Can an administrator fix the copyvio by performing a history merge? Ryan Vesey 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Very poor form, very sneaky; but Auric does not own the "copyright": "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ("You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.") Keri (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Auric does own the copyright. He holds a CC-BY-SA 3.0 copyright license. The conditions of that license were not upheld in Wikien2009's cut and paste move. When you post something on Wikipedia, you do not release it into the public domain. Ryan Vesey 23:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. And even if you were correct, Wikien2009 "distributed" the work under the exact same licensing as Auric, which is all that the license requires. Keri (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're very wrong. Wikien "stole" the work of another editor(s) and claimed it as their own. That's removal of the input/work that Auric had put into it, and thus violated the attributions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to re-read the GFDL: "2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." As you clearly do not grasp what that entails, there is no point my continuing this thread. Keri (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires proper attribution of edits - you're right, no sense continuing if you don't get that. Thankfully, it has been actionned already. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ryan Vesey 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keri, the BY in CC-BY-SA means that attribution is required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. What you are all missing is that this is dual-licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 AND GFDL. Heres a line from Wikimedia which might help explain: "If a work is published under a single license, all of the terms in that license must be followed. If a work is multi-licensed (that is, released under more than one license), re-users may choose which license's terms they wish to follow." As I said, what the editor did was immoral, sneaky and underhand, but not theft and not a copyvio. Bwilkins would be laughed out of court for attempting to prosecute that case. Keri (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee Keri, what YOU are missing is that Wikipedia's community-confirmed policies and processes require it to be done a certain way - an in this case, attribution is required. Maybe a quick tour through WP:CPM might be a good start, and perhaps a few less chips on your shoulder might go over well too. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

lol I have never said it wasn't against policy. I said you can't go around accusing someone of larceny and copyright infringement when they have actually followed the terms of the GFDL license. Keri (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

When something is dual-licensed, the smart thing to do is follow the one that's most restrictive. Otherwise, you're taking a risk. If the light at an intersection is broken and showing both Red & Green, driving through without stopping isn't a good idea. Judges & juries don't always see things the same way we might. I personally think the CC/GFDL compromise was a bad idea, but it's old hat now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a more relevant point here is even if you are following the less restrictive licence, most legal discussions I've seen agree you cannot relicence GFDL content under the CC-BY-SA licence (except for the limited exception which expired) as mentioned in our own article GNU Free Documentation License#Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms. Since all wikipedia content is dual licenced except for that from other sites which may be CC only, the editor was claiming they released the content under both licences. But if they are following the terms of the GFDL they cannot then also licence it under CC-BY-SA. The only way they can licence it under CC-BY-SA is by following the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence which the original licensor granted. In other words while the editor may be able to get away with it legally if they are doing it on their own website and only claiming to licence the content under GFDL (since they can chose which licence to comply with), they cannot legally do it here since they cannot chose which licence to release it under, they need to release it under both licences which they cannot do unless they comply with the terms of both licences. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely we're missing a point here: if you copy just the text of a document, under the GFDL that's not Verbatim Copying. Verbatim Copying would include copying the copyright notices (Keri quoted this). If you're not copying verbatim, then what you're doing is covered by Section 4 – Modifications. This requires you to list "at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." GFDL It therefore seems to me that GFDL does require attribution, and further I don't see how dual-licensing could work if the two licenses were to differ on such a fundamental point. (Non-lawyer spokesperson). – Wdchk (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandal bot?

I'm doing some vandalism cleanup and noticed in List of The Emperor's New Groove characters the partial phrase added

• Also, he tends to be considered one of the sassiest of the Disney princesses

Ordinarily I would revert and just move on, however I recall reverting this exact same phrase in another article in the past week. My hunch is that this is some strange automated vandalism. I've no idea how to search my contributions for this phrase so I can investigate further. Any suggestions?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Google doesn't seem to find anything else on Wikipedia.  An optimist on the run! 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Diff of this one, please? And any idea about when you saw it last time? An approximate date range? I imagine it will be pretty hard for anyone to respond to your actual question until someone can find evidence. Well, I'm off to stalk your contributions and see if there's any tools that might help. Thanks for coming to my defense yesterday, by the way. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(od) The IP's contributions show they just reverted you on November 27. Also, the article history shows where they were edit warring over the phrase. So the place you saw it was in this same article and probably not in a different article. Looks like they also edited as 38.100.117.129. Probably best resolved by taking it to WP:RFPP. Rgrds. --64.85.216.11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Apteva disruption

I warned him (see User talk:Apteva/Archive 3#Warning) that another disruptive move and I would ask for a block at AN/I. His previous round of disruptive RMs and MRVs all closed against him, and his continued disruption after that led to the RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva. Even with that open, and a ton of editors trying to explain to him that his last two months of behavior has been disruptive and needs to stop, he went ahead with this WP:POINTy new one at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy_9#Requested move.

I would appreciate it if an admin with no prior involvement with Apteva would take a look at these links and see if a block to prevent continuing disruption is in order. Of course, it should be made clear to him that if he wants to continue participating in discussion at the RFC/U about him, he can be unblocked easily by agreeing to hold off on the disruptive behaviors while the RFC/U is open. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an absurd example of being pointy. The RFC/U is merit less. Comets are spelled with hyphens. No one can dispute that. Check with the IAU. I do not decide what punctuation to use in comets, nor does Wikipedia - the IAU does. Apteva (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)In all honestly, yes, Wikipedia does decide what punctuation it uses. And Wikipedia has repeatedly come to consensus that it should stay how it is. I agree that you opening another RM was pointy. The IAU can decide what punctuation it uses, but Wikipedia decides through established consensus what we use. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, yes Wikipedia can do whatever we want to do, but our policies and guidelines are not normally in conflict with each other. In this case they are, with the policy, WP:TITLE, saying to use common use, and WP:MOS, a guideline, saying to use a hyphen for comets, but uses a dash in a comet as an example of using a dash, which creates a conflict with the policy. It is just oh so simple to fix this conflict - admit that no proper nouns ever use dashes, and be done with it. See Wikipedia talk:MOS#Three corrections. Make those those three corrections to the MOS and eliminate the conflict. Apteva (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then work to fix whatever comet-specific guideline it is, such that it becomes, "WP naming of comets should follow IAU practice". I for one would support that, whether it's hyphens, endashes or Egyptian hieroglyphs.

What you're actually doing though is pointy, disruptive edit-warring outside this. That's a no. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Although you may hold the WP:TRUTH, we go by Consensus that has been reached on Wikipedia, and not someone else's consensus. Try to gain ground on MOS for your desired policy. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Until then, follow Wikipedia's policies. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that Apteva has tried, repeatedly, to "gain ground on MOS", and failed every time. It seems he just doesn't hear it. Powers ^T 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeeesh. I am fully aware of the local consensus at MOS, and I do not appreciate the squashing of my attempts to "gain ground" by calling the RM's "disruptive". If anyone has a better suggestion for methods of "gaining ground" I would appreciate hearing them. A block would be incredibly out of place. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pointy disruptive RM closed speedily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The basis of this block request is that he keeps saying that he intends to keep at it. I still request an uninvolved admin to have a look and decide about that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If he does one more actual move, tell me and I'll block him myself. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That is he or she, thank you. This is like telling someone not to use the letter K. This not Sesame street. This is an encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's not Sesame Street, why are you behaving like a child? You're right then, "if they do one more actual move, tell me and I'll block them myself. Better? Still just as valid. This is not telling you not to use the letter K, it's telling you to NOT use the letter K when the rules of the specific language call for a C. We have a specific language - use it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If what I'm reading of the history here (that he's tried and failed to get local consensus at projects), this VPP RFC on standardizing hyphens seems pointy, canvassing, and in the face of the RFC/U complaints. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is there because I was asked to put it there. It is not an RfC, so will not likely need to stay long, but it is an important opportunity for everyone to weigh in, not just the MOS editors. I would like to get input of 50 or 60 editors though. Apteva (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While I see JHunterJ pointed you to VPP for this, I think you need to be aware of the number of times that people have told you that the consensus is likely not going to change, hence the fact that its beating a dead horse at the different/proper venue and still a problem. --MASEM (t) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I can either laugh at WP or I can try to fix it. I choose to fix it, or try. WP does not need to stick with something that really makes no sense. I can assure everyone that I will follow procedures, policies and guidelines, though, and this ANI is meritless. If WP is still misspelling comets in a few years I will bring it up again - deal? Apteva (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close, with alternate venues: As requested, User:Apteva has complied with requests to address concerns in the proper venues (wp:RFC/Apteva), posting a topic at wp:VPP (dif-616, 01:31, 3 December) about hyphens/dashes as would affect all areas, beyond just guideline wp:MOS, to include policy wp:TITLE, wp:ACCESS, and names in charts or graphs, etc. Because the use of hyphens/dashes affects many areas of Wikipedia, then this thread (1 of 32 active) should be closed to avoid further distraction, and instead focus on the other venues, so that WP's use of dashes is not seen as "laughable" by major factions of the community. We need to properly assess the issues in consideration of worldwide views, NASA, IAU, other space agencies, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  The supposed issues regarding WP's dash style can be addressed in other venues. This noticeboard is not seeking to address the dash "issue", but to address Apteva's latest disruption incident. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Right, the issue is that this appears to be the N+1 attempt recently to get something changed that the editor has been told is consensus, but keeps trying anyway. Noting from Apteva's comment above about "follow procedures, policies and guidelines", the type of approach they appear to be taking is that of Wikilawyering - in this case, taking JHunter's advice of VPP posting without considering all other factors involved. I've encountered editors like that before - it can be hard to get them to understand that all of WP's policies and guidelines are meant to be worked and understood in concert and not to get too hung up on one specific one - in Apteva's case, understanding that the point on dash-vs-hyphen has been explained and spelled out with no apparent change in consensus and yet the editor is trying to change it. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  The MOS is inconsistent with WP:TITLE, and removing that inconsistency is trivial. Apteva (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Mongo Feels Better

Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Ankit Fadia

Mongo Feels Better (talk · contribs)

Please could someone take a look at the behaviour of this editor. Their edits have been BLP/OR violations against one particular subject. This morning I asked this user to stop posting on my talk page if they can't do so within policy as I've had to redact much of their posts as BLP violations three times. The response was this, which seems to be a threat to sock. January (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor for 48 hours for BLP violations, sock puppetry threats, and personal attacks (calling you a "shill"). Do you have any clue as to who the editor is, i.e., have they edited here before using another account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • First edit from that account suggested they were familiar with its history - I had a similar dispute with another account just before this one showed up, but didn't think at the time it was enough for an SPI as they could also be one of the various IPs who have been adding attacking/negative material over the last few years. There is a Facebook group and Twitter account about Ankit Fadia who have been discussing his Wikipedia article and this is probably bringing his critics here. January (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Woah, that looks to me like a pretty crappy article, and Mongo Feels Better's concerns are legitimate. Obviously MBF's edits to the article aren't the way we do things, but wp:don't bite the newbies is still best practice. I think MBF is basically right that the article should be deleted and I'm not impressed with January's approach to this. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoever you are (the IP has an unusual editing history), I'm sure you know there are legitimate processes for deleting articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I've got a tin foil hat on here, but could this user be in anyway an attempt to imitate, discredit, or in any way attack MONGO (talk · contribs)? – Richard BB 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Obviously, given MONGO's notoriety here, it would be hard not to wonder about any relationship between the two accounts (I don't mean sock puppetry), but there are so many meanings for the word, I figured it was coincidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A possible relationship (in the broadest possible sense) between those two accounts was my first thought as well, but it seems to be purest coincidence—I don't see any overlap at all between their editing histories, so socking, taunting, or a joe job all seem quite unlikely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah I also thought of MONGO but it seems coincidental. Anyway (re Bbb23) I think an AfD for the article is sadly unlikely to succeed. It's an article about someone working in a technical field (computer security) sourced primarily by popular-press articles that a security professional wouldn't consider remotely reliable about security stuff. So it ends up with a heavy slant towards stuff coming from publications that are basically marketing adjuncts to the IT product industry, yet AFD is unlikely to be willing to get rid of it, and we end up looking stupid to knowledgeable readers. I have other stuff to do today but may look into it a bit more later. I'd support an unblock of MFB if he can agree to back off the invective and help with the article's neutrality (it does have some poorly source cruft in it). I may try to talk to him later if he's still around. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I was initially suspicious of User:Jimbo online. Go figure. Per Bbb23 "Mongo" could mean pretty much anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, MONGO admits his names comes from the movie Blazing Saddles, as does the catch phrase Mongo Feels Better (actually I think it was Mongo feel better, but close enough). Whether that is close enough, I don't know, but it is borderline problematic at best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe "Mongo feel(s) better" to be apocryphal, although I haven't seen the movie in some time and may be in error. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Now you have an excuse to watch it again! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems fair enough. I'll remove my tin foil hat. – Richard BB 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Back to the problem at hand, now? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• 66.127.54.40 is right in this instance. There is an on-going problem with this article. Mongo Feels Better was incapable of expressing it without adopting a tin-foil hat of xyr own and assuming that people here are in some vast conspiracy to promote Ankit Fadia. It was a problem in 2007 when Tqbf wrote this and it was a problem in 2006 when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Fadia happened and I tried to get a horde of externally canvassed drive-by contributors to stick to policy and make a good argument based upon it. (66.127.54.40 above and Mongo Feels Better on the talk page have merely predicted the events of six years ago, notice.)

  The problem here is that there is one set of sources promoting a person and another set of sources discrediting the picture put forward; and the people who have written the latter set of sources haven't published them properly or put their names to them and reputations for fact checking and accuracy on the line. It's compounded by the fact that this article has been the focus of sockpuppetteer Kalpesh Sharma (talk · contribs) (see also Kalpesh Sharma (AfD discussion)), which of course casts suspicions of sockpuppetry on single-purpose accounts like Mongo Feels Better.

  I invite everyone reading this to worry less about whether Mongo Feels Better was quoting Blazing Saddles and more about the accuracy of a biographical article on Wikipedia in the face of six years of sockpuppetry and people's unwillingness to put their own names and reputations on the line in a newspaper or something, as Bbb23, Little green rosetta, and others already have. The link to the BLP Noticeboard discussion is at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Because an over-aggressive spam filter won't let me post the below as normal text, I'm going to try writing it backwards. I'm sure a software wizard like Uncle G can unscramble it and edit it back to normal, and this would be much appreciated. Thanks and sorry for the nonsense but I'm low on other ideas.

    .elcitra eht ni ti gnisu ot tcejbo ylbaborp dluow enoemos os SPS s'ti tub ]lmth.40rpSsuballys/suballys/562SC/pmats/ytlucaf/ude.usjs.sc.www//:ptth[,skoob eht fo eno tuoba yug ytiruces a yb tnemmoc evitamrofni/tnaveler a dnif did I>p<.siht ekil sgniht tuoba ssensselepoh leef tsuj I .taht naht erom od ot ygrene eht evah t'nod I tub eton feirb a mih tfel I .yldab ytterp nettib neeb llits sah FBM ,elihwnaeM .egap resu sih no tnemmoc s'BFM htiw ezihtapmys I dna gnizilaromed ytterp s'tI .elcitra parc siht eteled t'nac ew os ,elbailer eb tsum repap yssolg no detnirp gnihtyna kniht yeht--deliaf evah yeht esac siht ni dna ,elbillafni ton era seicilop aidepikiW .lartuen dellac eb t'nac ti os ,secruos elbailer on sah elcitra eht ,evitcepsrep lacinhcet a morf dnA .)gnilpmas evitatneserper a evig ot secruos hcus hguone s'ereht taht ,noitacilpmi yb dna( yas secruos elbailer tahw stcelfer ti taht .e.i ,lartuen eb ot ti eriuqer osla yldesoppus eW .)eurt si syas ti ffuts eht lla taht .e.i( etarucca eb elcitra eht taht hguone ton s'ti oslA>p<.skoob ygolortsa gniknubed rehtob t'nod snoitacilbup cifitneics dna stsitneics erehw noitautis eht ot ralimis s'tI .enil eht no tup ot )ytiruces retupmoc ni( snoitatuper yna evah t'nod )ffulf aidem ssam( elcitra eht ni era taht secruos eht dna ,cipot eht derongi yltnerappa evah )stsilaiceps ytiruces( dleif eht ni secruos elbatupeR .snoitatuper dna seman tuoba ta gnitteg er'uoy tahw erus ton m'I hguoht ,G elcnU sknahT**

    66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The policies are not in fact as you state them to be, and you make the very same mistake as the people who mis-apply them in such fashion do, ironically. That's a problem, but it's not a problem with the policies. I recommend reading a sampling, over the years, of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and indeed Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, back to their earliest versions. The idea that something is self-published automatically makes it completely unreliable is a falsehood, as is the idea that sources have to be paper. The problem here is in part that the sources desired by some editors in this case have no identifiable authors whatsoever. Another part of the problem, of course, is that the people wanting the article deleted have been shooting themselves in the feet for six years. The herd of canvassed drive-by contributors, who couldn't put a policy-based argument together between them, got themselves a speedy keep for their lack of effort, and Mongo Feels Better decided to have a pop at the article's subject and other editors, and got xyrself blocked.

      Real Administrators don't need toys in Perl for the task of reading backwards, by the way. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      • I was hoping you could unreverse the post so that other people could read it. I didn't write it backwards as an exercise for readers, I did it because I couldn't think of another way to get around the edit filter. Yes I'm familiar with the old versions of those policies (we can have a philosophy discussion about them sometime) but I'm talking about the way stuff actually happens on WP. If you want to open a new AfD for the article, then I'll support deletion, but I don't have much hope about the outcome. The reality on Wikipedia is that WP:N trumps everything else almost all the time, no matter what other policies or common sense it conflicts with. It's extremely difficult to delete an article once it has minimal published sources. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Court case edit warring

Could an uninvolved admin look at LMS Hughes Crab please. An anonymous editor has been repeatedly reinserting information about a possible court case about a preserved steam locomotive. I don't know the full facts of the case, but the IP is unable to provide any WP:RS, other than claiming the court order itself is a reliable source (though it does not appear to be published anywhere). Whether this is the case or not, the IP has violated 3RR, despite final warnings. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#LMS Hughes Crab.  An optimist on the run! 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Next time please report this at the edit warring noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO there was a bit more to this than just a simple 3RR - i.e. the repeated addition of unsourced information which could be considered negatively. For tsis reason I decided to post it here rather than [{WP:3RR]]. Thanks for dealing with this.  An optimist on the run! 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a forum thread about this locomotive with some discussion about the wheel theft here. Not a suitable RS for an article, but enough to call for a bit of AGF towards the person who was adding the info and had no clue how editing works (WP:BITE). We ought to change the blocking software to handle this situation better, since it happens all the time. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP wasn't blocked by software. They were manually blocked by an admin. The block has nothing to do with whether the IP was adding the information in good faith. It has everything to do with the fact they were warned to stop and didn't stop. There is no good faith in repeatedly adding information to an article after someone has repeatedly told you to stop. Sperril (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The admin pressed a block button and the software did some things. I'm not claiming the block was automatic. I'm saying the stuff that happens when the admin presses the button should work differently than it does now, so the user is prevented from editing, but in a friendlier way than now. Also, the communications with that user (see the talk page) were absolutely atrocious and it's no wonder they didn't respond. If we see this problem over and over and have to keep blocking new users, the problem isn't with the new users, it's with us. We get edit warring because our user interface and our interaction style is conducive to it. As long as we keep shifting the blame to non-malicious users who try to contribute useful info and see the reversions as just another misbehaving software system to fight through, we will keep deluding ourselves and losing them.

And no, nobody told them to stop, at least no human being did. They got a bunch of obnoxious prerecorded warning templates (added: sorry, there was this, one exception in the middle of the noise). That's not a person telling them anything, that's a computer giving them an error message, and people know that error messages from computers are usually bullshit annoyances to work around or fight through, but in any case to ignore the content. So they follow their reflexes. There was no human who specifically tried to discuss with the person what they were doing. THAT is one of the most broken things about this place. Modifying the block software might help with that, but mostly we've (collectively) got an attitude problem, and that's much harder to change. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The templated warnings are not automated, they are left there by a real human being, created in such a way to ensure that warnings and messages are consistent, plus provide links to the appropriate policies so that the editor can learn and change. In other words, they're pre-recorded on purpose - but whoever left them still has to choose the correct message to leave. So yes, a human being DID tell them to stop by using Wikipedia's suggested wording. The onus was on them to at least reply to one of the messages, which could have started a more personalized discussion. The block was also done by a person, and the chosen block pre-recorded message was also left by a person based on the specific situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

All true. However, a perceptive human might have noticed the template approach wasn't working and tried something different, a little more personal perhaps. Additionally, I'd expect savvy Wikipedians to be having discussion on the talk page instead of attempting to have a discussion via edit summaries. The IP did make an attempt to engage in discussion but only received a technically correct but unfriendly and curt response. If the only goals were to stop the edit warring and prevent addition of unsourced material, the action here was a "success." WP is not (or shouldn't be) a zero sum game; a bigger success would be to stop the edit warring, prevent unsourced material, and bring a new editor into the fold. Given the article has 14 month old stupid tag at top, it seems getting more editors would be a good thing. NE Ent 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You actually missed another non templated message. In the very first fairly polite template message on the IPs talk page, RedRose64 left an additional comment that was directly relevent to the situation and which should have been obvious to the IP it was not a templated reply. The IP did reply to that comment only after again reverting see User talk:Redrose64#Horwich Crabs - locomotive 42859 and the contrib history. RedRose64 again left a non templated reply to the IP in response to the IPs message. Beyond a clear lacking of understanding to policy despite multiple attempts to inform the IP of it, the IP's message didn't IMO clarify RedRose64's question. They were still referring to some reference in a 'mysterious' notes even though there's no sign of these notes (the article has a note section but there was never anything relevent in it unless for some reason books from 1975-2009 mentioned a court order given in 2012) or any actual evidence of a court order in any of the IPs edits nor in the existing article. When an IP keeps referring to something that we can't even see, you can blame existing editors for confusion. (Of course it's unlikely the court order or these 'notes' would be an WP:RS but when an IP keeps talking about something we are supposed to be able to see, except it's not there and we've told the IP of that, it's difficult to help them.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot that one of the edit summaries did include case number, it may be this is what the IP was referring to by their continual mention of 'notes' in a reference section. If so, this reflects an even poorer understanding of how wikipedia works which the IP was apparently not willing to do anything about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why was there no discussion at Talk:LMS_Hughes_Crab? NE Ent 13:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I do agree linking to the UK Railways discussion on the article talk page and providing a link to the IP would have been wise (although I doubt it would have helped) since it's the sort of thing people unfamiliar with the specific topic or with wikipedia are unlikely to find on their own but there was actually decent discussion there. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again

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

---

• Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CallawayRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you know, the ARS is a point of contention in a number of arenas; they use to have Template:Rescue which they emblazoned on articles to canvass inclusionists. That was deleted, but they made Template:Rescue list to replace it, which does exactly the same thing (get out the inclusionist vote), but is pasted on AfDs instead of articles. So I nominated it for deletion, on the sole grounds that it. Dream Focus, naturally, was up in arms, and tagged the rescue list with its own rescue tag, a highly inappropriate act since the rescue tag is supposed to be used for improving articles, not notification of deletion discussions on templates. When I informed him of how inappropriate that was, he insisted that the ARS had to be canvassed, and that the rescue list (rather than the WikiProject's discussion page)

The last straw was the personal attacks I've been subjected to from. Rather than actually give a good reason for keeping Template:Rescue list, Callaway's comments here and there are nothing more than personal attacks. Then recently, Dream Focus accused me of being 11 years old, and also refused to name a policy for where it said ARS had to be canvassed. This isn't Dream Focus's first rodeo; he's been to ANI countless times, blocked thrice, and several people have suggested he be indeffed

The following things ought to happen:

1. First off, this template's gotta go. It creates way too much canvassing drama, and duplicates a SALTed template.
2. CallawayRox needs to be told that personal attacks are unacceptable
3. Dream Focus needs to be blocked again; and probably banned from XfDs for a very, very, long time

pbp 20:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you'll gain much traction here with this, and I also don't think that this, for instance, is a personal attack. They may be wrong, they may be right, but it's not a personal attack. Moreover, I don't see what's wrong with trying to rescue the rescue template. Finally, an ANI report won't help you speed up deletion of the template: that will be decided at the appropriate forum. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec] Thanks to PBP for pointing out an odd typo on my part: correction added in bold. PBP, one more thing, and maybe you don't want to hear this from me: less is more at such MfD discussions. ;) Best, Drmies (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the diff you used is one of Callaway's, not mine pbp 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did not tag it, I simply restored what someone else had, as I already told you. I explained to you already that all Wikiprojects have a thing you put in AFDs which tells people that Wikiproject has been informed of the discussion. That's what this is, not the totally unrelated banner that formerly existed. And please stay on topic. The discussion of him on my talk page is at [84] and if you read through that, and the other two places this is ongoing, tell me if my comment was inappropriate. He does seem immature and has a problem understanding very simple things. Dream Focus 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since my unrelated three blocks [85] were mentioned, let me explain. First off, he brought this up previously when arguing with me on my talk page, and I already explained it to him there. User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012 I'll just copy and paste it here for people to read my explanation. "You keep trying to change the subject to something to totally unrelated. In 2009 I was blocked for 24 hours for undoing vandalism and violating the 3 revert rule by mistake. In 2009 I was blocked for a simple mistake on a talk page, for 12 hours, which meant when I logged back in the next morning and saw it, it was over already, too late to protest. The third time I was blocked was earlier this year in something that many administrators in the discussion about agreed was inappropriately done." Dream Focus 20:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I will note what I just noted at TfD. You want to nominate the rescue list at MfD, not the list template at TfD. The former is what notifies ARS members of AfDs, while the latter just notifies AfD participants of ARS involvement. What we need is a speedy close of the TfD discussion and pbp can then nominate the list page at MfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The list was speedy kept at AfD, and endorsed at DRV, so I would highly object to a new MfD in light of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. I thought you guys (Wolfie, PBP, and you) were preparing a new RFC at some point (not that I really welcome that either, but at least it promised to be based on some sort of comprehensive evidence in light of the outcome of the RFC).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "you guys", but I was preparing, I ran out of the time limit though for userspace storage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You know, if we deliberately ignored the project and discounted the percieved influence they have in their activities, there wouldn't be any membership or people to monitor the alert list. I'm going to say this once at both sides of the debate, Stop bringing your quasi-religous schoolyard fight here. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm really not surprised to see PBP show up at ANI. Last I heard IRWolfie- was planning some mother-of-all RfCs on ARS (despite the outcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron, a mammoth three-month long RFC that closed just in June). PBP was encouraging Wolfie on this, but it seems the draft RFC was later deleted though User talk:IRWolfie-/ARS RFC Prep archive remains. In any event, putting the rescue list up at TFD, done by PBP, was guaranteed to elicit a very frustrated response by ARS editors are very tired of this stuff.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the prep. I do think the RfC is warranted, and there are plenty of reasons why, including disruptive keep votes where ARS editors (i.e Dream) vote sometimes without even understanding what a topic is (it would be funnier if it wasn't disruptive), stealth canvassing by Warden by his refusal to provide notifications at AfD about ARS notification etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To my comment "You didn't vote in the AfD, and you did improve the article, but neither warden nor dream edited the article and just voted. This seems consistent with ARS being used as a canvassing tool" was given the response "Wolfie, Dream did in fact make a minor formatting improvement, but you’re basically correct."[86]

ARS members are fairly open with the fact that they canvass for AfD. FeydHuxtable said, "Possibly not all active members share your perspective on what we should be doing. Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements." [87].

Warden lists topics at ARS without adding notification to the respective AfD discussions, despite being asked to provide the notices [88][89][90].

Warden made this vote: 15:14 7th Oct Then Bangladeshi political families was listed. 15:18 7 Oct. No improvements have been made to the article as of this verison of the AfD 19:03, 10 October 2012 no edits to the article were made after it was listed. ARS member Dream Focus just turned up to vote keep and didn't improve the article. His rationale was a WP:GOOGLEHITS/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: [91]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Is it that time of year again? This kind of persecution of the ARS appears regularly. We get it, you don't like how the ARS operates. Fortunately, those doesn't tend to achieve much effect given that, like the current one, they're more inflammatory and emotional than based on reason. Diego (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Notice I've set up the MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban Purplebackpack89 from ARS

• Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Purplebackpack has been bothering the ARS for awhile now. He should get a WP:BOOMERANG for this latest nonsense.

1. Template:Rescue list should be speedy kept. All delete votes are critically flawed. Even The Devil's Advocate understands.
2. Purplebackpack needs to be banned from interacting and commenting on the ARS.

CallawayRox (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No I fail to see the reason for an interaction and topic ban. And you're misrepresenting what TDA is saying -- I don't read it to say that the delete votes are critically flawed; just that the deletion discussion is occurring in the wrong venue; that diff has no bearing on the merits of deletion or not (other than that, as I said, TFD is the wrong venue). Not to mention that this is a completely inappropriate reason for a speedy keep and does absolutely nothing to explain why it should be kept -- something you might want to think about if you're claiming that others votes are "flawed". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Callaway, it would be helpful if you would address the thread PBP started, rather than jumping immediately to demanding a topic ban. Maybe one is warranted, but we can't know that unless you actually speak about what's going on. Right now, without that, it looks a bit retaliatory: "Oh, you're going to report me? Well, I'm going to try to get you back!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support - Someone who, out of his explicit dislike of a given wikiproject then tries to delete a Wikiproject template and then whines if such wikiproject notices, or that actively accuses users of canvassing, is a textbook case of disruptive pointyness. It doesn't look like s/he's going to stop. The guy should leave the ARS alone, or back his serious accusations with something. --Cyclopia^talk 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out the examples of ARS canvassing, &c pbp 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think that PPB needs to step back and trust the process to take place now that he has set it into motion. It is rarely helpful to respond to every single comment made by someone that disagrees with one's own stance, and PPB seems to be doing that at the AFD. I would counsel them to just step back, respond no further, allow the process to work itself out, and accept the results whatever they may be. However, even though that behavior isn't helpful (and neither was starting this ANI thread) I don't believe that formal bans or blocks need to be handed out regarding any of this. Both sides need to be counseled to leave each other alone, and stop personalizing this. Neither side needs banning as yet, and I'd like to keep it that way by seeing both sides step back from the personalized back-and-forth bickering. --Jayron32 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: For starters, the rationale given does not come anywhere to justification for a topic ban, and seems to be nothing more than CallawayRox out for blood. It also troubles me that ARS wants to boot someone mainly because he disagrees with the inclusionist views supported by a preponderance of their members pbp 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How surprising you oppose your own topic ban. Anyway no, I don't want to "boot" you because you disagree with inclusionist views or with ARS views. Plenty of people do, and it's fine -it's part of the diverse community we have. However most of these people tend to more or less respectfully discuss them, instead of trying games like deleting templates that project use and then complain of canvassing if the wikiproject takes notice. --Cyclopia^talk 22:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. The list should go to the right venue for a proper discussion. The rest of this is all unnecessary. jæs (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As a completely frivolous and disruptive attempt to silence a critic. I would say the delete votes have a "critical flaw" in that the template is not the rescue list and deleting it will have no impact on the rescue list. MfD is where the discussion needs to go and it needs to be the page for the list, not the template, that is up for deletion. If the page is deleted then the template would be speedily deleted for no longer having a functional purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support You'll have to show plenty of revision edits to convince everyone else of the problem though. He isn't part of the project, just out to get it, and has argued constantly with those who are active in the project on its talk page and elsewhere. Should someone be able to go to a project they don't believe should exist and constantly argue with them nonstop without contributing anything useful to the project ever? Dream Focus 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Diffs...diffs... I contest the assertion that I have "[n]ever contributed anything useful" to the project. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist...not only did I vote "Keep", I laid out a framework for how the article should be expanded, and where to look for additional information. And what about the opposite argument: should WikiProjects be allowed to boot minority views from their spaces? And there's never been (and never going to be) a requirement that you have to be a member of the WikiProject to participate in discussion, so me being a member or not is irrelevant. It's no different than someone who doesn't believe AfD should exist in its current form still voting at AfDs pbp 22:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If the person insults the project constantly, and says he wants it deleted, and is right now trying to delete it, then their only reason for being there is disruptive. Dream Focus 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I don't see where PBP here is insisting that we delete the ARS. He's arguing for the deletion of a page that belongs to the ARS, and he may well think the ARS ought to be deleted, but going at him as if he's holding a knife to the throat of the very existence of the ARS right here, right now, in this thread, is blowing what we're actually talking about wayyy out of proportion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

At User:Purplebackpack89 he says I believe that WP:BEFORE and the article rescue list should be abolished. And yes, he appears to believe he nominated the ARS not just that one template that tells people in an AFD that the discussion was mentioned in a Wikiproject. Dream Focus 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're discussing people's user pages, User:Dream Focus has a section entitled "Please stop the deletionist from destroying wikipedia!" (sic) I nominated the template for the reasons I said: because it bears too much resemblance to Template:Rescue, which in of itself is all the deletion rationale you need (actually, that's almost enough for a CSD) pbp 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No project is a walled garden (that's what lead to the UFA/MMA issues a while back) and needs to have introspection from time to time. As long as the contrary posts are not purposefully disruptive, editors should feel free to post criticism of a project - in hopes of improving it - there. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that criticism is fine. AFAIK, ARS gets it every day. But pbp is not bringing criticism -he's being disruptive, with pointy template deletion attempts and unsupported accusations to other editors. --Cyclopia^talk 22:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep because the ARS sent me. (Wait, this isn't an AfD?) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose mainly per Hasteur above, whilst noting the somewhat amusing meta-irony of the fact that the only people supporting this are from a project accused of block voting on discussions. Still, I suppose typing "Support" at least gives their "K" and "E" keys a rest, if not their "P". Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Ban proposals belong at WP:AN, not here. Moving it there would be disruptive, so I'm going to leave a note there. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Not going to vote on this but will say that this sub section should be closed outright as an obvious retaliatory measure. This is symptomatic of sand pit fights of this sort. The original ANI hasn't even been dealt with and one of the opposing members has tried to create a smokescreen. Collapse this and finish one thing at a time for fucks sake. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Both Sections: PBP has irked me many times in connection with ARS, but I think its highly doubtful that PBP is going to be banned based on the very limited statement made by CallawayRox. It would take lots of diffs to lay out the history, and life is too short to do this in almost all cases. And in most of those cases, bans aren't that common anyway. I fervently wish PBP would work on improving articles, including little unsourced stubs he creates like Chili burger that would probably die at AfD in their current states, but what he chooses to focus on is his choice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Milowent, don't feed the drama queens. Diego (talk) 23:44, 3 December 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.

Does posting a bounty count as a threat?

117.220.151.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a bounty for someone's head on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely a threat, whether its credible enough to justify reporting to the foundation emergency contact is a judgement call. I would say probably not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandal/troll, block needed. NE Ent 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked. I think Breivik was the target, as opposed to any other editor - but still completely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He did try to have a conversation with Alexander the Great, which makes me question his capacity, but still leaves me totally convinced that he wasn't an editor we needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have deleted the two revisions in question. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Worth noting that WP:EMERGENCY states to "Treat all claims seriously." Obviously I can't see the original threat now, so maybe there's some other reason reporting isn't necessary, but I think the point of EMERGENCY is that "whether it's credible enough to justify reporting" is not something we're supposed to take into consideration. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable point; I just emailed diff to WMF NE Ent 17:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a returning IP signing as "Amanbir Singh" who has been trolling us for a long time. I brought this to WP:ANI a couple of months ago here, also that one after a more or less implicit threat. I endorse NE Ent contacting of the foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, new editor

Please review contributions of MaxXD1 (talk · contribs) NE Ent 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-reverted his edits; he apparently has an axe to grind after being banned from Serebii IRC (a Pokemon website, don't ask). I'll talk to him. Block probably needed, but might as well try; hope springs eternal and all that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs taking to SPI, I'd say. GiantSnowman 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this user's behaviour is way on the wrong side of WP:POINT, and that WP:NOTHERE strongly applies. I was just on my way here to report the same thing (which I'd spotted at sibling).AlexTiefling (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ETA: Seriously? IRC sites still exist? :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses IRC for several different reasons, though the reasons have been questioned as back room dealings and canvassing in the past. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I doubt he's a sock, unless you know of other similar cases. My guess is that he got banned from Serebii's IRC and came here to change Wikipedia to support his complaints, so that he could point them to the Wikipedia articles. I doubt he's edited Wikipedia before, or he'd probably know that that won't fly. NOTHERE, certainly, and I'm pretty sure that talking to him is a lost cause, but whatevs. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - I saw the list of names in this edit and thought it referred to banned Wikipedia editors; closer inspection shows it's actually users banned from other websites. GiantSnowman 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Shocking Afd closure

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.

---

Earlier today I was patrolling the discussions listed at Afd and went through the December 2nd log, to find that were was an error with the technical closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albannach, due to the missing archive template at the bottom. As I realised what the problem was, I noticed that the closure of the discussion was non-administrative and closed as "no consensus" by Faustus37 (talk · contribs), which I found rather odd as there were two delete !voters (including the nominator) and one "weak keep" !voter, which would suggest that administrative action would be required. I reverted the close as an improper NAC closure with the edit summary "Requires administrative judgement and didn't give others a chance to opine", and notified the closer of my actions regarding its revert. A few moments later, I took another look at the Afd to see if any new comments had been made, and was, quite frankly, astonished to realise that the user who !voted "weak keep" was the same user who improperly closed the discussion as "no consensus" (Faustus37). Till 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see that's been undone. However, when you get to three relistings without anyone commenting, it's probably better to close as "No consensus" meaning "nobody cares whether the article stays or goes" - but it should be done by an admin. Although I've done the odd non-admin AfC close, they've always been ones where there's been a unanimous "keep" !vote from everyone (example here). Looking at it, the only comment that actually properly shows evidence of policy and WP:BEFORE is Michig's "Weak Delete". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Faustus simply should not have closed an AfD that he !voted in - that doesn't matter whether he's an admin or not, it's basic stuff. GiantSnowman 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not the first questionable close. NACs should be uncontroversial; if the close is questionable, that defeats the purpose of NACs (sparing admins the need to respond to no-brainer closes). Faustus37 should probably step back from these, particularly given that the ARS is supposed to exist to improve articles rather than just to track AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this user has a tendency to make inappropriate non-admin closures. In fact, just a quick search through their contributions and I immediately found another discussion that he both closed and commented on. If this editor thinks it's okay for him to close discussions that he has opined to—regardless of whether they are NACs or not—then there is something very wrong. Till 12:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah he shouldn't have closed an Afd he commented in. That is Afd 101. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)...and then adds the closures to the ARS list of rescued articles. As someone who supports the controversial ARS, this is seriously lame. --Cyclopia^talk 12:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And people in ARS wonder why it is a controversial group. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If you think that's bad, how about closing an AfD as "Keep" when there were 7 Delete votes and 4 Keeps, and at least two editors (including DGG!) had suggested it was speediable as G11? This editor needs to be informed quite seriously not to mess with AfDs, they've clearly got a COI in terms of their stance on notability. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is "shocking" really the right adjective? It was inappropriate and against policy...but "shocking"? That said, active ARS's probably shouldn't NAC anything due to conflict of interest as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that the user "did wrong." But those closes apparently were uncontested, at the time, and there is no evidence of discussion with the User that s/he did wrong. At the very least, discussion with the user should have taken place before this report. "Shock" seems too dramatic. Mistaken acts even patterns are part of the wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you check the one I linked just above? Closed against consensus, and the editor was very clearly told about that one on their talkpage [92]. Also, the answers to the Oppose votes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Faustus37 are enlightening. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Would it be inappropriate to suggest a topic ban for Faustus37 on NACs? GiantSnowman 13:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No. As stated above, this editor was already warned about such behaviour and chose to ignore it while making this close. Till 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Black Kite - Looking at that one, didn't they change that close when the issue was brought to their attention? And for whatever reasons the article still exists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And how do you justify this? The evidence is there. On 15 November 2012, he writes "Keep: As with International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012, this is a good WP:LISTPURP with plenty of precedent on other election pages. Given its length I think it's appropriate to keep it separate rather than merge it." On 24 November 2012, he writes "The result was Keep. The virtually identical AfD International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 closed as a Keep as well. (non-admin closure)". How is this behaviour condoned? Till 13:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
          • No one is condoning anything, except discussion with the user about problems before admin reports. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
            • If a user is told something they've done is inappropriate, and they then do it again, I don't see a problem in reporting it here. Again, I'd suggest you read their RFA, which includes such statements as "I'd much rather keep crap than delete the good stuff" and equating deletion with censorship. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the RfA, the User was told to participate with AfD. Obviously, in doing so they have made "bad closes." Therefore, why those are bad closes should be explained in discussion, so the user understands and acknowledges, those problems. And, yes, stops and reforms (hopefully on their own). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban seems a bit too much, unless it's very temporary. Strongly suggesting a, say, couple months pause in NACs and seeing if he only does uncontroversial ones when he gets back to it could be enough. If he's doing it again, then a topic ban could be appropriate. --Cyclopia^talk 15:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

He should only be making uncontroversial ones anyway, and there's no backlog at AfD so I simply don't see the point of it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite, this editor has been previously warned about such behaviour and this recent close is just a blatant example of their inappropriate closures. Till 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  Till, while I definitely agree that there are issues with Faustus's NAC record, and fully see the need for starting this AN/I thread, it's worth noting that this is the second time you've started a thread on inappropriate NACs using some rather hyperbolic rhetoric. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  These are not interrelated. That user's inappropriate NAC behaviour involved closing Afds early without justification and closing discussions that were contentious (see this, whereas this editor makes NACs despite previously opining to the discussions. Till 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on the "Don't NAC close if you've !voted" - the above example of my NAC was one I !voted in ... the crucial decision for my close was that the nominator effectively changed his mind, resulting in a totally unanimous "Keep". However, that's the exception to the rule, even the one person implying "Keep, but I'd settle for a redirect" could be considered problematic. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• That wouldn't really be you closing it then. That would be a closure as withdrawn by nom. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• So, before we whip out the tar and feathers, shall we wait for a comment by Faustus? From my review, they haven't edited the project in almost 3 hours. As a minimum, I think we would need to see the following:
  • recognition that they cannot close AFD's they have been involved in
  • recognition that NAC's can only be done in extremely obvious cases
  • recognition that they have been warned about such closes/behaviour in the past
  • a voluntary decision to no longer perform NAC's until such a time as they are fully aware and willing/able to follow the policies
• If not, a NAC-ban will need to come into effect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight so that it's easy to follow. The discussions being put forward are:

• 2012-11-24: International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (AfD discussion) — still closed
• 2012-11-26: National Association for Gun Rights (AfD discussion) — closure self-reverted
• User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/November#RE: National Association for Gun Rights
• 2012-11-30: Fuzzball (sport) (AfD discussion) — still closed
• 2012-12-03: Albannach (AfD discussion) — closure reverted by Till
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Faustus37#Oppose

Anything else? Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Might also be worth making a note of Faustus37's AfD stats, which shows about 74% accuracy over 74 AfDs. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• How much might that percent be boosted by the fact he closed a number of them that he commented in. In other words of course he has a good percent when he is closing them to match his comments. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that "shocking" isn't the most appropriate description, but this does seem to be the right place to have brought the matter.
  1. Regarding NACs, IME there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate. (WP:NACD states Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. - emphasis added). But what's clear is that WP:INVOLVED states In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. - again, emphasis added. I believe there can be common sense exceptions to this (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breyer horse is one which I seem to have so far escaped a wrist-slapping for (and with hindsight, I should have referred to the snowball clause)... but I challenge anyone to claim that any reasonable editor could have arrived at a different conclusion in that particular case).
  2. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights, this comment (Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus ...) surprised me at the time, considering that the editor in question hadn't previously formally cast a !vote.
  3. Regarding the lack of backlog, I suppose that's a fair comment. However, it can be said that the assistance of non-admins at AfD (and elsewhere) frees up admins' time to undertake tasks which actually require the tools.
  4. I think that an acknowledgement from the user in question that some recent closes have been clearly inappropriate is desirable.
• -- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• My overall opinion of this is:
  1. No one, administrator or not, should be closing any AfD they are WP:INVOLVED in.
  2. I don't have a problem with non-admins closing AfDs with low participation as "no consensus." Non-admins usually should not be allowed to close any AfDs that require discretion and/or deletion, but in cases where it's just a trivial votecount, such as the already accepted case of WP:SNOW keep, they should be allowed to do so. If an AfD has a single "delete" !vote and a single "keep" !vote after two relists, it can hardly be closed as anything other than "no consensus WP:NPASR."
  3. The use of "shocking" does seem a bit sensationalistic and unnecessary, per above. Just call it inappropriate or involved.
• King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'd just like to add that if I'd also been involved in the subject matter/editing of Breyer Horse, then I obviously wouldn't have closed it. -- Trevj (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Of course, withdrawn AfDs can be closed by anyone (as long as there are no outstanding "delete" !votes). In fact, why nominators don't just close it themselves is beyond me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Precisely to avoid any claims of "shocking" behaviour because they dared to close an AfD started by themselves. KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• As stated above, perhaps if Faustus37 (talk · contribs) acknowledges that their behaviour was inappropriate and will not be repeated again, we can call this a day and move on. If not, it appears that more serious action will need to be taken to address the issue. Till 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As someone who have NAC closed "no consensus WP:NPASR" in a number of AfDs, I'm obviously believe it is not a problem in clear cases. Regarding the original AfD in question, Faustus37 shouldn't have closed it given he or she had !voted in it that we all agree, but the no consensus closed itself wouldn't had been that unreasonable if the 3rd relist had been allowed to run for the full 7 days, and the only comments are the nom, a weak delete and a weak keep. -- KTC (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Taking the recent discussions summarised by Uncle G in turn, my thoughts are as follows:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • While not involved in that discussion, the user did also !voted keep at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012, which was linked to in the close.
     • Closed inappropriately, as an editor who was loosely involved in recent discussions in the subject area.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Not closed inappropriately, but probably came to the wrong conclusion, as discussed above.
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzball (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Not closed inappropriately, but possibly came to the wrong conclusion: after a brief look, this seems to me more like no consensus than keep - relisting could have been considered, although there may have been little merit in this case.
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albannach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Closed inappropriately as an involved editor.
     • Per WP:NACD, Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. (emphasis added), which I read as specifying that non-admins shouldn't reopen inappropriate closes but should seek advice.

-- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• He was involved for #1. He was the very first user to !vote keep. Till 11:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  You're right - sorry for not double-checking before clicking Save! -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not closed inappropriately??? Per my link above [93], he closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights as Keep with 4 Keeps and 7 Deletes, including a number of editors who suggested it should actually be speedied, and only later reversed that and re-listed after being called out on it. WP:NAC is very clear that this is the sort of debate that shouldn't be closed as NAC, even if they'd got it right. If that one isn't a clear sign that the editor isn't competent to close AfDs, I don't know what is. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the process of closing it, i.e. not being obviously involved at that point. As you've pointed out, the conclusion stated in the close was inappropriate, which is why it was initially questioned. As has been said before, there doesn't seem to be general consensus in the community about what is and isn't appropriate in terms of non-admin closures. The adminship tools can be granted to an editor with little AfD experience - e.g. if they state no intention to work there - but that doesn't preclude them from working there in the future. Sometimes some admins close in questionable ways (you're only human, and of course mistakes/misunderstandings happen). Being an admin doesn't automatically mean that all closes performed will more accurately reflect consensus.

  Having said all that, I do agree that the editor hasn't exactly shown the competence required to close contentious AfDs, and should proceed with caution for some time. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Take a day off and look what happens. (1) I truly apologize for the NAC for Albannach and others I voted in beforehand. There's really no excuse other than it was a stupid indiscretion on my part. It won't happen again. (2) I wouldn't put too much into my ill-fated admin application. That was made several months ago before I had any real experience in "behind the scenes" Wikipedia tasks. Frankly it was also a bit over-emotional on my part. One can safely say I've become significantly less radical since then. (3) In any event, given that my NACs are clearly causing more problem than they're solving, I'm simply not going to do them anymore. I'm just glad I didn't do anything outrageous. Faustus37 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 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 review of possible misuse of Administrator privileges by Administrator KillerChihuahua

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 several concerns regarding possible misuse of Administrator privileges by KillerChihuahua, including:

1. Imposition of a sanction ex post facto.

KillerChihuahua placed an editing restriction based on an edit of mine that had already been retracted and reversed before the sanction was imposed.

My edit that prompted the edit restriction is here.

KillerChihuahua's sanction is noted at the top of this section on my Talk page, or, here.

I had already acknowledged and apologized for my editing mistake, and I made sure it was corrected -- at 02:06, 28 October 2012 diff.

KillerChihuahua's sanction was imposed after this the following day -- at 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Diff.

Also, the length of the editing restriction was not specific, but was "for a period of approximately 2 months" (see here).

I requested several times that KillerChihuahua reverse the editing restriction she imposed. However, KillerChihuahua refused to acknowledge that it was inappropriate to apply a sanction ex post facto. The history of our discussion about this on my Talk page can be viewed here.

2. Misuse of Administrator privileges: biased application of warnings and sanctions.

I perceive that this is but one example of KillerChihuahua applying WP policies in a biased and selective manner for this article. I find this particularly egregious behavior displayed by a WP Administrator, especially given the controversial subject matter of the WP article in question (Men's Rights Movement).

This is also exemplified by her comments on my Talk page here and here.

This bias is further documented on the Log of Sanctions wherein she reserves warnings primarily to those editors who attempt to add relevant and sourced material generally supportive of the Men's Rights Movement, while editors contributing pro-feminist critiques of the topic do not receive the same level of intense scrutiny. This bias has also been noted by another editor here.

Additionally, KillerChihuahua terminated a Talk Page discussion about this very issue of bias on the article Talk Page. I had posed for disucssion: "Is the article a neutral and an accurate overview of the MRM and the men's rights for which it advocates?" This was followed by comments from editors offering very differing opinions about this issue here. I believe the rationale for this termination of the Talk page discussion was based on a pretense that further exemplified biased policing of this article.

KillerChihuahua has for quite a long time policed this article, and it appears to me that she looks for pretenses to apply warnings or sanctions primarily to those editors who do not edit and contribute content from a pro-feminist / anti-Men's Rights Movement perspective on the topic. Again, this concern is echoed by another editor here.

3. Misuse of Administrator privileges: hostile and disrespectful tone

I have concerns about the civility and respectfulness of this Administrator (per WP policy: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."). Again, see our discussion on my Talk page here and here where I repeatedly pointed out what I perceived to be excessive hostility.

I request that KillerChihuahua's privileges as an Administrator be reviewed for possible biased application of warnings and sanctions on this controversial article (and possibly others), and, for showing inappropriate hostility an editor(s). Memills (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2012 (CST)

• Endorse the need for thorough review of this administrator. Belchfire-TALK 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disclosure: Belchfire has been warned by me for his actions on Men's rights movement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment KC is quite active in this 'area' of Wikipedia (I have no idea how to categorize it, but a look at their contribs should make it clear what I mean). So it might be best if they refrain from admin actions in these related articles. Arkon (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Please provide a diff, thank you. To the best of my knowledge I have made no edits which were not in my role as neutral admin enforcing probation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  A diff of what? Do you need me to list articles that fit into this 'area' that I mentioned? Arkon (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  A diff of me making an edit showing involvement beyond enforcing probation and trying to help editors with policy, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  I made no such claim, so no. Arkon (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Then what did you mean by "KC is quite active in this 'area'....[should] refrain from admin actions" - I can see no other way to read that than that you are saying I am involved. Please clarify, post a diff, or strike your sentence. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  I meant exactly that. You are quite active in that 'area'. Which again can be seen by looking at your contribs, be it unitewomen.org, war on women, men's rights (This is a quick glance over your last month or so). One could argue that these are unrelated, but I don't by it. The 'might be best' part of comment also means exactly that. Arkon (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  So provide a diff. Otherwise, your statement is without merit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Again, you want a diff for -what-? That you've edited the articles I mentioned? I can certainly do that. Arkon (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  You hinted that KillerChihuahua is WP:INVOLVED "KC is quite active in this 'area' of Wikipedia". Since she disagrees with this claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it, or retract it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Which has been done when I listed articles from this 'area' in the comments above. Arkon (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  You need to provide a diff of me editing an article in the area of Men's rights movement, and two of the articles you mention do not qualify. you did not list "articles" you listed one article which is in that topic area, and two which are not, and provided no diffs at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Sigh, let me paste my original comment again. KC is quite active in this 'area' of Wikipedia (I have no idea how to categorize it, but a look at their contribs should make it clear what I mean). I mentioned 3 articles above, one in which you are acting as an admin, the others as an editor, I also mentioned this is just from the last month or so. If you wish to argue that Men's Rights, unitewomen.org, and War on Women are completely unrelated, I am certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I believe it is quite clear that they are all gender/political issues and therefore in the same 'area'. The end. Arkon (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ditto. I don't know KillerChihuahua from Adam (or Eve), but prima facie this is suggestive and hollow. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Then perhaps you should endevour to learn about people before commenting. Arkon (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Or you should provide some evidence that warrants the slippage from "edits in this area" to "can't function objectively in this area as an administrator". Drmies (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I haven't even "edited in this area" as War on Women is politics and Women, not Men's rights movement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Good thing I never said that, then. Arkon (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  If you fail to see the connection, I may need to revise my 'might be best' to your inferred 'should'. Arkon (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  They do not fall under the umbrella of "Men's rights movement, broadly construed" I assure you that anyone attempting to enforce the MRM probation on the WOW article would be swiftly advised of their error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you would stop arguing against things that I never said. Arkon (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) tl;dr. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. (I wouldn't be surprised if Memills ended up with either a topic ban or a community ban.) Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, that won't happen unless admins actually go read User talk:Memills from A friendly notice to the end. Admins are busy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. After being blocked for his POV edits on Men's rights movement, he showed some understanding that he had not been adhering to the wikipedia guidelines for editing. Unfortunately after that, he back-tracked. With this histrionic outburst/rant, he shows that he has no understanding of the basic editing principles of WP. Hence the possibility of some kind of editing restriction. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I note that User:Cybermud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). the editor who is offered as agreeing with Memill's concerns, has been blocked for his actions on Men's rights movement. Hardly a neutral opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Even though this isn't a vote, I still !vote against any sanction, or any review even, of KillerChihuhua's actions. Looking at his warnings, he's done nothing wrong. He enforced article probation, and if that angered an editor, well, too bad. Probation exists for a reason, and if the editor doesn't like it that doesn't mean come to AN/I. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 'She' not 'he'. Mathsci (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• No. Articles that are so frequently subject to tendentious editing (such as this one) need firm guardrails to protect the neutrality of the content and to ensure other editors aren't swept-up into the inevitable poisonous cycle that comes very quickly when point-of-view pushers are given virtually any leeway. Several of your edits have been poorly considered. After being advised, several times, to revisit your editing, you went further still. I'm not of the opinion that your simply "reversing and retracting" your subsequent bad edit provides immunity from the restrictions that you were told would be forthcoming if you edited further towards the cliff (which you did). User:KillerChihuahua wasn't being arbitrary and you shouldn't have been taken by surprise. I am not categorically calling your editing tendentious, but several of your edits were close enough, and came after sufficient warning, to reasonably justify restrictions. jæs (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

−

• Question Can somone point me to a diff that places these paternity/men's rights related articles under discretionary sanctions?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is linked on the Men's rights movement talk page, but here is the direct link: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You actually want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Community topic probation. As long as people remember to use internal links, Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Men's rights/Article probation takes one right to it. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Uncle G, I misread the question. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks both of you. I've examined the sanctions, warnings and diffs. There is no ex post facto enforcement by KC. The warning was properly given. The fact that Memills apologized for his edit, and if we AGF that he intended to self-revert before someone else reverted him doesn't excuse his actions. KC was well within her right to issue the sanction. As for the length of the sanction, it was until the end of the year, which in my calender means sanctions end on 12/31/2012 @ 11:59:59PM UTC.  little green rosetta(talk)
        central scrutinizer  20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still at a loss as to what KillerChihuahua is meant to have done that was inappropriate? From two of the linked discussions, I think KillerChihuaha has things right here: User_talk:Memills#Editing_restriction_on_Men.27s_rights_movement.2C_broadly_construed, and I fail to see the issue here: User_talk:Memills#Be_cautious. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• If I am not mistaken it appears that Memill believes that the mistake they made that gained them the sanctions was not worth the sanction given because someone else reverted or fixed the edit. Memill feels that KC is involved, probably due to the block they recieved earlier for one week by the same admin. Their history shows a lack of understanding on how to deal with blocks and bans and it appears the editor has made a number of mistakes when requesting sanctions be lifted, this being just one.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse actions by KillerChihuahua and move to close this thread by Memills. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 4 December 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.

Sock farm builder?

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.

---

Curious series of account creations...

• Smelly Smaug (talk · contribs)
• King Thorin Oakshield (talk · contribs)
• Saruman the white wizard (talk · contribs)
• Good Gandalf the grey (talk · contribs)
• Radagast the brown bear (talk · contribs)

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sure--Tolkien is still hip. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hip? That term dates you Drmies. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't flip your wig! It's copacetic! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Warn us when the Sacksville-Bagginses start to show up.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer 
• It's possible that it's just a coincidence, given that the movie is coming out soon, but I'd keep an eye on the accounts nonetheless (it probably isn't a coincidence, though). However, if it is a sock farm, it isn't a very good one...everyone knows Beorn was the bear, not Radagast. - SudoGhost 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering the accounts were created in rapid succession to each other, within minutes, I seriously doubt it's coincidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, I missed the part about the timing of the accounts. That makes it much more obvious. - SudoGhost 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And it's Thorin Oakenshield. Jeez, what a scrub. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Amadscientist, it has been established at User talk:Drmies/Archive 40#sub unit or not? that Drmies is no square and has his finger firmly on the beat of popular youth culture. As such, xe surely knows that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey goes on general release within the fortnight. After all, Drmies digs all of that groovy modern lit, man. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • That's heavy man. Once activity begins we will know for sure, but seriously...I note that the filing editor did not notify each one of the editors (accounts). Should that have been done. Not a real big deal for me....I always seem to forget. But below I see that one at least has begun editing. Lets see what they are up to.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • With a dancing editor like that it's hard to know which account to notify, and notifying all of them can be hard to keep up on them. As soon as one began editing, I notified that one. See User talk:Smelly Smaug. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Bard the bad bowman (talk · contribs). Anyway, {{checkuser needed}} to determine whose socks these are. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• (@Uncle G) Like --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Smelly Smaug (talk · contribs) now vandalising multiple articles. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone at SPI is on it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them all for vandalism and sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncle G is a just a frood that knows where his towel's at... wait, wrong fandom... --MASEM (t) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• What? Bilbo has diodes down his left side? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bilbo is a paranoid robot/android? That explains... nothing. Never mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there some well-known ANI drama junkie named after a Tolkien character? Seems awful suspicious to me. Jester of the court (sock) 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that guy's a nobody. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:18, 4 December 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.

Disruption by ipsock (open proxy) of Echigo mole

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.

---

• 58.68.21.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

This is the second time Echigo mole has used an open proxy from Chennai in the last few days. This time, as well as trolling on ACE2012 discussion pages, they are removing user page tags for ipsocks of Mikemikev (recommended by Deskana) and from their own open proxy user pages. Please could an administrator block this account, which is now disruptively edit warring on Jclemens' ACE2012 discussion page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If Mathsci is aware of the WP:HUSH policy, perhaps he would like to explain how he justifies tagging accounts as sockpuppets that he has never even reported at SPI. [94] --58.68.21.67 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)WP:DENY per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This banned user cannot comment on the SPI page because it is indefinitely semiprotected (and rightly so given his capacity for trolling). To comment, he would have to use another of his named sockpuppet accounts, which would then be blocked by a CU. He is currently engaged in mindless reverting of tags on 4 ipuser pages. Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

More of the same disruption with new open proxies / ipsocks

• 209.13.157.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.106.99.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.6.52.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 115.87.217.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Echigo mole has just found a new open proxy with which to pollute this site with his trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And a second one. Please could they be blocked per WP:DUCK, since they're continuing the previous proxy's mindless disruption and trolling. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And a third ipsock has now appeared. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And another. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All now blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 3 December 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.

Asking someone to review my actions at Ralph Drollinger

Several times, User:AccuracyInPosting has tried to add this image to the Ralph Drollinger page (most recently, [95]), and several times, I have removed it (most recently, [96]). I can't even find the image at Ralph Drollinger.com, let alone a statement about the public domain. I've left multiple messages about the image at User talk:AccuracyInPosting, but I haven't received any real clarification on the matter.

I do suspect that User:AccuracyInPosting is associated with Drollinger - just look at his edit history. However, he has made statements such as this ("I do not work for Drollinger, and the fact that you would ask such a question serves to reveal your premeditated mindset.") Thus, I can't just assume we can use the image, can I? Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct we cannot assume that we can use the image. There's no evidence that the photo is in the public domain as claimed. The copyright for the image is owned by whoever took the photo unless it has specifically been released under license. The image qualifies for speedy deletion as {{Di-no permission}}. I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the image and notified the uploader. The uploader has seven days to try to get an WP:OTRS ticket in place for the file. If no OTRS ticket is forthcoming, the pic will be deleted in seven days. User:Orangemike is a highly experienced admin and he can likely help with the BLP and COI issues you are facing on that article. -- Dianna (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your actions are fine. There's no release on the page they cited; from their talk page, it appears that AccuracyInPosting clearly does not understand the concept of copyright. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually at the bottom of the page on RalphDrollinger.com , there is a release allowing Wikipedia to use his image. It's not the same image, of course, but it's still him and the release on the bottom of the page doesn't necessarily state that he allows only that image on the website. Just my .02  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Here it is in fact. That's jolly decent of him isn't it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't meet Wikipedia's licensing requirements, does it? Try Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The particular image in question needs to be explicitly released under an acceptable licence. Releasing to Commons would be preferable, because any free license used here would AFAIK be appropriate for transfer anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the photograph is not the copyright holder and is not in a position to release it. The original photographer (or in some cases the photography studio) is the copyright holder. So this note on the website is inadequate under copyright law. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting development. I don't think that message was there before. If it was, I apologize for missing it. But as others have said, it doesn't resolve the situation by itself. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Again

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

---

I like Till (talk · contribs) and I believe he's a very good user, but calling another user a massive hypocrite is way beyond the boundaries of civility, regardless of Status (talk · contribs) actions. I thought this was over for good and we could all continue to edit as we used to. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of hypocrisy: "A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for." A hypocrite is someone who indulges in hypocrisy. He got upset when someone called him blind, when he did the same thing to me. He is thus a hypocrite. This isn't uncivil or a personal attack, it's a fact. End of. Till 03:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tilll. The issue isn't if Status is a hypocrite or not. He can perfectly be a hypocrite and that's his business. The issue you calling him that way. Actually is not Status, is anyone, regardless of the deffinition. [Definition-wise, if you discover that one female user is a real-life prostitute, would you call her "a massive prostitute" on someone else's talk page?]... — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Status has hastily retired from the project. I believe his last edit outside his userspace was this, a note to Dennis Brown. Go Phightins! 03:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let us take a look at the evidence. Here is his Status' rant about being called blind by another user, in which he says: "When people literally tell you that you're a "blind", "ignorant" and inexperienced user..." Now take a look at what he wrote to me: "You're clearly blind", with the edit summary "get your eyes fixed". Point proven about his hypocrisy. I have no further comments regarding this ridiculous and unnecessary thread. Till 03:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Calling someone a hypocrite is at most a bit rude, it is nothing that requires intervention or sanction. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, this is starting to become a childish playground fight, but I believe Status is also at fault here as he assumed bad faith and made assumptions and comments/personal attacks when I tried to improve the Jennifer Lopez article. He has repeatedly reverted my good faith changes (I think he violated 3RR as well), saying that I am trying to add original research when he is the one restoring the original research and single-source opinions back into the article (which Arre 9 also did.) I think I'm being dragged into this issue, but I'm just bringing these up. I've actually made some personal attacks against Status, but I've retracted/refactored them. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Status needs to stop running to Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) whenever he gets upset, and handle this situation like a mature, reasonable editor. Getting Hahc to open such a nonsense, unactionable, time-wasting ANI thread against me is pretty ridiculous as well. Till 04:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Till, I'm sorry if you've had conflicts with Status in the past, but I am uninvolved in any prior issues you may have experienced. I don't like the fact that you're trying to add in personal grievances you may have against Status, and I think it is bordering on defamation. I am merely reporting what I've experienced about Status's behavior against me and other editors on the article, and what I've gathered is that he makes bad faith assumptions and says that other editors are trying to add OR/POV/incorrect statements into "his" article (he might have an ownership problem with pages on his watchlist or pages he frequently edits). He might need to be temp blocked/topic banned to return to being civil or assuming good faith, but now the block isn't necessary since he's pre-emptively announced (temporary) retirement. Of course, I may need a break as well, but I don't think I'll need enforcement. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Tarc here, at least to the extent that I disagree with the idea that it was "beyond the boundaries of civility". It is hypocritical to call someone blind and then complain about calling people blind. We're all hypocritical at times though so all I see is overreactions from all sides. No sanctions are needed for anybody here. Ryan Vesey 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• M0rphzone, this isn't a personal attack nor is this; In the edit, Status was reverting your edit (one of which he credited as 'good faith') because it just didn't flow correctly "Jennifer Lopez is an American entertainer and one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood." isn't a great opening line. Apart from this, I believe M0rphzone was concerned for the article's best interest. Till, I'm not judging your nor do I know much about this situation but what you're basically saying (by referring to Status as a hypocrite and implying that he doesn't have the right to be upset because he said one of those words to you in a past discussion) is that it's okay that M0rphzone called Status 'un-experienced', 'blind', etc. Try to handle the discussion in a different way apart from referring to another user as a 'massive hypocrite'; maybe making a note of Status' past action would be less insulting and more digestible/civil? Arre 04:37, 5 December 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.

Slew of bad faith edits by editor Konullu

User Konullu has went on a rather wild editing spree, adding unsubstantiated POV tags to a large number of articles relating to Armenia/Armenians. He has added considerably incendiary material on the Armenian Genocide, in a vain and relatively pointless attempt to mitigate and cast doubt on its veracity. The same material has been copy + pasted onto the article on Armenia, Armenian resistance (1914–1918), Greater Armenia (political concept), the Armenian Highland, stretching the imagination on how this information can even considered remotely relevant. I think the sheer volume of these edits are enough evidence to warrant some sort of action. I do not think this editor is interested in discussing his edits; otherwise, he could have started on one article and opened up a discussion. No such discussion has been started and I and a few other editors have largely reverted every addition he has made. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless Konullu starts edit warring following getting reverted, I don't see any need for action at this time. Being bold, getting reverted if someone disagrees, and sitting down to talk is something we've always rather encouraged. Iff he's to start edit warring, I'd support applying the WP:ARBAA2 restrictions, but I don't see any indication that's happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal notice, WMF involvement?

New user Shadow003 (talk · contribs) requested indefinite semi-protection of Flavio Briatore saying that the article "contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation." Shadow003's edits to the article have twice been reverted as removing sourced information. I declined semi-protection, which would not solve anything, and have posted at WP:BLPN#Flavio Briatore to get more eyes on the article.

I take this as a legal notice rather than a threat, but do we need to involve the Foundation? JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it's a legal threat - intended to chill. If Legal had heard about it, they would have protected or taken other office-action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sounds almost like Mr. Briatore's lawyer has already involved the foundation from what Shadow003 said, so it might be nice to have a comment from the foundation. I would agree, though, that it seems more a notice than a threat (at least from a blocking standpoint). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(Aseeming legal notice have indeed been served to WMF) If WMF's lawyers consider there's any action that needs to be taken, then office action will be invoked. In the mean time, just decline and move on. -- KTC (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on User talk:Geoffbrigham to close the loop. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think our policy is perfectly clear on this, and the editor should be blocked immediately. His comments are clearly designed to change the article by fiat, rather than by consensus, in violation of NLT. What's more, NLT states that when legal action is ongoing, the editor is required to not edit wikipedia until the legal matter is resolved. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. They were just told on their talk page they didn't post a legal threat. NE Ent 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is a thinly veiled threat. Should be blocked until things are figured out and legal threat resolved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I'm saying that was incorrect. Indeed, if they had not been told that, I would have blocked them myself. {{uw-lblock}} specifically states "you have been blocked for making legal threats or taking legal action" (emphasis mine) Worm^TT(talk) 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy is pretty clear: If the consensus is their request was a legal threat, they should first be asked to retract it, before blocking. NE Ent 14:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ent, policy is extremely clear on this matter, thou shalt not subvert Wikipedia's consensus driven process through legal means. Editors are of course allowed to take legal action (which this editor confirms has been taken), but whilst legal action is ongoing, the parties may not edit Wikipedia. We're not talking about someone who's just used legal terms (which is what that paragraph is refering to), we're talking about someone who has specifically retained a lawyer, written to the foundation and is trying to subvert process. What more do you want? Worm^TT(talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

JohnCD might wish to amend his statement on Shadow's page to "though I accept that you perhaps did not intend to make one". Indeed, I would also have been likely to block, but I think some discussion with them might help - I also smell some WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Amended as BW suggests. I am prepared to be over-ruled if there is consensus to block, but WP:NLT says go to the Foundation and that's what they have done, or say they have done. That isn't subverting process, that's what process tells them to do. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers JohnCD. I'm in the middle of writing a note to the editor - explaining matters, which can include blocking should consensus here be in favour of that. By subverting the process, I was referring to the "consensus driven content process" rather than the legal process. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of "we" [97] also raises the possibility this is a role account; the editor should also be asked to clarify that. NE Ent 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general statement, many lawyers and law firms around the world have no familiarity with how Wikipedia works, nor is there any reason to expect them to. While we cannot simply change article content because some lawyer asks us to, there also is no advantage to our assuming that any mention of a lawyer reflects bad faith or a legal threat. Such editors need to have the collaborative nature of the editing model here explained, to be referred to OTRS, and to be advised that except in truly extraordinary circumstances (which as a practical matter almost never happen these days to the best of my knowledge), the Office does not get involved with article content. Starting off the discussion with a threat to block, while permissible within policy, may not be the most productive approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Brad, I generally find the threat to block (or indeed the block) necessary in NLT situations, but as always, it does depend on how it's explained. I've dropped a note on the talk page, I would have blocked with the note but didn't think it prudent in this situation. Worm^TT(talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• That doesn't look like a threat to me, it looks like an informational post from a third party, such as an Italian Wikipedia editor who has been dealing with the situation on it.wp. Better to just ask the person what their connection with the situation is, explaining the NLT policy. Added: Worm's usertalk to Shadow003 post is ok; shadow003 can clarify as required. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You should look harder. The same threat has been issued, and indeed the same cycle of events has already occurred, on the Italian Wikipedia a fortnight ago. Ironically, the Italian Wikipedia article, thanks to the back and forth as people didn't bother to fix things as they went along, now sports a notice about lacking sources and cites no sources at all, in place of the 16 sources that it cited before this began. I hope that history does not repeat itself in that respect on the English Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we tried ... NE Ent 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The intent to create a chilling effect in NE Ent's diff is clear now. I'm going to block per NLT, unless someone objects (or has done it already). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And blocked, with what is hopefully a polite message. As always, anyone should feel free to fix anything I did as necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you Writ keeper. Yes, that was indeed a boarderline legal threat that deserved the block. The editor can request unblock but this was not a person that just didn't realisw what they were saying or doing. It was meant to chill. Dang, am I sorry now I didn't support your RFA. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what did Wikimedia receive but Shadow001 did almost the same on it.wiki but, in addition, it also replaced page content with a promotional text. I rejected protection request and I tried to de-emphasize the text. It's definitely an example of media-maquillage but, imho, some request should be taken in consideration. --Vituzzu (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• For those who missed the cycle of events repeating: Vituzzu declining the protection request and editing the article on the Italian Wikipedia almost a fortnight ago. JohnCD declining the protection request here. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged canvassing by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

There is an ongoing dispute between myself and user Emmette Hernandez Coleman (latest summary of opinions here) on the general issue whether entity related articles can be referred to as Palestinian Authority or Palestinian territories. During many debates, which Emmette initiated on many related pages (like those [98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103]), he was suspected of canvassing and a complaint was issued on Administrator's noticeboard [104] on November 22, which however wasn't closed despite remarks by other editors. While meanwhile i took some time off the argument due to political developments - upgrade of Palestinian Authority to the State of Palestine, an administrator closed one of Emmette's initiated discussions of renaming Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority->"Human rights in the Palestinian territories" in his favor [105] (related to the canvassing case). I herewith request to investigate the canvassing case as summarized in the AN complaint [106], so other discussions where he is accused of canvassing will not be closed prior to an investigation.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When things "fall off" it's typically because no action will be taken. From what I recall of the situation, people on both sides of the argument had been notified, and thus it was not formally by the definition of WP:CANVASS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

First, i was advised to move the discussion here. Second, that is exactly the point - users only on one side were notified! Let me quote the original issue:Greyshark09 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"... a series of discussions/polls were launched by both of us on the talk page of the Palestinian National Authority article, during which user:Emmette resumed spamming my talk page, and hence i warned him on Nov.17 not to spam me for the second time [107]. On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions [108]. For a while, user:Emmette didn't make any suspicious moves, but suddenly on Nov.21 started a messaging campaign, apparently in a legal way [109] - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page [110]. Shortly after, on Nov.22, he however started blatantly and openly votestacking various users from different discussions, who would share his specific POV regarding the discussion/poll Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity, in a kind of attempt to change the opinion balance in this discussion:

First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page [111], but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread [112].

He also approached user:Int21h with the same request [113], but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread [114], but with an opposite opinion.

Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc [115], regarding his post on Pt/PNA [116].

So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) [117]. Since user:Emmette could not restraint himself from doing anything to "win" the discussion, and warnings didn't do any good, i ask for an official investigation on his actions.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)"

Unless you're in the mood for an WP:RFC/U or ArbCom, then there's no such thing as an "official investigation". You raised an issue on the noticeboard for urgent incidents. Nothing urgent was found in the brief investigations by a number of admins. It fell off the board as nothing to action. You now have other options. It's sadly that simple. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He may also bring it to WP:AE but he probably should first warn the users on the sanctions in the area--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Highly disruptive IP 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.

---

An unregistered editor whose IP Address is fixed, 14.200.28.81, has frequently vandalized the article for Christian Mortensen, and several other articles, for an extended period of time. Can a ban be imposed, to preempt any further mischief on the user's part? Thanks. KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a vandalism-only account. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given the IP editor a short block, but if they resume their disruption after it expires, please report them to WP:AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Note, dear editors: there was no account. If this starts again, report to AIV and consider asking for protection at RFPP. Thank you DoRD thank you DoRD, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 5 December 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.

Bad username

A new usernmae has been registered called User:Lionsystemss. Users single purpose is to edit Tau Gamma Phi and nominate it for deletion. User:Lionsystems (one s at the end) is a (spa) contributer at Tau Gamma Phi. Double s name appears disruptive, trying to look like the single s name. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Put {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page as a first step. If they persist in disruptive editing, take it to WP:UAA. I don't think any admin intervention is required just yet, but it may depend on this user's edit frequency. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Put the uw-username on as suggested. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In the afd in question User:Andy Dingley suggests we should "block that grossly bad faith username" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau Gamma Phi). I agree with his suggestion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We may well have a major sock issue here, or at the very least, a large influx of editors with a shared COI. User:TgpLionsystems is also an SPA that has only edited this page. User:Ribarch has made a single edit to the page, and nowhere else. User:Kepyas and User:Zebra1057 have made a multitude of edits to this article, but again, nowhere else. User:Sidenro and User:Wyzt have edited only at that page and a related page, Tau Gamma Sigma. User:TGPlink has made two edits here - also note the COI-suggesting username. In fact, there are several others going right back towards the beginning of this article - I got back to 2011 to find those, but I can see SPAs going back to 2006 in the history. And that's just looking at users in the Tau Gamma Phi... Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account which opened the AfD; it's a blatant attempt to impersonate. Plus an account whose first edit is to open an AfD is almost certainly a sock. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I take the sockfarm I believe I've found into its own AN/I, or can it be dealt with here? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin

This article came up in an September 2012 ANI discussion about promotional throwaway accounts. (wiki-pr.com was the subject of the original thread.) The article was created by a sock, but most of the content was added by User:Fountainflower in their first (and only) edit. The article looked great on the surface, with tons of citations for everything, but when you dug into the sources it was mostly sourced to blogs, Linkden, Twitter, and publications by or about the subject's company, Graphic.ly. Also when you started reading the actual text of the article it came off as very promotional. The subject himself is a CEO, and apparently one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. I'd guess that his notability is debatable. Anyway, the article was deleted near the end of September as "promotional".

Today the article was recreated in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (a new user with 51 edits) and marked as <d>"Reviewed"</d> patrolled less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (a user with 197 edits who has had an account for about 5 days and has <d>reviewed</d> patrolled about 50 other pages today). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along User:Denimd, a blocked sock of User:Bartlbs) basically rewrote the entire article to a more promotional sounding version. [118] Anyway, I suspect something hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. Apparently I'm not the only one who didn't know what to do. I went through the article and cut out all the sources to blogs, twitter, LinkedIn, other social media, and self-sourcing, and got rid of a lot of the peacocking too. There's not much of an article left [119] but it was an educational experience for me. Feel free to close this thread, but I believe that someday we're going to have to confront this problem. My feeling is that if we continue to allow companies to use "burner" accounts to create promotional fluff articles for their clients, they will keep earning money, and the practice will become more widespread. (Meanwhile the Wikipedia community continues to shrink.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article in good faith, though maybe a little precipitously, because the subject seemed to be notable and I couldn't spot any immediate problems with the article. As you point out I'm new to this whole reviewing thing and I'll be more careful in future! As far as I can see from your edits the problem I should have noted was that a lot of the sources seemed suspect. Smartse (talk · contribs) seemed to agree with me that the article didn't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, and I'm afraid I didn't think to check the page log for previous deletions. Thanks for flagging this up! --Noiratsi (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. A promotional page certainly isn't the worst thing that can happen to Wikipedia, so please don't let this deter you from page patrolling. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad username

A new usernmae has been registered called User:Lionsystemss. Users single purpose is to edit Tau Gamma Phi and nominate it for deletion. User:Lionsystems (one s at the end) is a (spa) contributer at Tau Gamma Phi. Double s name appears disruptive, trying to look like the single s name. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Put {{subst:uw-username}} on their talk page as a first step. If they persist in disruptive editing, take it to WP:UAA. I don't think any admin intervention is required just yet, but it may depend on this user's edit frequency. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Put the uw-username on as suggested. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In the afd in question User:Andy Dingley suggests we should "block that grossly bad faith username" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau Gamma Phi). I agree with his suggestion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We may well have a major sock issue here, or at the very least, a large influx of editors with a shared COI. User:TgpLionsystems is also an SPA that has only edited this page. User:Ribarch has made a single edit to the page, and nowhere else. User:Kepyas and User:Zebra1057 have made a multitude of edits to this article, but again, nowhere else. User:Sidenro and User:Wyzt have edited only at that page and a related page, Tau Gamma Sigma. User:TGPlink has made two edits here - also note the COI-suggesting username. In fact, there are several others going right back towards the beginning of this article - I got back to 2011 to find those, but I can see SPAs going back to 2006 in the history. And that's just looking at users in the Tau Gamma Phi... Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account which opened the AfD; it's a blatant attempt to impersonate. Plus an account whose first edit is to open an AfD is almost certainly a sock. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I take the sockfarm I believe I've found into its own AN/I, or can it be dealt with here? Lukeno94 (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin

This article came up in an September 2012 ANI discussion about promotional throwaway accounts. (wiki-pr.com was the subject of the original thread.) The article was created by a sock, but most of the content was added by User:Fountainflower in their first (and only) edit. The article looked great on the surface, with tons of citations for everything, but when you dug into the sources it was mostly sourced to blogs, Linkden, Twitter, and publications by or about the subject's company, Graphic.ly. Also when you started reading the actual text of the article it came off as very promotional. The subject himself is a CEO, and apparently one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. I'd guess that his notability is debatable. Anyway, the article was deleted near the end of September as "promotional".

Today the article was recreated in a single edit by User:Rudeerthanyou (a new user with 51 edits) and marked as <d>"Reviewed"</d> patrolled less than a minute later by User:Noiratsi (a user with 197 edits who has had an account for about 5 days and has <d>reviewed</d> patrolled about 50 other pages today). Rudeerthanyou has also been active on Graphic.ly where they (along User:Denimd, a blocked sock of User:Bartlbs) basically rewrote the entire article to a more promotional sounding version. [120] Anyway, I suspect something hinky is going on, and I'm not sure what to do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmph. Apparently I'm not the only one who didn't know what to do. I went through the article and cut out all the sources to blogs, twitter, LinkedIn, other social media, and self-sourcing, and got rid of a lot of the peacocking too. There's not much of an article left [121] but it was an educational experience for me. Feel free to close this thread, but I believe that someday we're going to have to confront this problem. My feeling is that if we continue to allow companies to use "burner" accounts to create promotional fluff articles for their clients, they will keep earning money, and the practice will become more widespread. (Meanwhile the Wikipedia community continues to shrink.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article in good faith, though maybe a little precipitously, because the subject seemed to be notable and I couldn't spot any immediate problems with the article. As you point out I'm new to this whole reviewing thing and I'll be more careful in future! As far as I can see from your edits the problem I should have noted was that a lot of the sources seemed suspect. Smartse (talk · contribs) seemed to agree with me that the article didn't quite meet WP:CSD#G11, and I'm afraid I didn't think to check the page log for previous deletions. Thanks for flagging this up! --Noiratsi (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. A promotional page certainly isn't the worst thing that can happen to Wikipedia, so please don't let this deter you from page patrolling. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba

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.

---

Confirmed Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet Pablo.morales.la.bomba (talk · contribs) has violated the conditions of the standard offer by leaving this personal-attack edit summary on his talk page after having been previously warned that the editing restriction in the standard offer apply to his own talk page as well, and that he would lose talk page access if he did not comply. (Which means he was actually eligible for revocation when he removed that very warning, but this mudslinging should seal the deal.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater is also trying to resurrect a blocked sockpuppet here after agreeing to the standard offer. 72Dino (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary. NE Ent 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have revoked User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba's talk page access for his continued abuse of the unblock system and uncivil comments being made in edit summaries. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:14, 6 December 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.

Threat of Deployment of Law Enforcement Agencies by User/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.

---

I am here to notify the administrators of Wikipedia that I am receiving public threats of having law enforcement agencies deployed against me by the user/IP 82.73.35.159. I came to contact of the mentioned user while editing the article Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. The user seems to have abruptly undone a number of my edits, which earned him a ban by a WP administrator. Now the user seems to have come back from the ban and reappeared in the article’s talk page to threaten me personally. The user also mentions about my family in the threat and defamatorily categorizes them to substantiate the threat made at me. I request for attention of the administrators in the matter. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 16:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the comment by the IP, and I don't read it as a threat of physical harm. If read literally, it's a statement of fact that the IP has contacted the police. It's not an appropriate comment to make at Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble classifying it as a legal threat or a threat of harm; however, it is a personal attack. The article, which has a contentious history and has been a subject here before, has been semi-protected against roving IPs, but, of course, that doesn't stop them from posting on the talk page. The comment should probably simply be removed and the editor warned, but I'll let others comment first.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not a legal threat; but clearly intended to intimidate. Improper employment of the article talk page, altogether. I don't know if the connection the IP made is outing as I have no idea if the OP has self-identified. If not, the IP is seriously missing the point of our processes. Tiderolls 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a lot of identifying information on their user page, including a link to his LinkedIn profile. At the same time, I don't know if the material the IP refers to is disclosed somewhere by the OP (he has a lot of "external links" about himself on his user page).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In my opinion it seems an effective legal threat; in some areas you might have a lawyer send a cease and desist, and in others you call the police and get them to knock on doors. However, I'm not very experienced in these issues, but just wanted to give my impression. a13ean (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with a13ean. I don't see that criminal law is exempted from WP:LEGAL, and the IP's talk of defamation and settling personal scores is indistinguishable from the language of a normal legal threat. If you read the rationale for the policy, you will clearly see that this is exactly the sort of thing that the policy was created to deal with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where reasonable editors are going to disagree as to how to characterize the IP's comments. However, I've removed the comments from the talk page and warned the IP that the comments constitute a legal threat and/or a personal attack, in either event impermissible, and that a repetition will result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. a13ean (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Who cares if it's a legal threat or not, look at the rationale for why we have WP:LEGAL: It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith. This is clearly the intention here; saying you have called the police on someone is clearly aimed at creating a chilling effect in a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 6 December 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.

Some help with a suspiciously named new user account and some IP 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.

---

Recently these two IPs 128.163.8.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 139.55.32.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (both geolocated to Lexington, Kentucky area) seem to have a fascination with reverting edits of mine(unexplained removal of infoboxes, etc), some are same article. Now, a brand new account Psedonymbosch (talk · contribs) (which is suspiciously named compared to my user name Heironymous Rowe) is making a similar edit to a related article (all are related archaeological sites). Someone is here to troll me. Thoughts? Any actions to be taken? Heiro 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I left the new editor a warning. I have blocked one of the IPs--the other one was not exclusively after you. I gotta run, but if you explain how that user name compares to yours, perhaps the next admin will swing the block hammer. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I guess it's something to do with Heironymous Bosch, with Psedonym being a similar misspelling of "Pseudonym" as Heironymous is to "Anonymous" (though perhaps not Anonymous --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, nothing to do with Anonymous, I've had this internet handle for years longer than they have existed. It is close to my real name (initials anyway) and I am a professional artist, plus it was a nickname I had in HS many moons ago. Heiro 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Theirs is "Psedonymbosch" or "Pseudonym Bosch", mine is "Heironymous Rowe", and then there is the artist Hieronymus Bosch, which is why I think they created this account to harass me. Heiro 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It may just be a kid who's read books by Pseudonymous Bosch. Deor (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have thought that if they had made edits with the named account before switching to the IPs, but it was vice versa, which makes me think they created the named account after I left them several warnings at the IP talk pages. Heiro 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently blocked for sockpuppetry now, along with 2 other accounts, one of which I had had recent interactions with, so I guess that's why I was targeted for this nonsense. Anyone should feel free to close this now so it can be archived. Heiro 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Article Ways of Seeing being used by a class?

Today there have been a large number of new accounts that have been editing this article. 14 18 20 22 different new accounts have been adding material. All the material is uncited, and much of it is synthesis that does not rely on any source for such synthesis. I've reverted once, but the additions continue to be added to the article. I've contacted each account that has been doing this with no response (example). Thoughts? Temporary semi-protection? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've put in an RFPP [122]. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and looked, and just had to revert a plot summary that wasn't encyclopedic tone or referenced or anything at all.. I see a few options, either a class, a group of friends, an edit-a-thon for new users, extreme socking (AGF of course), etc... I'd support semi/full protection, or at the very least PC (but with such a high EC maybe not good). I'm watchlisting this so I could handle the PCs gwickwire^talk_edits 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My bet is a class, so where's the supervision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know. Still, not a single account has been willing to communicate. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Drmies protected it now [123]. Curious to see if that sparks discussion from them or not. Hopefully, they don't move on to another article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's a class, my assumption is that it's one that the instructor has not even bothered to contact WMF/WP or look around for our policies on classes editing; he just told his students go make an account and edit. I'll look through some contribs and see if I can't ascertain the supervisor's account (if they communicate with xe through xe's talkpage here) NOTE: One of the users may actually be in #wikipedia-en-help, can't tell if it's one from this class though. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is a class. Finally got some communication from one of them [124]. I've invited them here (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That explains it. Well, imo, the person I'm helping in IRC isn't going to be the same class. Thanks Drmies gwickwire^talk_edits 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

[ec: "where's the supervision?"] It's right here, BMK: I've protected it. Class dismissed, until it can discuss matters on the talk page, with supervision. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get the instructor to stop what they are doing, via the one account that has communicated (see User talk:Beliveau). I'm trying to get the instructor to review Wikipedia:School and university projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I have contacted the class and asked them to discontinue contributing to the page. I thought the contribution process was less cumbersome, and the page really needed expansion.I have to say that the more complex you make this the less they can get involved in the wikipedia project.Beliveau (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau Yes I am the instructor. Earlier this afternoon, I went to the page and posted an addition 9which is the first one that you probably went back and removed.) I saw it on the page, and then in class demonstrated the posting and the history page. I asked them to set up accounts and then read though the existing "Ways of Seeing" page and make a contribution. (We have been studying the book and the series for the last three weeks.) They started to post, and then the flurry of activity and the removals occurred. The contributions I have seen from the students are a good start for them to get involved, but they cannot interact if all the posting are pulled. what is it that they need to include for their contributions to follow wikipedia guidelines? Remember that they are new at this, I am new at using this in class, and I would like to learn how to get students involved, but really in the "without facilitators" structure...at least at this point. If I can get a handle on how to teach with it, I can devote more time to the incorporation in the future, but this was really a brief extra credit way of getting them involved. Beliveau (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beliveau (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

Was my user account terminated for some reason? I had to re-start a new page.Beliveau (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)beliveau

• No it wasn't--you never had a user page. Hi Beliveau. The problem is that the content being added didn't really improve the article: it was mostly rather lengthy plot summary that might be relevant in a book report or so, but not in an encyclopedic article, where plot summary needs to be dry and concise. In one of the edits the cover was described at length--that is not usually the kind of thing that's helpful to a reader of an encyclopedic article, especially not if it comes with analysis. A short and to-the-point plot summary can often go without secondary sources, but analysis cannot: it's original research (WP:OR), and that's not what an encyclopedia should contain. Now, I think this is best handled on the article talk page; if a post there does not get a quick response one can always type {{helpme}} on it and someone will come along. I've protected the article since the flurry was considered disruptive (a judgment call); if discussion on the talk page is positive and can lead to article improvement, that's easily lifted and I will do so right now, in the anticipation of article edits being preceded by talk page discussion and being in accordance with various Wikipedia guidelines, in particular the linked one on original research, and probably the ones on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources WP:RS). Thanks, and let us know if we can help. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's that time of year again. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

" Women put themselves on a Pedi stole..." was my favourite. The best thing to do would be to copy the article to a sub-page of your user page, and play with it there. Let us know if you don't know how to do this. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Now happening at Talk:Ways of Seeing/Proposed revisions to Ways of Seeing article, with responsive instructor. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012: copyvio immediately following end of 72-hour block

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.

---

Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked 3 days ago because of repeated copyright violations. Either he made a sincere attempt to understand why he was blocked and resolved to change his editing behaviour, or he did not, or maybe somewhere in between. Today, after the block was lifted, he made this edit to Battle of Aleppo (2012), 5 Dec 2012, citing a NOW Lebanon article (NOW Lebanon).

• Deonis 2012's text: "... Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."
• NOW Lebanon's text: "Seven people were killed in the Syrian regime’s shelling of the Aleppo neighborhood of Bustan al-Qasr, activists said."

IMHO both the "did not" and "somewhere in between" hypotheses are excluded. Quotation marks are not used, the WP:WEASEL word "regime" is retained, and there is no attempt to summarise or place the information in the context of the article. This is not a case of "no other simpler, more correct, more compact way to state the information".

Deonis seems to have never responded to any attempts to talk to him on his user page, nor has he tried discussing on other user talk pages or article talk pages.

IMHO something stronger than blocking for 72 hours is needed, in order to prevent continual copyright violations. Boud (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In case anyone cares, Duplication Detector report for this edit and the source. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My assumptions are that Deonis has not learned and that they will not talk to us. I've indeffed Deonis. If they want to edit again, they're going to have to persuade us (this will require them to talk) that they will not continue to violate copyright, that they will not edit disruptively (they've done so in the past), and that they will edit collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 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.

Racially charged editing by IP 122.62.226.243 at articles to do with the New Zealand Wars

For some time now an IP (which changes every month or so but often signs messages as "Claudia") has been making poorly sourced (or not sourced at all) edits on various subjects to do with the New Zealand Wars. These edits tend to push an extreme anti-Māori viewpoint. Claudia relies mostly on self-published fringe writers (most recently, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart), often ones so obscure they can not be found in libraries; while her attitude towards mainstream scholarship ranges from the dismissive ([125]; and [126], the last phrase of which also displays her racial attitudes) to the outright hostile ([127], in which having been appointed to a position at the University of Oxford becomes having "high tailed it to England to escape local scrutiny".

The current incident involves the article Wiremu Kingi, at which Claudia is edit warring to introduce these edits [128], the only sourcing of which is to primary sources: proceedings of the New Zealand government as a belligerent party in the war in question, and to a self-published work by Wishart. This has been brought to her attention [129] but still she insists on its presence [130].

I can't figure out which of this labyrinthine series of message boards to bring this up at as it involves edit warring (but not 3RR), reliable sourcing (or lack of), fringe theories and skates close to including BLP issues. If this is more suitable at a different board feel free to move it. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that Claudia was also the subject of this report here [[131]]. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this is ongoing, and right now I don't have the time to delve much deeper into this--but a quick perusal (and a revert) of some of the recent edits, including but not limited to Wiremu Kingi suggest that edit-warring and disruption are happening here. Since it is ongoing, I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. They can make their case on their own talk page, if they have anything to say, and some kind editor will no doubt copy their comments here if they're worthwhile. What is to happen in the long run may be difficult: article protection is one option, of course. I hope someone else, in a different time zone, will invest a bit of energy in this case, to correct me or to add to it. Daveosaurus, as far as I'm concerned you chose the right forum; good luck with your efforts. Drmies (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was considering similar action myself, and agree with Drmies' temporary block and assessment. This has reached the point of seriously disruptive behavior (and yes, this is the proper venue to report that, as above). The anonymous editor has been counseled many times on appropriate editing behavior, to apparently no effect. Should they return to the POV pushing and edit warring following the block, I would support a significantly longer-term sanction. I personally would prefer to see a range block rather than semiprotection used if possible, it's always a shame to prevent editing because of a single individual's misbehavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think article protection is useful to prevent Claudia from editing, as her interests include very many articles on 19th century New Zealand history, particularly those involving race relations. We would have to semi-protect a very large number of articles. Also, she has been active on ever-changing IP addresses for at least three and a half years (Special:Contributions/125.237.35.252 are the earliest edits I can find at short notice).

For the most part, her edits are useful, although her odd formatting requires cleanup. She is undoubtedly very knowledgeable about her subjects, and her edits usually accurately reflect her sources. The sources vary considerably in reliability. Claudia sometimes emphasises subjects that most mainstream historians prefer to minimise, such as cannibalism in traditional Māori culture. I believe the Wikipedia articles should reflect the mainstream (academic) opinion, not by suppressing such viewpoints but by balancing them.

Because she is prolific, copyediting and balancing her edits would be close to a full-time job. So far, no editor has been willing to put in this effort in the long term, although several of us have from time to time made attempts.

More background can be found at User talk:Gadfium#Agenda pushing by IP user.-gadfium 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re your second link after "ranges from the dismissive" — according to Central Otago Gold Rush, the Maori had no knowledge of metalworking, so "Stone Age" isn't inaccurate, and if the culture were warlike (I don't know either way), then the idea of "Maori as stone age people with a very violent culture" is accurate. Even if they were peaceful people, it's not a racial thing; it's simply an inaccurate statement. No comment on anything else, since I've not looked at anything else. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not as cut and dried as that. See our Stone age article which has a section titled "The Concept of Stone age":

"The archaeologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries CE, who adapted the three-age system to their ideas, hoped to combine cultural anthropology and archaeology in such a way that a specific contemporaneous tribe can be used to illustrate the way of life and beliefs of the people exercising a specific Stone-Age technology. As a description of people living today, the term stone age is controversial. The Association of Social Anthropologists discourages this use, asserting:

"To describe any living group as 'primitive' or 'Stone Age' inevitably implies that they are living representatives of some earlier stage of human development that the majority of humankind has left behind. For some, this could be a positive description, implying, for example, that such groups live in greater harmony with nature .... For others, ... 'primitive' is a negative characterisation. For them, 'primitive' denotes irrational use of resources and absence of the intellectual and moral standards of 'civilised' human societies.... From the standpoint of anthropological knowledge, both these views are equally one-sided and simplistic."

Wikipedia is reporting experts as saying the term "stone age" is controversial and anthropoligists discourage its use. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is an element of truth in all the accounts of history (both the ones above and the ones promulgated by anon in many articles). However the way to improve our coverage is not though poorly sourced rewritings and additions, but though consensus-based, closely referenced articles presenting the several points of view. Many of these topics are politically, economically and ethnically charged and frequently revised by academics in the last 30 years. Add to this the fact that we have politicians passing history texts as law (see for example the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Claims Settlement Bill) and you have quite a lot of space for confusion and thus demand for close sourcing. The anon has been editing for quite a while and shows little sign of improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(copied from Claudia (122.62.226.243)'s talk page by gadfium)

Hello One and all. Some editors seem to think that history has just one point of view and that is the "official" sanctioned version. My professional background and my extensive reading over too many decades show that this is seldom, if ever, the case. I totally reject any any allegation of racism or anti Maori bias. This is nonsense. My history edits are to show that often commonly accepted incidents in history are factually wrong. Even the most main stream historians in the past make endless mistakes simply because they didn't have the wealth of digital information that is now available even to a student. Both Belich and King made bloopers. Belich made some big ones. King in particular had an increasingly skeptical view of Maori only sources as he matured as a writer. Some of these he wrote about but didn't print. After his death his daughter published it for us so we can see his later thinking. Most NZ history editors will know that he got offside with some Maori academics who did not want a Pakeha writing "their" history. (Despite the fact that King was a tiny bit Maori -a bit like Christian Cullen, although he didnt know this when he first started writing Maori history ) One editor said that NZ govt sources are not acceptable for wikipedia as they were an interested party in NZ history. This is just complete and utter nonsense. On this basis you cannot have any Maori source for NZ history either as they are interested parties! What I am looking for is factually accurate history with a balance of points of view where there are different points of view (as their clearly are!). It seems some editors who undo my efforts are not historians or researchers and delete information for what I consider highly technical reasons ie they would prefer an inaccurate, lop-sided account of an historical incident although it reads lie something out of the 1950s. It is interesting that one editor has it in for I Wishart. Remember that M. King began as a teacher and journalist. At times Mr King was dreadfully sick and drank quite heavily by his own account. I note that no one has pointed out any errors or falsehoods in Mr Wishart's work. On the contrary his work has been praised for its thorough research. For example Wishart has gone into enormous depths to show the background to Wiremu Kingi's war in Taranaki, which was the immediate background to the NZ land wars. His research is first rate and 100% accurate. It blows away many of the wrong misconceptions that kiwis commonly hold about their history.

As part of my professional work I have developed a keen nose for censorship. Do I detect a whiff wafting through? Some editors seem wedded to a particular conservative point of view of NZ history that I would call dated and partial, in view of all the new information that daily flows out into the digital world. It seems strange but every day we know more about what really happened hundreds(sometimes thousands) of years ago. I note some editors have put their hands up to being cranky and impatient. They seem to delight in hitting the delete button as it is so easy to do. Patience is a virtue, possess it if you can.

Thank you to the editor who went into bat for me regarding Maori being Stone Age and historically violent. I think both these minor points are well accepted now, almost self evident if you read the Musket Wars and Maori Culture. My apologies if my edits are not always 100% technically correct as I have eye problems which are slowly being rectified. I always endeavour to improve. Seasons Greeting and happy holidays to all.C.

The IP editor admits above that she edits articles to try to redress what she sees as errors, for reasons of ideology or otherwise, of published historians. The problem is that historians such as Belich, Moon and King are reliable sources; self-published authors such as Ian Wishart are not. Wishart's claims do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The IP user has persisted with the use of terms such as "massacre" and "slaughter"[132][133] to colour certain wartime events in New Zealand colonial history despite the absence of such terms in academics' writings. (See here, where she justifies her use of the terms by saying a massacre "likely" took place at Oakura because of Maori traditions). She also relied there—as elsewhere—on contemporaneous newspaper reports that were indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership. Really, just grasping at straws to find sources that support her preconceived views.

In fact it often becomes difficult untangling the propaganda from the fact; elsewhere she has relied on reliable sources (poorly cited though they are), but presented cherrypicked facts in a manner only that supports her political or ideological agenda, and without necessary qualifications or balance. BlackCab (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note above the newspapers at http://www.nzdl.org/gsdlmod?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa&l=en&nw=utf-8 do not fit the description above of 'indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership' but we don't use that collection as sources nearly enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have misread your tone, but that last comment, quoting my reference to a newspaper article being "indisputably written from a strongly anti-Maori standpoint for a white readership", sounds rather accusatory. Just to be clear, my use of that phrase related to the IP editor's resorting to a sarcastic opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald in 1866 to justify her use of the word "massacre" relating to events at Oakura.[134] I do agree with your earlier comment about seeking the truth from a range of sources. And thanks for the Niupepa link. BlackCab (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we're having a violent agreement. There are lots of sources, essentially all partisan on at least some points; the IP is not using an appropriate selection. Aside: My day job gives me access to some sources in this area that are not internet-accessible / google friendly. Editors are welcome to ask me for specific topics / works on my talk page or by email. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bite. Thanks for the offer. BlackCab (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD on Eunice Panix and Administrator Mark Arsten

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.

---

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AFD[ on Eunice Panix[135]

DRV[136] on Eunice Panix

I'm bringing this to ANI because this is a clear cut case of an closing administrator not just ignoring the consensus of an AFD but imposing an outcome that had virtually no support. The Eunice Panix AFD was closed as 'redirect' in spite of just one editor in the discussion favoring that result compared to seven editors for delete. The reasons for deletion, that the subject failed WP:POLITICIAN, and the supporter of redirect using the argument WP:Cheap.

Me and and another editor who supported delete, voiced our concerns. Go here[137](Please note the administrator rudely archived[138] this talk page discussion 13 minutes after somebody replied there[139]. Note there were older threads and ones not anywhere as close to active left on the page making the archiving look like an attempt to muzzle further talk especially when you consider the talk discussion was put in an archive without a link on the main talk page)[140] and here to see all the arguments. I'll quote two highlights from the first once.

Mark Arsten wrote[141]- 'You were the only one to voice opposition to a redirect. Three people were amenable to that close. To go against the numerical consensus would require a strong argument. That a "redirect" would encourage the recreation of an article is not a particularly strong argument against a redirect, in my view.'

Niteshift36 replied[142] 'You did go against the numerical consensus. 6 said delete. Just delete it. Get rid of it. Be gone. 2 said delete bet they didn't oppose redirect and 1 said redirect. Note that "not opposing" re-direct isn't supporting it. 1 even said it was pointless to do it.'

Mark Arsten said he went by the numbers, but the numbers don't support it. I suggested he let another administrator review the AFD for an outcome, but he ignored this and the thing went to AFD where the same editor is again arguing redirect and other editors don't seem to grasp that Mark Arsten totally ignored the consensus at AFD.

This shouldn't be in DRV now. I also will state that the AFD sets a very bad precedent. Namely that a closing administrator can override consensus. I also think the closing administrator was both rude and condescending in response to me and Niteshift. Yes he apologized, he still doesn't see how dead wrong the AFD outcome and that and his other behavior clearly brings into question his ability as an administrator....William 14:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit I was feeling a bit snippy on the day you approached me about that. I suppose I could blame it on too much coffee or something, but in any case, it was rude of me to cut you off by archiving. What I should have done was say "Please file a DRV, I believe our conversation is no longer productive". As I said earlier, you have my apologies. As to what to do with this redirect, I'll gladly defer to consensus at the DRV. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the people mentioned here, I have to say that Mark apologized to me for his phrasing, conceeded that he could have said it better and, for my part, I consider it over with. I still disagree with his decision and reasoning for it, but since this is already in DRV, I'll continue to address that part there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• William, you have already opened (two days ago!) a deletion review about the article's close, you have already received Mark's apologies, what are you still looking for? Cavarrone (talk) 15:26, 6 December 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.

Walledro

• Walledro (talk · contribs)

User:Walledro A SPA who seems intent since joining on BLP vios on this fellow David Hammond (director) for reasons known only to himself, I figure a ban is well overdue. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I've commented at the article talk page, 3RR noticeboard, and have asked for page protection. I imagine an account block will be seen as sufficient, but given the duration of BLP violations think a protection request has some merit. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the allegations at the talk page [143], it may be also appropriate to remove much or all of the section. It's inappropriate stuff, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the user was blocked for a week for 3RR. a13ean (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy of Nyttend, who must be in a good mood. 99, I am sure you're keeping an eye on this. Keep us posted, you defender of the wiki. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Nah, I'm inclined to go back into hiding, for a few days or longer. But I do maintain that there's been a string of BLP violations that beg to be permanently expunged. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass BLP violations - date of birth from primary source

By chance, I came across the biography of a living person today which had a birth date sourced to "U.S. Public Records Index". WP:BLP is quite clear on this subject: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses". It also says that dates of birth should only be added if they are "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I left a note on the talk page of User:Spacini, who seems to have added dates of birth to many BLPs, but they simply deleted the message. A Google search shows that there are hundreds of biographies which use this source, but I do not know who added it or how many of these are living people. This may be a job for a smart bot. Additionally, it may be useful to have an edit filter look for this source in edits. Any other suggestions on how to address this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPN and what is the article, please? Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone strokes out, I started removing all of the primary source citations I added for living persons' biographies. I was completely unaware of the BLP rule about this issue when I began adding them. I was simply working from the Category:Date of birth missing page and adding in the DOBs where I could find them in the public index. Fortunately, I got bored with the never-ending work and stopped sometime in July (maybe August). I'm working my way back and will continue to remove all the citations where I find them. Should I be removing the DOBs altogether? I'm not quite sure why the WP:BLP rule was created, given that the primary sources where this information is found is public information, easily obtained for free. But, whatever needs to be done, I'll fix it. Now, back to my bourbon. Spacini (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most excellent, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Spacini. You weren't the only person adding this source, but I will give you some time to do your thing and then I'll fix the remaining ones myself if need be. An edit filter might still be a good idea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a terrible result. The purpose of that is not because primary sources aren't trustworthy for DOB, it's because the DOB shouldn't be included (per WP:BLP, which I think is a terrible decision for the encyclopedia). But in any case, having unsupported birth dates is worse than anything else we could do so either the birth dates should be removed, or the source should be reinstated. Ryan Vesey 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  Per policy, both the birth dates and the source will be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could anyone explain the purpose of this policy? It seems like a bad idea, but I suspect I'm missing something obvious. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I learned long ago, Hobit, that many Wikipedia policies defy rational explanation. This is most certainly one of them. I agree with Ryan that it's a terrible decision; it diminishes the accuracy of Wikipedia and furthers the long-held notion that much of what contained herein is unreliable (a notion that I disagree with). I'm off to remove all the DOBs with primary source citations that I added. Peace Wikipedians! Spacini (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit more optimistic and suspect there is either a good reason or this is fixable. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's related to privacy; however, I don't know that it's a good policy, at least for people born in the United States. I'm not sure about laws in other countries, but birth certificates are public record in the US. I feel like, at a minimum, the US should be excluded from that. It's never a privacy invasion to post a public record. Even if they weren't public, I still wouldn't see a reason not to post somebody's birth day. Care to take it up at Wikipedia talk:BLP? Or Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy) (it probably needs a wider audience). Ryan Vesey 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, US birth certificates are not in general public records. E.g. (Pennsylvania) "Birth certificates maintained by the Division of Vital Records are not public certificates and, therefore, cannot be released under the provisions of Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know-Law."[144] Consider also the hullaballoo about getting POTUS Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate even with his permission. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Opened at the pump. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for keeping the DOB out of the article is that the combination of the name and DOB is used to identify the person in law enforcement and other databases, so publishing the exact DOB assists identity theft. We leave it out for the same reason we leave out the person's social security number, which public records can (sometimes) also let us dig up. We have been through this many times. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I added some links about DOB and identity theft here since some people were arguing against the connection. The notion that "it's never a privacy invasion to post a public record" is completely wrong here on Wikipedia. We treat home addresses, phone numbers, etc. as private too, and those are generally easier to find than DOB's. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

St Marys Church, Clophill

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at the history of this little article? I'd go duck hunting but I'm on the run. Also, edit war historians might get a kick out of the recent history. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I've blocked the lot. Thanks y'all, for your timely assistance. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) have blocked two accounts you had missed. You pretty much nailed them all. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • There was more? One wonders how such edit-warring goes unnoticed! Thanks--and please see a note I left on Dennis Brown's talk page about the paperwork, and he'll send you the check for the two blocks. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd reinstate this. I've had a look around, and it isn't something that's just being made up and put into Wikipedia. It's also not related to the content dispute over the film. If you want a university press that gives the exact date, the name Jenny Humberstone, and — yes — the skull on a spike, you could do worse than Ellis 2000, pp. 211–213. Indeed, there are several worse sources to be had, but they all seem to agree on the facts of the media coverage of this church from 1963 onwards.
  • Ellis, Bill (2000). Raising the Devil: Satanism, New Religions, and the Media. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813121703.
• Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's discuss that on the talk page or, if you like, add the info (minus the sensationalist weblinks) to the article. Note that I have just added body snatching to the article. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This has spiralled a bit. Drmies and I failed utterly to resort to the talk page, now blanked, and Template:Did you know nominations/St Marys Church, Clophill seems to have sprung up. We've been visited by a bunch of flying pigs carrying a GPS receiver, and I woke up someone in the next county. But, per User talk:Senra#Churches in Bedfordshire and User talk:Drmies#St Marys Church, Clophill a Wikipedia writer capable of copying a drawing from an old book is still needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

CoI 'Keeps' in AfD?

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

---

Please take a look on this AFD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/7 Techies. I suspect CoI comments there, especially those that !voted for keeping the article. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag comments of SPA accounts as appropropriate. If you suspect socking, which is what I think you are saying, open an WP:SPI. LadyofShalott 07:55, 7 December 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:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

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

---

After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as [version without diacritics here]" to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
• The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
• WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
• WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
• WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
• MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
• and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
• I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Wikipedia. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Wikipedia. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. GiantSnowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <!--<ref>-->{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}<!--</ref>--> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Wikipedia guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah that is my feeling as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Djsasso: It appears that you asked User:AlexTiefling to try to sabotage the RfC, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • • What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - editor refuses to listen. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal

I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: [145]. If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tarc. He's right  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• And now we have the much-anticipated appeal to Jimbo by Ben (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Wikipedia as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".

  Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Wikipedia, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to ask him first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another alternate suggestion

Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC) You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Resolute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here.  LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 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.

continued discussion

"It's been over a day since this discussion started." When the community is deciding on an indefinite ban for an editor, a month at an RfC is not considered excessive. My count of the "votes" is 18 (excluding the IP opinion) to six, and a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus. I think that this should be reopened and lets see if a broader consensus can be found for a shorter ban rather than indefinite one. As I said above I think that two months for this ANI is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"a ratio of less than 75% is not usually considered to be a rough consensus" - but 18 for, 6 against is exactly 75% in favour.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Then if you prefer to split hairs a ratio of more than 75% ... Either which way I do not think that there was a rough consensus here. [Repeat of last comment]. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (for the record). Came here to participate in the discussion and oppose a ban, but judge, jury and executioners were in a real rush to judgment this time and I didn't get my vote in.--Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd oppose, too. Unfortunately, I didn't get in under the deadline, either. --Nouniquenames 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BAN states "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly." (bold mine) The formal ban discussion began at 15:07, 30 November 2012; and I, as an entirely uninvolved admin, closed the discussion at 19:59, 1 December 2012, 28 hours and 52 minutes later. If you would like to change the rules at WP:BAN regarding the length of time a topic ban discussion should remain open, please do so at WT:BAN. I can only follow the rules that are written down. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  your highlighted section says "at least 24 hours" not "a maximum of 24 hours". 28 hours and 52 minutes may comply to the letter of the sentence, but the spirit of the sentence is to give time to see if there is a consensus to implement a particular ban. As there is not a clear consensus (not even a rough consensus), I think you ought to reconsider your close. -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  I have reconsidered it. In the reconsideration, I stand by the summation I gave. --Jayron32 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The extreme ban is not supported by 75% - at least one of the supporters makes clear that his support was not inclusive of a ban on discussions, ans I suggest that the close statement is errant with regard to the extent of any such ban. Further that where such a broad ban is proposed, that 28 hours is actually insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know where people are coming up with this "75%" bit. That's not a rule at all, and I think it's taking this discussion off-course. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS and About RfA and its process as an example of where it is used in practice. It also used to be used more at WP:AFD and WP:RM, but those decisions tend now to be based more on interpreting policy and guidelines than they used to be, however for a number of years the %ages for all three used to be listed at WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. This case is closer to the RfA process than the other two, so I think it is appropriate to ask the question would the rough consensus here be enough for someone to be given a broom? If not, then is this rough consensus strong enough to ban a user from editing or even commenting on an issue indefinitely? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea was *not* to have to ban the user from editing, but to stop the disruption he causes on his crusade. If he is willing to be mentored and someone is willing to mentor him to solve the editing issues that make him disruptive in addition to the diacritic issue, then he and his mentor can come back here and say, "we solved the issue, reconsider" I am sure that many to are for the topic ban now will reconsider. Maybe you can offer? If on the other hand the reason for some to oppose the topic ban is that he does their dirty work for them, and they succceed in allowing him to continue to cause disruption, then this no doubt will end in arbitration. And unlike the arbitration for Goodday I doubt that many of his "opposers" will plead with ARBCOM not to ban outright. Agathoclea (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, rough consensus has always as far as I am aware been considered to be about 60%. Except at RfA where it was specifically upped on purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions re appeal: 1) Is there is an appeal to Arbcom in an AN/I topic ban situation? 2) Has a topic ban appeal board from AN/I, similar to DRV and Move Review, ever been discussed? Appeal would seem to allow for reflection, where a "quick" AN/I would not, and also perhaps bring more uniform standards, over time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would fall under point 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities. Specifically, otherwise restricted users appeals. MBisanz ^talk 15:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It would seem a jurisdictional thing than, but does anyone know if it is "exclusive" jurisdiction (the appeal board, I am thinking of would be limited to indef. topic ban. To avoid/restrict the Arbcom v. Community, or Arbcom v. Closing Admin issues, as well as less stressful resolution (hopefully)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Arbcom would at least hear an appeal but in my view, LittleBen was on the fast track to Arbcom already. This reminds me a lot of Ludwigs2's obsessions that led to the Muhammad images bruhaha. I would rather see LittleBen step back from this issue and edit elsewhere productively than go down the route of RFCU then arbcom. And based on GoodDay's arb case, from which I took the exact language in this proposal, I think it unlikely that the committee would have viewed things differently than the community has. Resolute 15:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Right but with Arbcom, there is a lot more procedure, time, etc, when these things are enacted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just think it's important to say I agree that more time should have been allotted for discussion and consensus. I believe we need to do more to promote and protect the collaborative nature of the project, but I would have opposed an immediate, outright topic ban (trying more discreet tools before the banhammer, so to speak). jæs (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the topic ban should be amended so that it excludes LittleBenW's user space. He should have the freedom to refactor as he pleases there. Reyk _YO! 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion went on for "over a day" (!) and 25 editors voted. I noticed the discussion, blinked my eye, and it was already closed before I could vote Oppose. I guess you could interpret this as a really strong consensus, although I see it as more of a rush to judgement. Putting titles at the common name of the subject and writing articles in conventional English should not be controversial. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Anything that goes persistently against consensus is controversial. In this case it was the way he went about it. His bad luck was that his behaviour was so obvious. Others have managed to sock and delete/hide RM discussions with impunity because their behaviour was not quite so obvious to everbody. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • P.S. it should be noted that there was some email canvassing about this issue. Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the validity of the ban is in question, I propose that it should not stand on its own and should either be re-opened or a new ban discussion should be started. Quickly counting above shows 18 unilateral supports and 1 conditional that specifically does not support the ban enacted. 6 individuals opposed above (not counting the special case). Since the close, an additional 4 have opposed. That would give us a total of 18 for the ban as it is, 10 against a ban, and one against this specific ban. 18-6 (or a misread 19-6) may have appeared to be consensus, but 18-11 is much less indicative of such. Given the severity of the ban, a simple majority would not be enough. The community has not endorsed the ban in continued discussions, and the ban is voided, as it lacks sufficient consensus. --Nouniquenames 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're basing your hypothetical count on the assumption that all further votes would have been "oppose" votes. That is a highly unlikely scenario. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While that has proven to be the case so far, it would work particularly well if support and oppose both chimed in equally from this point onward, as the overall percentage difference would trend toward (without ever reaching) 0. My point was that, based on current responses, the ban is not sufficiently supported. --Nouniquenames 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that has not proven to be the case so far. You forgot to take into account that any potential participants that would have voted "support" have far less motivation to state their opinions now than those who oppose the ban, so their silent "votes" are invisible to you. As far as they are concerned, the case is closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then re-open it and fold in the opposes above. Silent supports would then have a reason to speak up, clarifying the issue. --Nouniquenames 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to reopen it. If you disagree, take it to Arbcom. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AN would be more logical. --Nouniquenames 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely to get you anywhere as the closure was consistent with WP:BAN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"the closure was consistent with WP:BAN" only if you think that there was a consensus for a ban ("The Wikipedia community can decide, by consensus, to impose [the] ban."), which is what is being questioned. -- PBS (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Rationales were also weighed in the closure. Moving to AN or opening RFAR = forum shopping. We can't stop LittleBen from emailing arbcom privately and we shouldn't try to do so. In the unlikely event that arbcom chooses to take some visible action on the email, we can decide at that time how and whether to respond. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that "Moving to AN or opening RFAR = forum shopping" because BAN explicitly states "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration."

You also write "Consensus is not a vote. Rationales were also weighed in the closure." Rationales are not what Jayron32 emphasised when (s)he initially closed the ANI "[details on numbers]. Based on a combination of the numbers and the strengths of the arguments,...". If it is not primarily based on the numbers, it would be most helpful to allay concerns that this was not the correct decision, if Jayron32 were to explain in more detail what were the very strong points raised by the participants in the discussion, or guideline and policy suggestions in favour of this topic ban, that caused the debate to be closed less than 29 hours after the initial formal topic ban was proposed. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from another uninvolved admin: Jayron32's close was both appropriate and a good judge of consensus. Those opposing the ban did so primarily because they said that LittleBen is right; however, this has absolutely no bearing on the behavioral issues which resulted in the call for a ban. Another editor opposed, saying that LittleBen should have been warned first; this is obviously wrong, given that he's not only been warned but, in fact, blocked for this same behavior. I'm not saying that all of the opposes are lacking, but some clearly are. The strength of the arguments lies with those supporting the ban, and, as such, Jayron32 acted to sum up that consensus. Note, also, that an indefinite ban is not an infinite one; perhaps if LittleBen can demonstrate a more appropriate approach to Wiki-argument, then in the future s/he could have the ban overturned. Alternatively, as pointed out above, s/he is free to appeal to WP:BASC. In the meantime, there are billions of things that LittleBen could do on Wikipedia other than worry about diacritics. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User Robbiann

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

Please note that Chris Natundi (and all variations thereof) are one and the same person- who in the UK is known as Chris Nathaniel. He has dual citizenship and refers to himself by different names. He was arrested and charged with murder in June 2012 along with 8 accomplices. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/agent-chris-nathaniel-charged-with-murder-of-teen-danny-oshea-7873604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiann (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account that has been adding unreferenced information to article Chris Nathaniel in violation of WP:BLP. This has been treated as vandalism, though it has perhaps been done in good faith. William Avery (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should update the article with the negative information, properly referenced. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The "negative information" is that the subject was arrested on suspicion of murder, but that suspect appears to have been a different person with the same name, earlier in the year.[146] 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears that this is the same person, take a look at the most recent story I could find in the British press, dated September 2012

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/neasden_man_denies_taking_part_in_revenge_murder_for_sports_agent_linked_to_usain_bolt_and_ashley_cole_1_1537147

the story also appeared in The Daily Mail here on June 26th. I can find no retractions of this story that two people have been conflated into one with a possible case of mistaken identity by the press. Among other information, the following is in common between the kilburntime story and the WP article: Mis-Teeq, NVA, Live the Dream Foundation, meetings with PMs Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, etc. Nathaniel and his business partner Paul Boadi along with their other co-defendants had a court appearance on November 23rd, as reported in this UK blog, which originally reported on the story in June and has since updated it in September and in November: http://www.duchessofhackney.com/2012/06/25/christopher-nathaniel-and-paul-boadi-denied-bail/ . --Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes I did look at a few other news stories, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between the activities of the murder suspect, and those of the guy in the article. If they are the same person, then the article has quite a few other deficiencies, for the descriptions to be that far apart. It's possible though. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources that confirm that the agent and the man arrested for murder are one and the same:

• London Evening Standard
• Court News.

There are also two WP articles about Nathaniel & Boadi's business ventures: NVA Holdings, NVA Entertainment. The two founders/principals being arrested for murder is referenced from multiple, published reliable sources and is notable enough to be included in the Nathaniel, NVA Holdings and NVA Entertainment articles. --Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that it wasn't already in the article, given how long ago the arrest was. This kind of tells me that Wikipedia doesn't have the ability to maintain this sort of article any more (if it ever did). Thanks for chasing that down. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User Robbiann

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

Please note that Chris Natundi (and all variations thereof) are one and the same person- who in the UK is known as Chris Nathaniel. He has dual citizenship and refers to himself by different names. He was arrested and charged with murder in June 2012 along with 8 accomplices. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/agent-chris-nathaniel-charged-with-murder-of-teen-danny-oshea-7873604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbiann (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account that has been adding unreferenced information to article Chris Nathaniel in violation of WP:BLP. This has been treated as vandalism, though it has perhaps been done in good faith. William Avery (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should update the article with the negative information, properly referenced. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The "negative information" is that the subject was arrested on suspicion of murder, but that suspect appears to have been a different person with the same name, earlier in the year.[147] 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears that this is the same person, take a look at the most recent story I could find in the British press, dated September 2012

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/neasden_man_denies_taking_part_in_revenge_murder_for_sports_agent_linked_to_usain_bolt_and_ashley_cole_1_1537147

the story also appeared in The Daily Mail here on June 26th. I can find no retractions of this story that two people have been conflated into one with a possible case of mistaken identity by the press. Among other information, the following is in common between the kilburntime story and the WP article: Mis-Teeq, NVA, Live the Dream Foundation, meetings with PMs Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, etc. Nathaniel and his business partner Paul Boadi along with their other co-defendants had a court appearance on November 23rd, as reported in this UK blog, which originally reported on the story in June and has since updated it in September and in November: http://www.duchessofhackney.com/2012/06/25/christopher-nathaniel-and-paul-boadi-denied-bail/ . --Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes I did look at a few other news stories, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of overlap between the activities of the murder suspect, and those of the guy in the article. If they are the same person, then the article has quite a few other deficiencies, for the descriptions to be that far apart. It's possible though. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources that confirm that the agent and the man arrested for murder are one and the same:

• London Evening Standard
• Court News.

There are also two WP articles about Nathaniel & Boadi's business ventures: NVA Holdings, NVA Entertainment. The two founders/principals being arrested for murder is referenced from multiple, published reliable sources and is notable enough to be included in the Nathaniel, NVA Holdings and NVA Entertainment articles. --Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that it wasn't already in the article, given how long ago the arrest was. This kind of tells me that Wikipedia doesn't have the ability to maintain this sort of article any more (if it ever did). Thanks for chasing that down. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Danjel

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

So there’s this AfD for chili burger, an article I create. Most people have been voting keep; Danjel votes “Delete”, but that’s not the issue. What is the issue is that he’s turn this into another excuse (yes, he’s done this before) to character assassinate. He gets totally off-topic and mentions a series of AfDs regarding schools (his personal baliwack) that Epeefleche mostly started, and I voted “Delete” on, right here. Completely ungermane. Later, instead of actually proving an argument, he rants on here about my supposed AfD track record, using a tool that I’m almost certain is broken, by the by. Again, it seems to be indicating that this vote is some sort of compensation for my votes on the schools. And when I told him to stop mentioning the schools AfDs, and to not make it personal at AfD, not only does he ignore my imploring, he reverts me here and there, as if it was vandalism. Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate? (for previous times he’s brought this up, refer to the ANI archives, my talk page history, and Epeefleche’s talk page history) pbp 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, add Twinkle misuse here, undoing the good-faith edit that was the ANI notice. This is the second or third time a good-faith post has been tagged by him as vandalism pbp 01:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, you need to learn to sign and date your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't vandalism, as he alleges. I didn't want it to come to this, but he ignores and then deletes as vandalism anything I post on his talk page... pbp 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor is free to remove messages to their talk pages, with very few exceptions. While labeling the message vandalism in the edit summary is not appropriate, some editors just like to hit that TW vandal revert button. I wouldn't make a big deal over that point, and focus on the issue at AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If an editor misuses the tool to remove something off their own page as vandalism.....that IS a missuse of Twinkle. It is a big deal and one shouldn't just gloss over such on an ANI report for any reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, sorry. Being that I had asked for him not to post to my page per WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN it was WP:HARASSment (with particular reference to WP:HUSH). If only Twinkle had a rollback (HARASSER), I'd be fine. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've hatted a couple of the more offtopic diversions on the Afd. I encourage PBP to cease contributing to the Afd fracas by not responding to the off topic stuff. Stay focused on the article and ignore the ad hominem stuff, and don't start your keep comment with Seriously, dude, you're giving us deletionists a bad name -- the colder and more clinical your posts the less likely you'll get into these things. Danjel is entitled to remove message from their talk page per WP:TPO, but should stop calling the edits vandalism. NE Ent 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PBP, what administrative action are you requesting or expecting here? ANI should not be your first stop for dispute resolution; it should be one of the last. -- Dianna (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What? This is not a content dispute. This appears to be a problem with an editor during an AFD who is missusing twinkle to delete messages on his own talkpage. Where does it state anywhere that ANI is a resort for Dispute resolution of any kind? If it is urgent, then this is the best place and lets face it....very few things are that urgent. No.....ANI is not a part of the Dispute resolution process. Last resort for such is either formal mediation or arbitration. ANI is to report an incident which this editor has done. You can ignore it....but you don't need to post to blow the editor off. Just don't post at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Amadscientist. It was just a failed attempt to shut down the drama machine, — Dianna (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Above I said "Could somebody tell him to stop beating the dead horse that is those schools AfDs, and to not character assassinate?" That's what I want: I want someone he'd listen to to tell him to not bring up resolved schools AfDs in AfDs and Wikipedia-space threads about other topics, and I want him to not go off-topic to mention my AfD track record using a broken tool. And it isn't my first stop: the diffs above show I tried to talk to him on his page, and he just reverted it. I don't necessarily think he needs to be blocked, but he should probably sit out the rest of the Chili burger AfD, and maybe lose Twinkle for continually telling attempts to talk to him vandalism pbp 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussions for everyone's amusement:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements

The point is my !voting delete. I have provided clear argument for my !vote, and Purpleback89 presumably just doesn't like it. The WP:COMPETENCE and WP:OWN issues I have raised there are quite relevant to the discussion. It seems to me that Purplebackpack89 is trying to discount my !vote by pointing out that I drew a comparison between a school article that should have passed and this article in a completely tangential discussion with another user.

In regards to my removing his posts on my talkpage, WP:BLANKING aside, I have previously asked Purplebackpack89 not to post to my talk page, here. If I choose to call it vandalism, what's the big deal? Is he upset about the {{uw-vandal4im}} I didn't put on his talkpage? Or my missing report on the issue to WP:AIV? Drama. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There's some further comments by PBP and a response from me on my talk page: User talk:Diannaa/Archive 24#Danjel ANI. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Making an accusation on the edit summary of vandalism that is NOT vandalsim IS a big deal DON'T DO IT! It is beyond uncivil as it uses the space, watchlisted by many editors, to publicise your accusation. It is not appropriate and is a missuse of the twinkle tool. If you want a place to agree with you that such behavior is "No big deal", you came to the wrong venue because it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW and without digging for all the diffs, PBP has a long history of combative and POV behaviour. It's hardly surprising that Danjel gets riled. However, they both need to learn that AfD is not the place for a slanging match and that the DRN is the place for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Here here....accept for one small detail, is this a content dispute? I don't think so. Once a dispute goes to another venue, DR/N declines it until the other venue closes and....since this is about behavior on the AFD, it is NOT a content dispute and would not be accepted by DR/N. Only a dispute about the content itself would be accepted and not any discussion about behavior or conduct. I have to agree that it may or may not be surprising that Danjel got riled up......but his actions are unacceptable. Twinkle is not his/her personal sword of justice and making accusations of vandalism in the edit summary is beyond the pale and should NEVER be done EXCEPT when someone has actually vandalised his page. Just posting after a request to stop is not vandalsim. Its annoying, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to respond to the baseless accusations Danjel posted (taking an editor with 12K edits to AIV? Really?) or the equally unsubstantiated claims by Kudpung. I would suggest we close the AfD already; the article's been sourced and expanded; and merger can be dealt with elsewhere. And this can't very well go to DRN if one party won't even let the other talk on his talk page. Danjel's gotta open up on that pbp 03:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I have asked for you not to post to my talkpage is because previous attempts to reason with you individually were spectacularly unsuccessful and only served to further promote your belligerent attitude. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, though. I read them, found them to be erroneous, and archived them. That's the difference between you and me. I consider you to be offensive and repetitive. You consider me to be incompetent and a vandal, which is a distinction I think very few people would agree with (because it's wrong) pbp 03:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. That seems an accurate summary for the most part. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If a simple apology will suffice then I suggest Danjel simply make it and move on, but in my opinion he needs to be warned about accusing editors of vandalism, using Twinkle to remove non-vandal edits and for discussing the contributor and not the contributions on an AFD.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Without digging further into this, can i just say this: if I ask someone multiple times to stop posting on my talkpage, and they continue to do so, then yes, I MAY remove it and call it vandalism, and use whatever anti-vandalism tool I have. I can't report it to AIV, but I can report the harassment to ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Per Wikipedia:Vandalism. I see nothing that describes an editor refusing to respect a request to stop posting on an editors talkpage as vandalism. Using Twinkle to lable such as vandalsim is an missuse of the tool. Yes, you may report it, but it still may not be vandalism. Vandalim has a very specific definition for Wikipedia and this is not it. Annoying, maybe even harrassment in some cases but it is NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I ask you repeatedly to stop posting on my page. You continue to do so. That is certainly not a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and thus meets the definition. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not just by the posting. It has to meet the criteria for vandalism. Just not liking it does not meet that standard and is not written as policy or guideline anywhere. There are many things that it may meet to have an admin intervene but it is still NOT vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just removed your rather bizarre amendment to my words - please do not do that again. We're going of down a road rather bizarrely here, and it's detracting from the issue at hand, but I just showed how it DOES meet the definition, and it has been held in the past to be appropriate on the situation noted above, so do not chastise editors for having done it - you're wrong (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this is not assuming good faith. I was moving my own use of the same wording "Assume good faith" and simply made the mistake of deleting it off your post by accident. I accidently deleted your use of the same wording by mistake, thinking I was fixing my own. That is not an amendment, it would be a deletion and you need not go into a rant about "Bizarre" to undermine my posts. No, I am not wrong. There is no policy or guideline suggesting this to be vandalism. I have not chastised anyone. Please do not start becoming beligerent.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't delete anything from Bwilkins' post - you added something. GiantSnowman 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, your right. I see what happened now. I thought I was adding "Assume Good faith" to my own post! LOL! (not really funny I guess, but true).--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When WP:NOTVAND specifically points out that harassment is not vandalism, it's not appropriate to call it such, as it most certainly does not meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Vandalism has a very specific meaning, and is handled in a very specific way and harassment is handled another. Neither one is beneficial to Wikipedia in any way, but it serves no purpose to ignore Wikipedia's policy and call something vandalism that isn't. - SudoGhost 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been widely accepted that in the specific case where an editor who has been asked to remain off your talkpage continues to edit there, the tools can be used on your own talkpage, and it's not a violation of rollback or Twinkle ... let's not add more to what I'm saying. It's a very narrow point, not worth polluting this entire discussion over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you cannot rollback such edits or use Twinkle, but using rollback doesn't imply vandalism, and Twinkle doesn't automatically label them vandalism either; you have to specifically go out of your way to label such edits vandalism, that's something completely different than just hitting rollback on your talkpage. - SudoGhost 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take one for the team, so I have mentioned Amadscientist's concerns here. As can be seen above, PBK and Danjel appear to have made peace with each other. I move that this discussion be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirt58 (talk • contribs) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle provides four places to click when looking at a diff in the history -- clicking on one of the three that doesn't say vandalism is far less disruptive (and timesaving) than getting into wiki lawyerish justification rhetoric using the vandalism one. NE Ent 12:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Of course, I expect that you'll at least somewhat agree that if someone is edit-warring on your talkpage to re-include something they want there, and you have asked them not to post there before, that vandalism just might be a valid word :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you discuss it and get a consensus to change Wikipedia policy to say that, no. Wikipedia policy as currently agreed upon says that neither edit warring or harassment are considered vandalism. Harassment is harassment, not vandalism. - SudoGhost 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have reasonably precise wikiwords for most not good behavior -- vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring have distinct meanings understood by experienced editors. I certainly don't get terribly concerned when a newbie hasn't learned the code -- I'll usually just mention it like it's not a big deal, but in the future... The question I try to ask myself before pressing submit every time is: Does this escalate, deescalate, or is it neutral to the overall WP karma? (Note to stalkers: flooding my talk page with examples of where I failed isn't necessary -- I said try not succeed -- and I've probably figured it out already where I didn't.) Another wiki philosophy tenet of mine is WP is not zero sum -- when I'm butting into someone's conflict I'd really like to see a win-win outcome; unfortunately lose-lose outcomes are frequently common -- which is my segue back to the specific discussion at hand: Danjel's reverting with a description of "vandalism" is a suboptimal response to pbp's disruptive posting to Danjel's talk page; I don't see any particular benefit to ranking their respective poor behavior. PBP should stay off Danjel's talk page, except for required notifications, and Danjel should stop using vandalism for reverting non-vandalism edits. 14:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

You're asking for too much. If the guy is badgering me on an AfD page, and drops a load of meaningless information in response to me else, it's perfectly acceptable to ask him to stop, regardless of whether or not he has asked me to stop. If he didn't want to communicate with me, he should stay away from all my edits period. It is worth noting that after he attempted to kick me off his talk page, he continued to post comments on to my talk page; to say nothing of continuing to participate in this AfD that appears to be some sort of grudge match for him. I cannot condone your calling good-faith edits and requests to stop adding useless information "vandalism" because they aren't; Danjel needs to be warned about this on his talk page and maybe even lose Twinkle for it. pbp 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Pssst ... you already know that Twinkle can no longer be removed - it's part of the basic interface (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof (in the form of diffs) that I continued to post to your talkpage, pbp? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proven You proved it yourself, Danjel, in that link to my talk page archives above (User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 7). On January 24, you began reverting edits I made to your talk page, while posting a long diatribe on my talkpage. In the middle of it, I ask, "Why did you revert comments on your talk page?" You cited WP:OWNTALK, then continued posting on my page. If you did not want to interact with me, you would either have a) Stopped talking to me on my talk page, or b) Never have posted on my page in the first place pbp 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So the proof that I kept editing your page after "kicking" you off my talkpage is... That I kicked you off my page? Presumably after realising that you will never participate in any meaningful discussion I should have retroactively removed all my posts? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have at least stopped adding more to my talk page. If you didn't want to interact with me, you should have not commented on my talk page, nor in the ANI I participated in. The accusation that I "will never participate in any meaningful discussion" is ridiculous, BTW pbp 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of Order Per the top of WP:DRN This is an informal board for resolving content disputes on the English Wikipedia. My reading at this point is a conduct dispute that is bordering on levels of harassment, and therefore has the strong possibility of being sumarily closed on the grounds that this is not a content dispute. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on "just take it to DRN: I had done that several back in response to Danjel's pestering of Epeefleche and myself, and in regard to the first time he reverted me as vandalism (archive 19). That was closed as "take it to WQA or ANI". The ANI discussion was closed as "take it to WQA", while the WQA discussion was closed as "take it to ANI or back to DRN". pbp 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You raised the issue at WQA on Feb 10 (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#Danjel_and_school_AfDs.2Fimprovements). In that WQA thread you asked for me to blocked (or be asked to "step away from Wikipedia for a while"), topic-banned from schools and school related discussion, and forced into mentorship, in spite of the instructions at the top of WQA being that no binding decisions will be issued there. You received a less than positive response, mainly because of the fact that you wholesale ignored the WQA process.

While WQA requires a week long process, you then decided to move the issue to ANI on Feb. 12 (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#User:Danjel, because you weren't getting the mob-on mentality response. At ANI, yes, you were asked why you weren't letting the WQA thread run to term, a point for which you had no answer, editors surmised that you were out to silence an opponent and were told to "knock it off" because you were being a drama queen. I didn't even have to reply before it was closed.

Two separate questions: (1) why am I the only one actually providing links to evidence? (2) Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the situation? Actually don't bother answering. There's nothing of any significance or value in this thread but another attempt at high drama. In my opinion, there are significant issues for you of bad faith and competence, but I have tried to work these out with you before and failed. So I'm out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop calling me incompetent every other thread. Thinking I'm incompetent doesn't excuse your actions, and it's about time you learned that pbp 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of meatpuppetry

Danjel appears to be accusing me and Epeefleche (as mentioned above, the guy who started the school deletes he didn't like) of meatpuppetry here. That accusation is completely ridiculous; the only contact Epeefleche and I have had in months was a boilerplate notice I placed on his talk page to inform him of this thread. Meanwhile, he's been referring to me as a "kid playing on his whiteboard". I spent the last eight hours sleeping. He appears to have spent the last seven hours racheting up the drama. pbp 14:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another user, with whom you are associated, who is also renowned for a fairly high percentage of delete votes[148], particularly (excepting, of course, that he hasn't had to !vote on one of his own articles), comes in and almost completely echoes what you have said to the point where it could have been copied and pasted. Hmm. Yeah, as I said, I'm trying to leave that to one side and not go into it. He didn't contribute anything else, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why'd you bring it up? Why'd you use the term "meatpuppet" at all? pbp 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That diff says "leaving aside any possible WP:CABALism or WP:MEATpuppetry", which is bad, but it's not a simple, direct accusation of meatpuppetry. I think that everyone should stop ratcheting up the drama. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with Bob's intent here. At the same time, of course as Bob indicates it is bad ... Just as saying "leaving aside any [fill in the most heinous accusation one could think of] by editor x of his sister" would be bad. But not, as Bob points out, a simple, direct accusation of the heinous act. The point isn't that this rises to an accusation of anything heinous. The point is, as we are all aware, that the intent of the person "ratcheting up the drama" (as Bob puts it) with such statements may well be apparent. Perhaps the project would benefit from us all avoiding baseless "implicit" accusations of that type. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Slew of bad faith edits by editor Konullu

User Konullu has went on a rather wild editing spree, adding unsubstantiated POV tags to a large number of articles relating to Armenia/Armenians. He has added considerably incendiary material on the Armenian Genocide, in a vain and relatively pointless attempt to mitigate and cast doubt on its veracity. The same material has been copy + pasted onto the article on Armenia, Armenian resistance (1914–1918), Greater Armenia (political concept), the Armenian Highland, stretching the imagination on how this information can even considered remotely relevant. I think the sheer volume of these edits are enough evidence to warrant some sort of action. I do not think this editor is interested in discussing his edits; otherwise, he could have started on one article and opened up a discussion. No such discussion has been started and I and a few other editors have largely reverted every addition he has made. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless Konullu starts edit warring following getting reverted, I don't see any need for action at this time. Being bold, getting reverted if someone disagrees, and sitting down to talk is something we've always rather encouraged. Iff he's to start edit warring, I'd support applying the WP:ARBAA2 restrictions, but I don't see any indication that's happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant to reply earlier to this - I didn't realize the bot archives information so quickly. The problem is this isn't the first time such edits have been made. A while back, he created an article titled "Famous armenian [sic] murderers released from imprisonment," which was duly deleted. Just today, he readded the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article, again without any explanation or justification, and added it on other articles, including a work on Armenian history, dating back to the fifth century. On the Sumgait Pogrom article, he removed a link at the bottom of the website with the following explanation "I delete references to sumgait.info as it is biased propaganda source owned by Armenian guy in Yerevan." A source can be removed without making explicit mention of its author's identity but I think the pattern here has shown that Konullu isn't much interested in editing in a friendly environment but to edits certain articles and certain peoples without much to show for it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marshal Bagramyan, your comments are controversial. In the beginning you blame me for NOT GIVING explanation to my edits (the POV tag on the Armenian Highland article), later you blame me for GIVING explanation for my edits (Sumgait Pogrom article, removed link at the bottom of the website). I put POV tag only on articles which have only or mainly one-sided sources. I am not against all articles about Armenia, I only put POV tags to the ones that (I think) need this tag. I don't do vandalism, I don't delete the content or reliable sources either. I just contribute for improvement of those articles with more reliable sources. Best, Konullu (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rapid fire AfDs by Probable Sockpuppet

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 opened up an SPI for User:Puffmaster as a probable sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, but they are setting up AfDs so rapidly (see here) that I was hoping more eyes may be at ANI than SPI. Any help would be much appreciated with this serial sockpuppeteer. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks at the least like an editor with an agenda—and not a totally new editor. I speedy-kept one of the AfDs because the nomination was to merge the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your timely help. 72Dino (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is complete disruption. Can we rollback all of the edits and delete all of the discussions? Ryan Vesey 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I saw another "requested merge" in an AfD he made, so I NAC Speedy Kept it, if someone else wants it to actually run, feel free to revert me. This looks awfully little like a new editor, looks like either a vandal or a hater of a certain school.. Either way, not beneficial to the project to keep him around imo. I agree with Ryan that all of them should be SK as bad faith nominations with no basis in policy, but I'd rather let an admin do those SKs. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; if it were a good faith contributor, this might be different, but this is at best an SPA, at worst a sock, so I would concur with deleting the discussions. Go Phightins! 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Call me bold, but this is pretty obvious. I've blocked them since it's ongoing and I have no doubt. They should all be squashed; it's a repetition of what was happening last night on List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people and Polytechnic Institute of New York University. These nominations are sour grapes and an attempt at revenge on another editor. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The ones with no other contributors are clear delete, whether it be G3 or G5. The rest, I'll leave to others to judge, but I speedy closed the ones with votes. Monty₈₄₅ 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A few of the deletion discussions were closed; I deleted the rest (I think I got all of them). I tagged the user page; let's not waste any more words on this sad person. Only one question, I supposed--whether to keep the deletion discussions closed by gwickwire and Monty. 72Dino, thanks for keeping the place clean. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting and salting them: the record should not reflect this vandalism, and salt is always tasty. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Monty, they posted an unblock request. I'm biting my tongue. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, now he's not after articles, he's after your admin status! gwickwire^talk_edits 03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you might as well get rid of them, too. They're not really doing us any good and they were created as disruption. That said we keep the inevitable April Fools AfDs, so I could really go either way. Go Phightins! 03:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting them, but also no problem with keeping them.. I lean delete as pure bad faith nominations/borderline vandalism. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all from a de-facto banned editor anyways (serial sockpuppeter, never going to be unblocked). Just delete them all under G5. Ryan Vesey 03:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is true, as I see it; nonetheless, some of the articles written about various subdivisions of Cal Poly are in my opinion clear overcoverage, and need at best merging and quite possibly even deletion. I will be merging (or renominating) some of them. Drmies, I assume that you will have no objection to my over-riding the salt? And these are not the only colleges with this sort of puffery: the entire field needs a general clean-up. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've blanked the disruptive rambling from the sock's talk page. There's no justificcation for the personal attacks and attempt at outing (regardless of it being baseless/inaccurate). If it hasn't been done already, I would venture to say that it's probably not unreasonable for his talk page access to be revoked should he endeavour to repost or further spew disruptive blather (or even if not, given it's a sock). jæs (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Revoke talk page Could some fresh admin eyes stop by User talk:Puffmaster and take the appropriate action. Launching attacks against the blocking admin is not an acceptable user of talk page access while blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 16:45, 7 December 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.

Demolition of Babri Masjid

User:Wantsallanger moved the page to Demolition of Babri mosque citing Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW, without any discussion or move request in the article talk page. Given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case and since it is an issue almost completely covered only in Indian media as the demolition of Babri Masjid, considering WP:COMMON NAME, I request an administrator to review the move and move the page back if necessary.

P.S. Since I'm in my mobile with poor internet speed, I might be late in notifying the editor. If anybody can do this for me, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Suraj T 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Notified the editor. Suraj T 15:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably wasn't a good idea to do that without discussion, but the conclusion to do so probably stems from Babri Mosque being the main page and Babri Masjid being the redirect. For redundancy and ease of use, the redirect does not seem to be malicious in nature. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "...given that it is beyond the editor in question to revert his edit in this case...". Anyhow, if the OP is contesting the move, then I think the natural course of editing would be to revert the move and open discussion on the talk page. Unless I'm missing something. Ditch ∝ 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Suraj. You can move the page back over the redirect and ask the other editor to start a discussion. No admin action is necessary here.--regentspark (comment) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried moving the page, but since the old page is a redirect, that has to be deleted first right? CSD R2 and R3 certainly doesn't apply for the redirect. WP:RFD? Maybe I am thinking too much here. How do I revert page moves? Thanks for the replies. Suraj T 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

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 new user called LatinoLatino who is insisting on adding stubs (that no one will improve and that will never be more than stubs) into a template that is supposed to be a quick guide to the most important articles related to a topic. So far so good. I tried to talk to him through the template talk page.[149] He didn't care. He seems to be very emotional and things turned bad when he said "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation".[150] I'm unwilling to pick a fight for so little, even more with someone who is so offensive and perhaps unstable. I was wondering if someone could do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the one who initiated talk at the template talk was me. Lecen is ignorant, since he seemed to not have read the articles in question.

• He wrote: "None of those are about provinces of the Empire ,but of present-day states of Brazil. This template is suppose to be simple, straightforward".
• I replied "Not true, they are not about the states!!! READ. And see TALK!! "
• He writes: "You should stop creating stubs that no one will improve"
• I replied: "I AM IMPROVING THE STUBS YOU IGNORANT!!! You are hindering my work by destroying navigation"

When I gave reasons for inclusion I replied "Yeah, whatever.". And attacks me with "I can see that you are new here." ... Not answering to the topic.

• I reply: ... have you seen Template:Portuguese overseas empire? Why can the Portuguese Empire have such a monstruos template, and the Empire of Brazil template can not have one or two lines for the provinces?

But instead of answering he runs like a little child to the board here. I think this is a content dispute and Lecen should properly discuss. If it is forbidden to create stubs, I would like to see the policy saying so.

His above statement about me "He didn't care." is a blatant misrepresentation. I did care, and replied to any of his comments. LatinoLatino (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, calling someone "an ignorant" (especially in capital letters) is a pretty significant personal attack. If you're going to get that hot-headed when someone challenges you, Wikipedia might not be the best place for you ... again, the whole internet might not be good for you. Or even a library. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing battle between both editors. I suggest that LatinoLation not use full capitalization in his edit-summaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all. He claims to work for progress but simply creates one sentence articles and changes names of existing ones. He seems to contribute nothing and only hinder the works of others, while having a truly fowl attitude. This is just my opinion, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I understand Lecen's concerns, I'm a tad surprised that he made the report. Afterall, he's in the process of retiring from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know ... I'd like to think that even if I intended to retire from Wikipedia, I'd still find the time to report a hostile and antagonistic editor such as LatinoLatino. That he seems quite sanguine about his personal attacks suggests that he sees nothing wrong with making them, and that's not an attitude we can afford on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a look what caused me to use upper case. He simply was ignoring and refused to properly talk about the issue at the template talk. This all is a pure content dispute, there are easy ways to solve them. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Though it can be difficult at times in a dispute, it's best to try & control one's temper. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomas, aren't you the one whom I helped to find out that there were two entities called State of Maranhão, and that your placement of the article about an entity that does not exist for decades under that name, whilste there is a modern state Maranhão? Aren't you the one who created

• Category:Captaincies the Portuguese Empire and
• Category:Captaincies of the Portuguese Empire ?

Didn't you add a country template to an article that was about a set of entities? Didn't you violate WP policies by copy paste moving full articles? So maybe people have a look into what these two editors are into. LatinoLatino (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that User:LatinoLatino refrain from further personal attacks and name calling and work together with other contributers. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute and may be better brought up at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would also note that the opinion of User:Lecen appears to be without much merit as there is simply no way to know that "no one" will expand these articles and to suggest that they stop creating on top of the accusation that these articles have little to no value is what may have set off the other user. Civility is a two way street. While Lecen cannot be accused of a persoanl attack they may wish to reconsider their own approach when biting the newbie.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno -- "perhaps unstable" seems personal enough to me..Moriori (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I would agree that suggesting on an AN/I that they are avoiding a discussion out of a perception that the other editor is "unstable" would indeed be a personal attack as well as a method of undermining the editors work. Thank you. Good point.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And still no answer by Lecen or any contribution by Cristiano Tomas to the talk page Template talk:Empire of Brazil. Cristiano just made a hate-post here, and that's it. Maybe he is angry because I changed some of the stuff he did. But that is WP, not? LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Yes LatinoLatino, I am a human that makes occassional mistakes, but I'd like to think that the couple mistakes I've made have been overshadowed by the contributions of actual content I have also made. This arguement you just pulled, really quite low and childish of you. Why not take a look at Portuguese nobility? or why not look at Portuguese Crown Jewels? or Kingdom of the Algarve? But instead you call me out on what is obviously a few mistakes I've made. I would look past your mistakes if there was anything else to look at, but all your edits, as I have reviewed, have been really quite meaningless. Sure, you have added templates to many articles that were linked to it, but you have created countless stubs and articles, all the while having a quite rude attitude (which I recognized I may possess at the moment). Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what administrative action is being asked for. "I suggest LatinoLatino not edit at all." Why? Just quickly reviewing his edits, I don't see anything particularly wrong with them (outside the unacceptable tone of his edit summaries). An "empire" is composed of territories, not generals. It is expected and quite natural to add them to the template, even if currently underdeveloped. His attempts to disambiguate Maranhao is spot on and necessary. I don't see anything particularly egregious or unproductive. He is a new editor, and yet instead of his participation being welcomed and his changes being discussed, he is greeted with reversals, dismissiveness and hostility and now an ANI asking for his block? What happened to WP:AGF? While there is a problem with the tone of his edit summaries, he hasn't exactly been greeted very cordially either. Walrasiad (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad - Thank you!!! Thank you for actually looking into the contributions. Too bad, I just removed the provinces from the Template:Empire of Brazil and used again the Template:Provinces of the Empire of Brazil (created by me). LatinoLatino (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it might help if everyone would realize that what may be a strong insult in English isn't necessarily so in the romance languages (as it appears that ESL issues may be in play here). That is not to excuse LatinoLatino's responses, but to put them in context. And, as pointed out by Walrasiad, he hasn't exactly been received in the way one would expect of more experienced editors; he sounds like a frustrated, bitten newbie from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that true? I believe that Lecen is Brazilian, and therefore a speaker of one of the Romance languages, and he seemed to find some of the comments offensive. Having said that though, I've learned from bitter experience that even in different English-speaking countries certain insults such as "fucking cunt" are interpreted in quite different ways. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Lecen is, he went away from content discussion and impromperly attacks other users. [151] "And no, he isn't helping. He is clearly not improving, expanding or fixing any article. He is creati9ng a bunch of unnecessary articles that have no room to be expanded" - everyone can see how I did expand, improved and fixed articles. LatinoLatino (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? It seems you haven't done your hw. Lecen has almost singularly created many featured articles. Writing more content in one of the articles than you have added in your entire time here. But this is not on Lecen or my record as an editor, but yours, so why not stop bringing our edits into question. This is on your conduct, which has been below exemplary. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:56, 8 December 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.

Talk:Bettina Wulff

I'm requesting eyes on here, please. An individual with access to many IP addresses, or a group of folks (which would be a scary thought), are intent on linking to an image with an opinion regarding how it relates to the subject of the article. The first attempts were edits made to the article, when the article was protected they moved to the talk page. The talk page was protected briefly but they have returned to continue. I don't mind requesting lengthier talk page protection (and I don't mind continuously reverting the edits), but I'm hoping that there are other options available. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, I extended the talk page protection until the article's protection expires on 7 Jan. This has been going on since October (or earlier), so I doubt a month of protection will do much.--v/r - TP 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought - would blacklisting the image URL (per Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) be an option? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked into this matter before--it's about the worst kind of BLP violation you can imagine. I think we should pull out all the stops, if we have any. Range blocks, for instance, are a valid option, even one where we let the chips fall where they may. Blacklists, edit filters, whatever we have to prevent this (I'm wondering--is this happening cross-wiki?). It's one instance where I'd support Jimbo hiring a PI, a lawyer, and a gang of Russian mobsters to make a housecall. Thanks, Tide, for sticking to it. TParis, go ahead and make that indefinite protection, if you like: these articles are not that exciting for average editors, and it's better to be safe than sorry in this case. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Er, no calls for gangs of mobsters here, please, not even in jest. That sort of comment can be taken as a serious threat of violence. Otherwise I agree; talk page protection is indicated and perhaps a rangeblock of 95.33.xx.xx if this continues elsewhere and the collateral damage is not too high.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I take the jest back. I am waiting still, though, for someone to step in and make that block. In the meantime, I'm going to extend that protection on article and talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It was an entertaining idea (the mobster thing) but a bit of an overreaction for this lame edit warring (linking a cheesecake photo to the talk page). The permanent talkpage semi-protection over a handful of vandal edits is excessive too. (not sure why I thought it was permanent instead of 1 month) A range block or blacklisting/filtering/autoreverting/manually reverting the link would be more surgical. I do see some similar edit warring from the same IP range at de:Diskussion:Bettina Wulff[152]. I don't even think it's exactly vandalism as much as clueless and maybe misogynistic editing. The IP has been arguing about the photo on the German discussion page at some length. If it were up to me I'd probably just merge the article to the one about Christian Wulff, but I know that wouldn't fly. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually unless other pages are affected, a range block isn't justified IMHO. Even the month of talkpage semi-protection is maybe slightly overkill, and filtering/[auto]reversion of the specific link would be better. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Both the Bettina Wulff article and its talk page have been semiprotected into next year. That probably concludes the need for this thread, unless an admin wants to consider a range block. In my opinion a block of 95.33.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months would be tolerable and would block only a few legitimate edits. (The rangecontribs shows only 21 edits since 1 January 2012, most of which are by this guy). Since the editor only seems interested in Bettina Wulff at present and we already have semiprotection in place the possible range block should be deferred until it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ed, I defer to your experience. IP66, you have plenty of experience too; I believe I've seen you before, with different last digits. That you don't think this is vandalism should be belied by that experience, which should include the thought that we take our BLP violations seriously. For clarity's sake, what is included by the supposedly clueless (and supposedly no more than that) IP is the suggestion that the subject is a call girl, time and time again. If this were an article on some slug, or the fossil teeth of an extinct rodent, we could let that slide, but it's not. Even if it were just "clueless and misogynistic", that this is a BLP places an extra burden on us, and that it continues on the talk page is an indication of a kind of determination that could be called clueless only with kindness--and if this were a registered account, it'd have been blocked for incompetence at the very least. Calling it "lame edit-warring" is, and I'm surprised I have to argue this with you, completely unjustified: there can be no doubt that this is a BLP violation, and edit-warring doesn't apply in such a case. "Lame", well, you can take that up on the talk pages of the editors who reverted it, including those of MountWassen, Tiderolls (a bunch of times, esp. on the talk page--thanks Tide), and possibly Gerda Arendt. Anyway, I will refer to Ed, and I will have faith in the rest of the editors. If you want to propose a merge, you know the process, and if you're successful we'll probably extend semi-protection to that article. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The allegation that Wulff worked as a call girl is apparently well known and notable (which of course doesn't make it credible; I'll put it in with the birther allegations about the US president). It's discussed in the article's "lawsuit" and "book" sections. Yes of course that picture is a BLP problem, though on the scale of extremity let's just say Wikipedia has had much worse. Anyway I'm ok with the 1 month semi-protection of the talk page, or the range block. You can probably read the German pages much more easily than I can, so I'll defer to you about their contents. My impression from recognizing some words here and there was that the IP was trying to use the talk pages as a WP:FORUM, which is already improper whether or not it's vandalism per se. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The German article is interesting enough (learned a new word: Verleumdung), sure, as is the talk page, where the links have been removed and possibly revdeleted. (I'm not an admin there and I'm guessing--I'm also guessing that they're not consistent.) Anyway, the allegation (or, the discussion thereof) is one thing, the links that supposedly prove it, that's quite another. I think we disagree, if we do, is on no more than intent--but even if we do, I think protection is warranted and when that runs out, a watchful eye and perhaps more protection. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Spinner (wheel)

Please review this diff. I have not notified the posting editor of this thread. --Tgeairn (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Gragg, his socks, and his IPs have already been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor (self-identified as Gragg) has posted an apology at the article talk, using yet another IP. --Tgeairn (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked too. He has also posted the same missive on my tp. The apology is just another promo for his patent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV notice removed, edit approved

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.

---

Sorry, how exactly does it happen that after such a long discussion, a sudden edit request is made and confirmed by a single party without reference to others' suggestions, and a dispute resolution case is closed? I refer to the sudden edit request. Allowing this to occur and closing the DRN is ridiculous mockery of any sort of fair process, and sidelines many contributions with points arguably far more relevant than those present in the (immediately effected, without discussion) changes proposed by a single party previously involved in the discussions. On this basis:

• I reject Amadscientist's sudden motion to close (and re-open!) this DRN, which is simply a waste of people's time. The discussion has not concluded.
• The proposals made should be discussed and integrated. Someone's new proposal, ignoring significant content resulting from extended discussions, should not have been suddenly approved by Mr. Stradivarius without discussion. Furthermore, the POV notice for the section should not have been removed without comment when this edit request was suddenly approved.

Sincerely, with a view toward integrating all of the excellent sources uncovered during the discussions. prat (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit was not made by a "single party". The draft was proposed by User:Smickles86 on 29 November, I responded 6 days later with a small change, it was agreed to on 4 November and then the edit request was put in, and the edit was made by an uninvolved administrator. I notified you of the discussion and you even commented about the discussion, stating that you "do not think starting a new section was a good idea", so it's not like you just weren't aware of the discussion and someone snuck up and threw up an edit request before anyone could respond, the edit request was done six days after the proposal was drafted, in a section that you acknowledged seeing. Did you try discussing this with a single person before bringing this here? This is a content dispute, and not only does it not belong here, I really don't think you should be complaining on ANI about a tag that you as an involved administator inserted without any discussion before or after into the fully-protected article, ignoring the request to revert it per WP:BRD. - SudoGhost 10:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't read through the DRN discussion, but the discussion on the talk page looked like enough to give the edit consensus. If the details of the DRN discussion were such that there obviously wasn't a consensus to make that edit, then I will happily undo it. I don't really care one way or the other - I just made the edit as part of patrolling CAT:EP. I agree with SudoGhost that this is a content matter, and I'm not really sure that it belongs at ANI. Pratyeka, is there a conduct aspect to this dispute that you think should be dealt with here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing in the DRN discussion that would come even close to suggesting that there wasn't a consensus for the edit in question, indeed the only thing that came close to discussing the actual content was this comment from Smickles86. Pratyeka commented on the discussion not long after that, so I'm really confused as to why he's suggesting that this is some out of the blue thing, since he had seen the discussion and knew it was being discussed, and the edit request came six days after Smickles86 made the proposal, which is more than enough time for someone to make some objection to it. - SudoGhost 15:41, 8 December 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.

File:Tony_Estanguet.jpg

Can someone please double-check the spelling of the uploader's name in the original, deleted, en-wiki version? They don't have a User page or user talk, so I need to make sure we're crediting them correctly at Featured Pictures. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The only text on that image's page, as File:Tony estanguet wch prague 2006.jpg, as uploaded by Pavel.rycl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), read

Summary

Tony Estanguet riding for the gold medal at World Championship at Troja slalom course in Prague, Czech Republic, in 2006.

Licensing

{{cc-by-3.0}}

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

77.96.180.241 - Personal Attacks, Vandalism, and Edit Warring

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

---

I am coming here to report User:77.96.180.241. This user has been warned for edit warring, attacked multiple users: [153] [154] and attempted to hide this by repeatedly blanking his/her talk page. Vacation^nine 16:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't vandalise your own talk page. S/he's allowed to blank it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:09, 8 December 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.

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV notice removed, edit approved

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.

---

Sorry, how exactly does it happen that after such a long discussion, a sudden edit request is made and confirmed by a single party without reference to others' suggestions, and a dispute resolution case is closed? I refer to the sudden edit request. Allowing this to occur and closing the DRN is ridiculous mockery of any sort of fair process, and sidelines many contributions with points arguably far more relevant than those present in the (immediately effected, without discussion) changes proposed by a single party previously involved in the discussions. On this basis:

• I reject Amadscientist's sudden motion to close (and re-open!) this DRN, which is simply a waste of people's time. The discussion has not concluded.
• The proposals made should be discussed and integrated. Someone's new proposal, ignoring significant content resulting from extended discussions, should not have been suddenly approved by Mr. Stradivarius without discussion. Furthermore, the POV notice for the section should not have been removed without comment when this edit request was suddenly approved.

Sincerely, with a view toward integrating all of the excellent sources uncovered during the discussions. prat (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The edit was not made by a "single party". The draft was proposed by User:Smickles86 on 29 November, I responded 6 days later with a small change, it was agreed to on 4 November and then the edit request was put in, and the edit was made by an uninvolved administrator. I notified you of the discussion and you even commented about the discussion, stating that you "do not think starting a new section was a good idea", so it's not like you just weren't aware of the discussion and someone snuck up and threw up an edit request before anyone could respond, the edit request was done six days after the proposal was drafted, in a section that you acknowledged seeing. Did you try discussing this with a single person before bringing this here? This is a content dispute, and not only does it not belong here, I really don't think you should be complaining on ANI about a tag that you as an involved administator inserted without any discussion before or after into the fully-protected article, ignoring the request to revert it per WP:BRD. - SudoGhost 10:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't read through the DRN discussion, but the discussion on the talk page looked like enough to give the edit consensus. If the details of the DRN discussion were such that there obviously wasn't a consensus to make that edit, then I will happily undo it. I don't really care one way or the other - I just made the edit as part of patrolling CAT:EP. I agree with SudoGhost that this is a content matter, and I'm not really sure that it belongs at ANI. Pratyeka, is there a conduct aspect to this dispute that you think should be dealt with here? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing in the DRN discussion that would come even close to suggesting that there wasn't a consensus for the edit in question, indeed the only thing that came close to discussing the actual content was this comment from Smickles86. Pratyeka commented on the discussion not long after that, so I'm really confused as to why he's suggesting that this is some out of the blue thing, since he had seen the discussion and knew it was being discussed, and the edit request came six days after Smickles86 made the proposal, which is more than enough time for someone to make some objection to it. - SudoGhost 15:41, 8 December 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.

File:Tony_Estanguet.jpg

Can someone please double-check the spelling of the uploader's name in the original, deleted, en-wiki version? They don't have a User page or user talk, so I need to make sure we're crediting them correctly at Featured Pictures. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The only text on that image's page, as File:Tony estanguet wch prague 2006.jpg, as uploaded by Pavel.rycl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), read

Summary

Tony Estanguet riding for the gold medal at World Championship at Troja slalom course in Prague, Czech Republic, in 2006.

Licensing

{{cc-by-3.0}}

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

77.96.180.241 - Personal Attacks, Vandalism, and Edit Warring

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

---

I am coming here to report User:77.96.180.241. This user has been warned for edit warring, attacked multiple users: [155] [156] and attempted to hide this by repeatedly blanking his/her talk page. Vacation^nine 16:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't vandalise your own talk page. S/he's allowed to blank it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:09, 8 December 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:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

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 would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[157])

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[158]

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[159], and I reverted back [160]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[161][162]

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[163]

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[164] The user agreed to this[165], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[166] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[167][168][169][170][171][172][173]

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[174] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[175]

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[176] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[177][178] and Haiga[179][180], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[181]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[182] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[183] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[184], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[185]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[186] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above. My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin.[187] If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination. My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example). My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Wikipedia policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him. My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Wikipedia community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character. I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[188] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC) (The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)) Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Wikipedia rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Wikipedia). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me. Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging. Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now. My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits. My informing User:BDD[189] that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack[190] distracting me). My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD[191] in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.) My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article). I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari[192]. I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Wikipedia policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation?[193][194][195] TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

While this discussion proceeds, User Elvenscout, contrary to WP:CANVAS, continues his campaigning and possible stealth canvassing, via posts such as this of Nov 27, or this of Nov 30, or this of Dec 1 on various user’s talk pages. User Elvenscout also, contrary to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT, continues to alter and / or suppress unilaterally the content of article talk pages, e.g., at Talk:Uta monogatari with edits on Oct 17 and Nov 30, and at Talk:Tanka in English on Dec 1.Tristan noir (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The above comments are not canvassing. The users in question have equally taken note of TN's bad behaviour, and I have asked heir advice on how to proceed, because this ANI post, like all my other attempts to deal with TN through community involvement, has apparently been derailed by TN's refusal to be concise or accurate and instead relying on ad hominem attacks like the above. The above removal of the contents of the uta monogatari talk page is called "archiving", TN. It is a perfectly normal process for when a talk page becomes very long, and especially in a case like this when the previous talk is almost entirely irrelevant to the article content. Additionally, I removed one account of the recommendation regarding "tanka in English", because after two months neither TN nor anyone else has made any attempt to implement it, because, as was already established by broad consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, the merge would likely bring in WP:WEIGHT issues. Additionally, instead of making any attempt to improve that article or participate in the currently active discussion there, TN limited his edits to making personal attacks against me and arguing entirely irrelevant points about my "ignorance of the publishing industry". (My comments were that fringe-materials that are "published" through Lulu, and therefore do not exist in any libraries or bookshops, are probably not reliable sources and should not be advertised on Wikipedia.) In fact, the majority of TN's edits to article talk pages over the last two months have been limited to following my edits, and whenever another user (primarily User:Bagworm) disagrees with me, TN will jump in and attack me, claiming that this is "consensus". One other noteworthy example is [196], where I had had a dispute with Bagworm over his/her posting of an inappropriate item on a list. When I removed it I explained my reasoning, and Bagworm seemed to accept it in his/her silence, but then almost two weeks later TN appeared and posted a ridiculous argument in response. His argument was that since one author had said that in Japan visual arts are often linked with literature, then a Japanese painting style should be included in a list of literary terms. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I am collapsing irrelevant, off-topic portions of the conversation. Personal issues with my actions on unrelated pages should be brought up with me on MY talk page or on the relevant article talk pages -- they should not clutter this ANI post, which is meant to address Tristan noirs behaviour. Next-to-nothing TN has posted above qualifies as a defense against my pointing out that his activities have been limited to posting spam/fringe theories to numerous articles, and undermining my integrity as an editor. Ad hominem arguments against me have no place here. TN has, throughout all of my interactions with him over the last three months, constantly failed to address his problems with my edits in the appropriate venues; several of the pages he has posted to contain some reference to a separate argument, as well as a reply by me that received no direct response until TN posted something else on an entirely different talk page. The current example is in his constantly using this page to moan about my edits to other pages, when his edit history shows that he has not tried to engage me directly on any other talk page for over two weeks. Probably the most blatant example is [197], where he attempted to use Talk:Tanka in English to attack my edits on four other articles, but has since failed to bring up his specific problems with my edits on either the appropriate article talk pages or on my talk page. His drawing a link between my edits to different articles was also bizarre, since my edits to each of the pages he listed only vaguely resembled my edits to "Tanka in English". This has made it very difficult to discuss anything with him. Accusations of canvassing on my part are ridiculous: my message[198] to BDD does not mention ANI once! It is exclusively related to a comment he made on a separate talk page two weeks earlier[199]. I also asked the advice[200] of an experienced Wikipedian who had intervened in what TN apparently considers an ongoing content dispute at Tanka in English -- on my side, of course, since TN's view is apparently that the article should include material not found in reliable sources, and should refer to unreliable sources as "noteworthy publications"[201][202][203]. Further, my messaging[204] Stalwart111 cannot be "canvassing", since he was the one who suggested[205] posting here in the first place, and he had already posted here[206] himself before I messaged him! I was merely asking his advice on what else I could do to stop TN's seemingly endless quest to post spam/OR/fringe on various Wikipedia articles. TN's initial response above also technically qualifies as an ad hominem argument in its failure to make any attempt to address my issues with his editing activities, but I guess it needs to be left intact since he is entitled to a response. I don't suppose he would like to post a more relevant defense against the accusations that he is here to spam Wikipedia? elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I have given my opinion (on a number of occasions) and am undeniably "involved" but would like to propose a solution nonetheless (I hope admins will allow that, given how long this has dragged on without a solution). As this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND based on differing opinions / personal views / supposed conflicts-of-interest relating almost entirely to one topic, a topic ban seems (at least to me) to be the obvious solution. An additional interaction ban would probably be a good idea.

Topic ban - if either party is genuinely here to build Wikipedia, they will accept a topic ban and move on to editing other unrelated topics. I suggest a topic ban for "poetry" (broadly construed).

Interaction ban - to prevent the battleground cancer from spreading, an interaction ban for elvenscout742 and Tristan noir is proposed.

For the record, I came to the original AFD completely at random (I probably participate in around 5-10 a day) and have had nothing to do with either editor in the past in any way shape or form. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any article relating to poetry, save for perhaps the biography of some obscure 17th century noble who happens to have also written some poetry in his spare time. Given topic bans (as I understand them) are designed to avoid future conflict or prevent disruptive editing, I can't see the face-value, but if admins believe my actions have exacerbated the problem then I will quite happily sign myself up for a topic ban as well. Stalwart111 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As a peripherally involved editor I have found the negative interactions between the two editors in question quite disruptive, and I'd like to voice my support for User Stalwart111's proposed solution as outlined above. While on the face of it, the proposal may seem extreme, the volume of heat and friction visible across a range of poetry-related articles has reached intolerable and disruptive levels, and I believe that if both editors are prepared to place Wikipedia first then they should accept it. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

*I like this solution in theory, but I'm not sure about "unrelated topics" -- does it mean I am limited to editing articles on topics unrelated to the TN's topics? Or does it mean I am banned from editing articles on Japanese poetry? While I am here to build an encyclopedia, my area of expertise, and my only real interest, is Japanese literature; this is also a topic I have generally limited myself to up until now. If I am still allowed edit articles related to Japanese literature, then I agree to the above solution. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban would prevent you and Tristan noir from editing any content related to poetry. I've read most of the background here and, although you, elvenscout742, can be wordy, I haven't found your editing to be anything but on-policy and generally constructive and civil. So I can't support topic-banning you. Also, I'd prefer to offer Tristan noir the opportunity to return to the topic if he demonstrates constructive on-policy editing in other areas over the next 12 months. I'm not sure an interaction ban is necessary, but if both parties agree to it, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::I don't think I can accept a blanket-topic-ban on poetry when I'm in the middle of an incomplete translation of an article on poetry... elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• User Stalwart111’s proposed two-part solution above seems reasonable, constructive and fair. I am quite willing – would be grateful, in fact – to accept an administrator’s decision to enforce an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.

:I do share the reservations Elvenscout expresses regarding a topic ban, however, due to Stalwart’s suggestion that said ban cover “’poetry’(broadly construed).” Elvenscout has made contributions to a number of Japanese poetry articles that I’ve never edited and do not intend to edit; I’ve contributed to articles on American and Russian poetry that Elvenscout has not touched and perhaps will not touch. I see no need to ban Elvenscout, for example, from articles such as Waka (poetry) or The Tale of Genji or to ban me from articles such as Jones Very or Zaum; these are articles where our editing does not intersect. In place, therefore, of “poetry (broadly construed),” would it be possible to establish a narrower parameter, one that includes only those articles wherein we’ve been in direct conflict or wherein we’ve both directly participated? If so, like Elvenscout, then I can agree with Stalwart’s solution.

It might be constructive for all concerned, also, to archive the Talk Pages of these same articles where our disputes took place – to remove them, that is, from immediate view. Those articles, to the best of my recollection, include Haibun, Tanka in English, Uta monogatari, Renku, Haiga and Prosimetrum. If I've mistakenly left anything off of this list, Elvenscout can supply it.

Anthonyhcole’s suggestion above that this editor alone be placed under a topic ban “over the next 12 months” is slanted and hardly justified when taking fully into account both sides of the lengthy WP:BATTLEGROUND conflict that Stalwart addresses in his proposal.Tristan noir (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was already archived. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Uta monogatari was archived with this edit on Oct 17. You have subsequently, on Nov 30 and Dec 2, added three posts here, here and here to the same talk page, however, that reintroduce old controversies, and to what purpose? I haven’t responded to these edits as that can only exacerbate the situation but I believe, as a good faith gesture, that they, too, should be archived or deleted, Elvenscout. We’re here trying to put this conflict to rest, no? The talk page edits that you’ve added are rather inflammatory and do not contribute to a possible solution here.Tristan noir (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:*Addendum: Would it suffice, in other words, to replace a broad topic ban with an article and page ban that would stipulate as off-limits those articles (and their talk pages) enumerated above? Wouldn’t this less restrictive ban, in conjunction with an interaction ban, do the trick?Tristan noir (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::It seems a little odd to ban me from editing an article I created. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:::On second thought, yes, you are right that it would be “a little odd” to ban the creator of the article from future editing of it. However, see my concerns above about the current state of Talk: Uta monogatari.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate archive page for three edits is pointless. I'm deleting them, since they are no longer relevant. The first was posted to provide a concise explanation for why the article changed subjects in September, but since then all edits prior to 13 September have been blocked from view for copyright reasons. The later edits were posted in response to your comments here, but given that all three possible topic/article bans under discussion have you not editing that article, a response to you seems irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

::How about this: Tristan stays awayis banned from Japanese poetry, I stay awayam banned from English and American poetry, and we both agree to generally avoid non-culture-specific poetry articles (like Prosimetrum), as well as Tanka in English and Haiku in English. My main concern is that both myself and Tristan seem to be primarily concerned with poetry, and banning us both from all poetry articles doesn't seem constructive. Tristan's most constructive edits have been to articles about western poetry, and mine have been to articles about Japanese poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably the right time now, Elvenscout, for you and I to pause and let others weigh-in on Stalwart's original proposal and / or your suggested modification above or my earlier modification above.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of heart It occurs to me now that since the purpose of the proposed topic was to demonstrate that we are both here to build an encyclopedia, either one of us placing weaker restrictions on the ban defeats the purpose. I will therefore accept a full ban on poetry articles in order to prove that my primary reason for being here is to help improve Wikipedia. While my main interest is Japanese literature, and poetry is a huge part of that, there is still plenty of work to be done on Wikipedia's coverage of classical Japanese prose as well. (I think I might go back to improving The Tale of Genji.)

On examining WP:BAN, though, I notice that it mentions several times that such bans are imposed for being "disruptive", and so I must emphasize here for the record that the reason I am self-imposing this ban is not because I believe I have been disruptive (I think community consensus would agree that I have not), but merely to demonstrate that my recent actions have been in the interests of building an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't want to be stigmatized as having been "banned" for being "disruptive".

This "ban" is self-imposed and only meant to prove that I am not here to post spam or POV on Wikipedia poetry articles. User:Stalwart111 and User:Anthonyhcole understand this; User:Bagworm and User:Tristan noir, if they have understood WP:AGF, will also agree to this. (I don't want to see any user take this as an opportunity to go around reverting every edit I have made that he/she disagrees with.) If at some point during my ban I accidentally slip up (once or twice) and, say, add a notice to a poetry-related article that I was reading for my own enjoyment, I expect a polite reminder on my talk page.

I do not want, for example, a posting on the article talk page (where I can't reply) "In this edit user Elvenscut742 violated a topic ban that was imposed on him by community consensus for being disruptive. I have therefore reverted the edit and have reported him to an administrator." This kind of action (from anyone other than Stalwart111, Tristan noir, Anthonyhcole, Bagworm, and whatever admin chooses to close this discussion) will result in me responding on that user's talk page by drawing their attention to this discussion. This kind of action from any user who should know better will be treated as a personal attack.

Of course, all of the above is dependent on Tristan noir accepting a similar topic ban. Or such a ban being imposed.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for you to restrict your topics at all. I favour Tristan noir avoiding all poetry, not just Japanese, as you've made a convincing case that he is editing problematically in a genre that crosses English and Japanese poetry. We need more eyes on the case, though, to be fair to Tristan. The difficulty is, a grasp of your case involves an hour or two of reading, and time is our currency here. You may make appraisal from your peers "cheaper" for them if you can restate your case more succinctly. Perhaps take your time - a day or two if necessary - to construct a clear, simple and concise case for Tristan noir's exclusion from poetry articles (or whatever you believe would be the mildest effective sanction). A few paragraphs with diffs would be ideal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that TN, as he has done before, is still guaranteed to respond with a 1,000+ word spiel about how I am equally responsible for this "dispute", and Bagworm, as he has done above, would likely support any move to get me banned from poetry articles in order to go back to owning numerous articles about classical Japanese poetry, despite apparently not understanding Japanese. The latter should know better than to claim that "my dispute with Tristan noir" has been disruptive, since his siding with TN in near every case and regularly flouting Wikipedia policy have undoubtedly been more disruptive. I specified above that even though I am taking this self-imposed (and temporary) ban on editing poetry articles, I will still treat attempts to undo my previous edits to these articles as a personal attack. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m willing to follow Elvenscout’s good faith example and to agree to Stalwart’s original proposal above, viz., that Elvenscout and I mutually accept an administrator's implementation of a topic ban for “poetry” broadly construed as well as the implementation of an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: Does a "topic ban" include edits to articles only peripherally related to the topic? Just now I edited the page Glossary of literary terms in order to remove inappropriate mention of a style of painting that someone had added (again). Since the entry was related to poetry, I can see how that might be inappropriate if I am under a topic ban, but I can see other users having a problem with me editing, say, The Tale of Genji or A Chaos of Flowers because those articles' subject-matter deals with a topic that is peripherally related to poetry. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a bit troubled by all this. I have (had) limited interaction with Elvenscout and none with Tristan, and it has been related to Tanka in English, which I simply happened upon--I cannot remember right now how I got to it. I had some trouble with Elvenscout's work there; it seemed a bit pointy to me, and I suppose that can be explained (though not justified completely) by their negative interactions with Tristan. I do have the feeling--and I'm speaking here, again, as someone with limited experience who has not delved into the histories--that Tristan might well have an agenda that's not set by Wikipedia: there are things in the history of Tanka in English that suggest that, and there's another editor involved as well. To put it bluntly, if I went further I'd be OUTing, and I don't think that's warranted or to the point.

  My point, if I have one, is rather that I don't think that the project is best served by both of these editors topic-banning themselves from editing poetry. I think they have something to contribute: in the case of Elvenscout I'm pretty sure of that, in the case of Tristan I'll take it on faith in the hope that they are or will be able to edit with the project's best interest at heart. If they wish to limit themselves and refrain from editing poetry articles, I guess they can, but I don't really see why they should. I wish they could learn to co-exist, which they will if they see a common goal here--that may mean that both have to leave something (an 'agenda') behind. Perhaps this ANI thread may lead to some kind of understanding between the two: after all, was it not Basho who said, "Once we stop fucking around and messing with each other we'll see that we both love passion fruit and sheep frolicking in the spring"? Drmies (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, I honestly agree with just about everything you just said (even where you say my more recent edits to Tanka in English were POINTy). Additionally, I thank you for your good faith that I have something to add to Wikipedia. However, I regret to say that in my three months of interacting with both Tristan noir and Bagworm (who may have an alternate agenda in trying to ban me from poetry articles in general), I have found that if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. This is a principle I am not willing to compromise, and if it means taking one for the team, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I said "may", leaving it in the middle whether one, or the other, or both have an agenda... I'm trying to be an equal-opportunity offender here. Though it is probably true, as Shiki said, that "One tries for fairness / But ends by cutting up all. / Thus spake the blunt knife." My own translation, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, for your observations, pro and con. On the subject of a broad topic ban on poetry, Elvenscout and I both freely volunteered in hopes of bringing this conflict to an end. Stalwart’s proposal, which opened this discussion, proposed an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me as well. I do see an interaction ban as in the best interests of Wikipedia and of the editors in conflict, given recent history. Elvenscout, in his response to you, imputes bad faith not only to me but to another editor, when he writes, if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources. Comments of this nature are neither balanced nor constructive. In addition, there are continuing matters like this edit of Dec 5 to Waka (poetry) where Elvenscout, in his summary, writes, Moving content from Tanka. My attempt to stop User:Tristan noir from continuing to post spam to Wikipedia has led to me taking a self-imposed exile from poetry articles. This is contrary not only to WP:REVTALK which states “Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved” but is contrary as well to WP:CIV which lists, among its “don’ts” of edit summaries, don’t “make snide remarks” and don’t “make personal remarks about editors.” Furthermore, Elvenscout's edit summary is incorporated into an article that this editor has never worked upon and arises from personal disagreements that have nothing to do with its content. If this were an isolated incident, it would not be worthy of remark, but that it is far from being so lends weight and credence to Stalwart’s proposed imposition of an interaction ban between Elvenscout and me.Tristan noir (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is the kind of comment that makes it very difficult to discuss article content with Tristan noir, and has also made it very difficult to summarize why I feel his behaviour is not conducive to collaborative encyclopedia-editing. His citation of my edit summary for an edit I made to a separate article, and taking the summary out of context, rather than directly addressing article content, is typical.

The edit in question[207] introduced some rather messy, probably doubled material to an article that had previously been meant to be a translation of the admirably concise Japanese Wikipedia article on waka. I had to make this edit immediately as a result of the goings on here. I noticed that users had continued editing waka-related content in the tanka article, despite the fact that this content was doomed to get moved into the waka article. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this issue -- where possible, article-histories should accurately reflect who edited what, when; in cases like this, where the tanka article has been effectively split into three separate articles, this is problematic. I was going to slowly delete material from the tanka article and replace it in the waka article, but changed circumstances have made this impractical. Rather than wait however many months until my self-imposed poetry ban expires, during which time countless edits by numerous users could have been made to the now-irrelevant sections of the tanka article, making their edits practically invisible once the move was completed. Therefore, I made the decision to implement the move immediately, and therefore messed up the content of the waka article considerably. Out-of-context, this edit would seem bizarre and unjustified. Therefore, I provided the necessary context -- I am exiling myself from poetry articles in general; however, this is not because I have been banned, nor because I have been disruptive (you will find not a single fringe-theory promoted in the portion of the waka article I created); I have exiled myself in order to prevent Tristan noir from continuing to post fringe-theories and spam on these articles; that Tristan noir has been posting spam and promoting fringe theories on several articles is not my "opinion", and it is not a "personal remark about an editor" -- it is a fact that is backed up by almost every single edit Tristan noir has ever made.

In order to justify what otherwise looks like a bad edit, I needed to explain this context. However, now Tristan noir has again muddied the waters by bringing his personal issues with my outside edits to the table here.

Tristan noir, again, takes my quote if I were to "leave something behind" in order to accommodate them, it would be the principle that Wikipedia articles should be based on material that can be found in reliable secondary sources out of context. There is no "impuning of bad faith" here. Tristan noir has admitted repeatedly[208][209][210] that he believes content should not have to be verifiable in reliable secondary sources to be included in Wikipedia. (My mention of Bagworm's edits above is based on his/her habit of violating WP:NOR by taking primary sources and extrapolating from them broader "facts", and then posting those statements in Wikipedia articles.[211][212][213] I am concerned that User:Bagworm's above support for my being banned from poetry articles may have been in response to my questioning a number of his unilateral, unjustified, and somewhat odd edits to the article renku. The worst example is his tagging[214] a statement that is easily verifiable, waiting two months, and then deleting it[215], without providing any reason for the deletion other than the passage of two months. I reinstated the statement with an obvious source last weekend, and without responding to my talk page post[216] he/she suddenly appeared here and said that I should be banned from all poetry articles!)

It should probably be noted that, among impartial users (i.e., every user other than me and Tristan noir) who have posted here, two are in favour of this ban, and two are against; of the two that are in favour, one has on at least three separate article supported Tristan noir's spam/fringe theories, and might see an advantage to both myself and Tristan noir, but not him/herself, being banned; of the two that are opposed, one (Anthonyhcole) is the only user who has never interacted with either myself or Tristan noir in the past, and judged based on the evidence presented above that Tristan noir alone should be banned from editing poetry articles based on his clear pattern of disruptive activity, which is clearly motivated by a desire to promote the crack-pot theories of a non-notable poet.

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(Retrieved from auto-archive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:52, 8 December 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:Oldhouse2012 and WikiProject banners on History of Vojvodina

G'day, this report relates to the disruptive and WP:POINT behaviour of User:Oldhouse2012 on Talk:History of Vojvodina (talk page of an article covered by ARBMAC).

On 30 November, User:Thehoboclown placed the WikiProject Hungary banner on the talk page [217]. Quite a reasonable action given Vojvodina was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austro-Hungarian Empire for centuries prior to 1920. I can't speak for User:Thehoboclown's actions outside of this one.

• However, on 1 December, User:Oldhouse2012 reverted User:Thehoboclown's edit, using the edit summary "Wrong WP".

• On 2 December, User:Thehoboclown restored the WikiProject Hungary banner [218] with the edit summary "restored project banner".

• At 13:07 on 3 December, User:Oldhouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner [219] with the edit summary "this is about serbia, not about hungary and this is wrong wp".

• At 13:55 on 3 December, User:Iadrian yu became involved, restoring the banner [220] with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Oldhouse2012 (talk): This is about history of Vojvodina... and that is related to Hungary too." User:User:Iadrian yu then created a section on the talk page for discussion here [221] and explained that it was quite reasonable to add the WikiProject Hungary banner, and using as an example the History of Transylvania article.

• At 21:35 on 3 December, without engaging on the talk page section created by User:Iadrian yu, User:Oldhouse2012 again removed the WikiProject Hungary banner [222] with the edit summary "please discuss on talk page why this WP template should be here", and then made entries on the talk page section [223] stating "Page about Transylvania should not have WP Hungary as well. But, that article is not interesting to me. Let discuss this one: Province of Vojvodina was formed in 1945 and it have no any relation to Hungary. I understand that this article mention some events before 1945 to inform readers what preceeded formation of Vojvodina, but it is not reason that wrong WP teplate is included here. Also, former multi-ethnic country with name Kingdom of Hungary and modern Hungary of ethnic Hungarians are two different countries. Another problem is that many countries ruled in Vojvodina and only WP Hungary was adeed. Why? It is wrong. Why you did not add templates Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Great Moravia, Yugoslavia? Why only Hungary? And if we follow this logic we can add more than 20 WP templates because of similar reason why you add WP Hungary".

• User:Iadrian yu responded in the talk section [224].

• User:Brianyoumans became involved, explaining that the policy on adding WikiProjects is inclusive [225], and User:Iadrian yu agreed [226].

• I then restored the WikiProject Hungary banner per the talk page, noting the consensus of User:Iadrian yu, User:Brianyoumans and myself that the WikiProject Hungary banner was reasonable [227] with an edit summary warning User:Oldhouse2012 of a possible report of their actions if the disruption persisted.

• User:Oldhouse2012 then added 16 more banners to the talk page here [228]. This is where WP:POINT became obvious.

• I reverted the addition of all the other templates [229], and User:Oldhouse2012 reverted [230]. At which point I brought it here. In the meantime, User:Brianyoumans has been patiently looking through and culling the 16 banners added by User:Oldhouse2012. You are a better man than I am Brianyoumans...

Could an admin please reinforce WP:POINT with User:Oldhouse2012? I think the other users involved here have been more than reasonable and patient with this. This type of behaviour is very unhelpful and disruptive, and is clearly being done to make a (nationalistic) point. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I endorse the version of events given by Peacemaker67 above. Except that he is probably a better man than I am, since he seems to do a lot more editing in this contentious area than I do, and he hasn't exploded with frustration yet.Brianyoumans (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't even read the entire description but just from what I saw on my watchlist I concur that Oldhouse2012's WikiProject censorship/spamming is entirely pointless. I'd wield the axe myself, but because it's a broad scope of articles that require intervention, I'm overly cautious because someone might cry WP:INVOLVED. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I looked at Oldhouse2012's categorisation; I think it's a little quirky (those categories could be better named, perhaps, without so much emphasis on the modern view of Hungary) but it's not really bad per se. Brianyoumans has already provided Oldhouse2012 with some good feedback and there's not much I can add to that. Those WikiProject changes look a bit pointy to me, but it's not an avalanche (yet) - I'd like to see what Oldhouse2012 does in their next editing session (they seem to edit at a particular time of day) - whether it's more pointy edits concerning projects, or going back to benign content work. bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Bobrayner above. However, I have to wonder... this is a lot of very technical editing for a new account. When a new account pops up and the person immediately starts making some complicated edits, revising categories and wikiproject tags, one has to wonder whether they have edited on WP before. And when their edits are fairly contentious, almost immediately, one has to wonder if maybe their old account got blocked. But I agree that Oldhouse2012 has done some reasonable editing, and deserves a chance to show that they can play nicely.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Incidently, I had a very hard time commenting here, as the "edit" tags seemed to be way off; if you clicked on the edit tag at the top of a section, you would get a different section, several sections away. Very odd.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree re the editing. When I first saw these edits, the language and obvious experience made me think "duck" but I've given that aspect the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• There have been a lot of socks in this area. I had a quick look at editing patterns and couldn't find a close match to any of the first few sockpuppeteers that sprang to mind. Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got hit with a bit of vandalism on my talk page not long after I made this report (which is par for the course really) but it could be meat, rather than sock. Where do I start? I have a bit of a fan club developing, apparently... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with user Peacemaker67, Oldhouse2012 is abusing wikiProjects on the page of Vojvodina (WP:POINT) by adding "all and everything". I said other wikiProjects are welcome but only related ones. I saw some projects that don`t really have a connection to Vojvodina and I think that is an abuse of other projects. Adrian (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was beginning to think that Oldhouse2012 might have gotten the message, but he clearly has not, per Talk:History_of_Vojvodina#Move_forvard. In particular his insistence that WikiProject banners not be removed unless the WikiProject in question removes them. It's straight out WP:POINT and WP:HEAR. EdJohnston, I think something firmer might be necessary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I only suggest that Peacemaker67 try to chalenge my arguments on talk page instead to attack my personality. I done nothing wrong. I was discussing this problem on talk page and I was changing my position because of good arguments of other users. But, my last arguments are also good and I do not understand what could be wrong in exchange of arguments on talk page? Oldhouse2012 (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oldhouse2012 has made a large number of category-related edits in Eastern Europe in a short time, on towns that have been in different countries in different historical periods. When I saw he had removed a category tag for WikiProject Hungary at Novi Sad I figured he was on some kind of nationalist mission. It did not help that his edit summary was 'this is about serbia, not about hungary and this is wrong wp', which does not suggest any understandable reason for revising tags. WikiProjects traditionally have a lot of discretion on their scope. It is unlikely that Oldhouse2012 has any mandate from members of the involved WikiProjects to make these changes. I've notified him under WP:ARBEE and since then I left a more explicit warning for him to follow consensus regarding the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that, although I have my doubts whether he will accept the consensus to remove the other WikiProject banners if there is no response in a week. I'll bring this back if there are any further issues with this behaviour. Thanks EdJohnston. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot7 incorrectly removing entries from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi, not sure where to post this as the author of the bot says he may not pick up messages, so it suggests posting here. The bot is continually removing the block request for User:220.244.57.53‎ despite no-one blocking them. The logs for both the anon, and the random admin that it claims has blocked the anon, both show no block has been made. Halsteadk (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The last 7 or so edits that they have made don't seem to be vandalism ... and that goes back a few days (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the converse, see this earlier discussion. I think these bots are seriously unwell; perhaps they're depressed in advance of the holiday season. One summary said that User:Kim Dent-Brown blocked the IP. Is that a BLP violation?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think this bot has been updated in 5 years or so, since it never really broke. The bot is screen-scraping to check if users are blocked (which is probably where the error is) and seems to be long due for a rewrite. If I get time to write a new bot after finals, I think it would be good for an addition of something like <!-- no bot removal --> or the sort. Legoktm (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian weaponry article infobox image sizes

There seems to be a swath of IPs and single-purpose accounts intent on increasing infobox image size in Iranian weaponry articles from the standard 300px to 400-600px, blowing up the size of the infobox.

Users (that I know of) and example diffs:

• 114.108.196.217 (talk) [231]
• 222.127.214.149 (talk) [232]
• Thathgar (talk · contribs) [233]
• Makoremusko (talk · contribs) [234]
• Jkauhh (talk · contribs) [235]
• Akarinahk (talk · contribs) [236]
• Sakahalin (talk · contribs) [237]
• Lkaria (talk · contribs) [238]

Could an admin look into the matter? MKFI (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected AKM, Toophan, 9K38 Igla, Heckler & Koch G3, and PK machine gun for 1 week. I didn't protect Heckler & Koch MP5 as the image size has only been changed once so far, and that was 5 days ago. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this has been going on for longer; for instance, these edits by Rablu1 (talk · contribs) in October. (There are a lot more on various Iranian weaponry articles). Does Rablu1 have any connection with the users named above? bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Spagahan (talk · contribs) has similar edits. I have also notified Commons admins and nominated several uploads by these users for deletion. MKFI (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistent use of inappropriate language

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 Guto2003 is consistently using inappropriate language – "bitch", "fuck" etc – in edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guto2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhitter (talk • contribs)

Two responses: a.) Please don't forget to sign your posts and b.) Though I agree with you that language such as what was exhibited in those edit summaries isn't necessary, I don't think it was necessarily directed at anyone in particular; if it was, it would be a personal attack, and therefore I'm not sure there's much to do about it. Go Phightins! 23:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction, it was directed at an editor at least in one of the occurances; I believe Bwilkins may have blocked the editor. Go Phightins! 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing my previous post. Headhitter (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify here: obscenities are only a problem when they are directed as attacks at other editors. However, there is no rule against using "inappropriate language" in impersonal circumstances. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I always despair when I see arguments that run along the lines of "There isn't a policy forbidding this conduct, therefore this conduct is acceptable". If Lothar really needs a policy, how about WP:CIV? It's not just a policy, but one of Wikipedia's five core pillars. (Before someone jumps to WP:NOTCENSORED, I hope they'll take the time to actually read the policy that sits behind that link.)

While there is no blanket policy forbidding the use of expletives in discussions on Wikipedia – in the most trivial case, it would make it difficult for us to even write articles such as fuck – there is also an expectation (not always respected) that Wikipedia editors will behave with a modicum of decorum. If an editor consistently chooses to use language that makes other editors uncomfortable, in situations where such language is neither necessary nor constructive, and does so despite polite requests to moderate their tone, then it is appropriate to consider administrative sanctions. Editors should be aware that they are dealing with other volunteers from many different cultural backgrounds, and should strive not to needlessly or gratuitously offend. (To take an oft-quoted aphorism: "A gentleman is one who never gives offense unintentionally.")

In Guto2003's case, it appears that he would do well to learn new and better ways to express...emphasis...in his edit summaries. "BITCH, PLEASE!!! Lispector's family have fled Ukraine in january 1921! The Ukrainian People's Republic WAS NOT part of the USSR until March 1921!" would work equally well as an edit summary without the needless "BITCH, PLEASE!!!". Wikipedia editors should strive to write their edit summaries in such a way that they wouldn't be embarrassed if their mothers, their bosses, or their children were to see what they wrote—since it's almost certain that if not their own then someone's mothers, children, and employers will. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Though I agree with your premise and wholeheartedly agree that such language is inappropriate and unnecessary, I do think that Lothar may be correct that the policy of civility only applies when they are directed at others. Such language is unwarranted, but not necessarily against the rules, at least through my interpretation of the policies. Go Phightins! 02:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

While user conduct issues often arise in the context of one-to-one disputes, interaction among Wikipedia editors can and does also take the form of one-to-many communication: to wit, edit summaries. A particular behavior can be rude or incivil even if it isn't knowingly aimed at a specific person. I reiterate my exhortation to stop worrying so much about the letter of the policy and consider its spirit—but for those who must satisfy their inner ruleslawyer, it is right there in the first paragraph of WP:CIV: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

If it helps, consider every edit summary to – potentially – be the first statement in a future dialogue. It's a message written to every person who might edit the article in the future—and to every person who might choose not to edit the article based on apparently-childish or obnoxious behavior, and to every person who might assume that those edit summaries reflect an appropriate way to interact with other Wikipedia editors. Even if you don't aim an F-bomb, it's still going to hit someone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly applies to edit summaries, which are messages to all other editors. Consider "You right-wing sons of bitches..." that edit summary was a blatant misuse of the purpose of an edit summary, which is to tell other editors what you did in the edit, and an attack on any conservative Wikipedia editor. Ryan Vesey 03:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to side with Phightins! here. In my opinion, leaving expletives in an edit summary is okay as long as you don't say "x is a bitch" or "fuck x", x being a user (which is what happened in the edit summary Ryan cites). You mentioned that you wanted us to read policy before bringing up NOTCENSORED, and I have. I personally think the "Bitch, please" comment was humorous in a way, being that it is a commonly used statement on funny television shows and the like. I don't think it was NPA at all... As to the comment about aiming, not hitting, etc... If I just go out in the street and say "fuck", nobody will care (assuming they're above 18 ish), or if they care they won't kill me for it, or ban me from the street. If we are considering these edit summaries (which weren't meant to be anything other than humorous) to be uncivil, then we must also consider another administrator's summary of "OK, can we all stop agreeing so I can post this damn message" a while back to be uncivil, as it uses an expletive in relation to other people, or one such as "Wow, this information was fucking wrong" (way long time ago) to be uncivil. I believe TOAT (if I may call you that) is taking WP:CIVIL to be a little too strict. Just my two cents. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I've already said. I couldn't agree more that such language is unwarranted, inappropriate, and uncivil, but in my latest re-reading of WP:CIVIL, I'm just not sure how an expletive in an edit summary not directed at anyone in particular is a violation of the policy. That said, this edit summary was in fact directed at an editor, he was blocked appropriately, and we need not delve into a discussion on how to interpret policies after this incident has been appropriately dealt with. Go Phightins! 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Struck through as a misinterpretation of your opinion. :) Done discussing gwickwire^talk_edits 03:59, 9 December 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.

Misconduct by Reaper Eternal

WP:DENY. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello there, I am here to report the misconduct regarding Reaper Eternal and his misconduct of sockpuppets. He blocked Chindit96, due to accusations of Sockpuppetry, due to him tagging many accounts with sockpuppetry. Now Reaper should have then promptly reverted all the edits (in the belief that they were fake tags) or blocked all of the accounts (which probably sounds the most reasonable). In addition to this, he blocked the account Jacob Husted for sockpuppetry, without naming any of the accounts that he had been accused of sockpuppeting, nor was there an investigation. These are clear signs that Reaper Eternal is quite simply not up to having the responsibility of being an administrator, and his position should be taken into consideration. Hope to hear some other views. Justice Creator (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Don't be daft. Someone block this sock Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Two questions: 1) you seem very experienced for a new editor, have you ever edited under another account? 2) how did this come to your attention? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) The account in question was Jacob.husted, not the nonexistent Jacob Husted. Don't know about the Chindit block, but the Jacob.husted block was the result of a checkuser investigation. Note that this block was levied by DeltaQuad, not by Reaper; Reaper simply disabled talk page access. Can't see anything wrong here by either Reaper or DeltaQuad. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Justice is now served. Sock is blocked. Elockid (Talk) 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) The sun shines out of Reaper Eternal's behind, and his touch also heals the sick. Attacking RE is ridiculous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I have also noticed similar things on the page of this user. There has been no removal or reversion of the edits that took place by Chindit96, legitimate or not, and so there are many accounts who have their user pages tagged with Sockpuppet Tags that may not deserve them. All that has happened is a ban and a tagging, clogging up the sockpuppet category page even more. Thanks, JohnColinDawson (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC) LMAO Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban violation, Unification Church

Per ANI, User:Borovv (which see) is topic banned from a large portion of the edits made by that user after 18 June. The article Unification Church is stable under WP:BRD and will remain so if discussion ensues and a new bold consensus is reached about the tag. My comments are here and there is sufficient critical mass at article talk for others to consider involvement as well. However, I will not be around for awhile to discuss any of the hypothetical blowback I typically receive at this board, thanks. Please advise. JJB 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Subtropical-man

User:Subtropical-man has long been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists and its related pages. Subtropical-man's disruptions include number of recent reverts to consensus based changes made in October to Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox. Back in June, Subtropical-man also made attempts to delete the template altogether which he didn't succeed in. I would also like to point out that not long ago, I with other editors decided to reduce the size of List of best-selling music artists by trimming the bottom 20 million at List of best-selling music artists. Subtropical-man, however, ignored the consensus and created List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records), which I nominated for AfD but still in process.--Harout72 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Harout72: Harout72 has long been disrupting the List of best-selling music artists and its related pages. This user made ​​changes despite the lack of consensus, users: CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus. Especially if there are strong opposes. Please see [239]. His changes have been undone, and user Harout72 started the edit war, please see [240]. Second case: yes, was a consensus to use options of reduce the size of the article, but were are doubts as to remove content from Wikipedia, I was the second user who created the article for lower sales (below 70 million). There was no clear consensus to "Trimming", there were also votes for "Splitting". Also, user Harout72 again manipulated pseudo-consensus, making changes two days after the positive vote of their colleagues. Only two days discussion between four users and making changes, please see [241]. Too fast. Two days is too short a time that can not comment more users, especially if concern significant change in the article. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that 2:1 is considered an actual consensus.[242] Also, a Strong Oppose is as good as Weak Keep: it's a vote one way vs. the other way. Nonpartisan Neutral will hopefully catch on. Has communication broken down on the talk page to the point where this content dispute should be here already? Doc talk 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You is right, should be further discussed and we should find a good consensus. But, user Harout72 do not want it. He will apply the principle: "I will give a controversial idea-->two of my colleagues support this-->quickly finish the discussion, announce consensus and make changes immediately. Then, if there are objections (strong opposes), others users must make a new consensus. If some administrator would support this manipulation, tommorow I create one-minute discussion, me and my colleague give voice and I quickly announce a new consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We did discuss it also in another thread wherein Subtropical-man didn't provide clear explanation as to why he opposed the newer suggestion. He seemed to be against the percentage requirements in general, which was based on earlier consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tommorow I create one-minute discussion, me and my colleague give voice and I quickly announce a new consensus. I'll apply the same principle as Harout72, only faster. Ok? User Harout72 wrote Wikipedia:Consensus does not say how many time should pass after the last comment to suggest whether the discussion has reached consensus. Ok, so... one-minute discussion does not break the rules. Just the way it should be? discussion important for the article are too fast and it is good? No, administrators should be noted and allow further discussion, especially if occur a strong oppositions.

This user made ​​changes despite the lack of consensus, users: CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus. Especially if there are strong opposes, there is no consensus, however, user quickly made ​​changes. This is a typical manipulation and this edition in article have to be withdrawn to time of clear consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED means that even a short consensus victory can be overturned by the greater consensus of the community. Talk it out on the talk page would be my advice, because no blocks are needed here to prevent disruption (which seems to be the reason for the filing of the thread). Doc talk 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Doc9871, the problem is that there was no consensus. User Harout72 made ​​the changes despite the fact that there was no clear consensus (CallMeNathan and Krystaleen support it, users Subtropical-man and Green-Halcyon - Strong Oppose, IP 182.5.245.255 - Support and Strongly Oppose also. That is four Supports (with the originator) and three Strong Oppose, which is not considered consensus.) [243] - this is problem. This is lawlessness. Changing drastically change the article, should be clear consensus, not lawlessness by Harout72 (Harout72 started to make changes before the end of the discussion, and not looking at whether exist or not a consensus). Subtropical-man (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, are you aware that at 938 kB the article is about nine times the recommended size for Wikipedia articles? That users on dial-up or on mobile devices will find it impossible to load and view the article in its present state? Please consider revisiting your decision to restore the trimmed content. -- Dianna (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, there are two options - splitting and trimming. Second: article is overloaded because Harout72 introduced its changes (1/2 of article is redundant sources relating to the method by Harout72, not topic of article. Generally, we can delete [or transfer to a sub-article] the entire thread of total certified units, gaining a 1/2 smaller article). Please familiarize yourself with the subject. Subtropical-man (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Dr pda's script reveals that the citations form only a tiny fraction of the article. Toolserver reveals that the article is loaded with deprecated mark-up such as cellpadding, cellspacing, and border. The tables are snotted-up with unneeded colour, and there's fifty-five images. The citations are the least of your worries. -- Dianna (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, Subtropical-man's problem isn't the citations at all, he's merely trying to get the consensus based requirements for certified sales removed, so his favorite artist (Kylie Minogue) will no longer be in danger of being removed once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records) is kept. He's been working on that very hard since June of this year. After we trimmed the bottom 20 million from the List of best-selling music artists, Kylie Minogue's absence forced him to re-create List of best-selling music artists (50 million to 69 million records). I find him to be a difficult editor overall, he never engages in discussions properly. That makes it hard for other editors who try to build the encyclopedia.--Harout72 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is only your wrong speculation. Yes, Kylie is one of my favorite artists, but not only. The problem of your ideas is regardless of Kylie, because it refers to the majority of artists. Main problem is your certificates (and your uses calculations = OR) and your a drastic change in article. Later, your new idea - increase the percentage and make changes without consensus. Third your idea is reduced large article because your previous idea, article clogged with unnecessary images, sources and sections within table. I not against to reducing the size of the article, I support only a second version of the solution to the problem). Currently, I skipping of your first idea (requires a large discussion in the right place). Currently, exist problem about make changes without a clear consensus [244], for this reason, there has been a edit-war and we are here. It is unacceptable, to make changes despite the lack of consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war is always created by you on the List of best-selling music artists. I only desire to keep my years of hard work in order. Anything, you disagree with, you should have a discussion first with those who're involved editors, and you're not. You only sometimes step in trying to make changes after weeks the rules have been implemented. I have worked with number of editors on List of best-selling music artists, I can assure you I have never experienced such stubborn and disruptive behavior as you constantly demonstrate.--Harout72 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Edit war is always created by you" - of course, naturally. You do not run edit-wars, always others users run edit-wars, you just undo changes by other users [245]. Obviously. Do not make yourself sanctimonious. You're making a new "compromises" in two days, on the basis of I will give an idea, two of my colleagues will support it and announce a compromise. Recently, you made too large manipulation, you announce a compromise where was no clear consensus [246]. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP: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.

---

What exactly is the point of this "process" when it can be routinely ignored and resisted by sympathetic editors who allow supposedly banned trolls to use their talk pages as sanctuaries for sounding off against bona fide editors and insist that their pages are sacrosanct when said editors try to delete or revert the malicious posts?

Either User:Richard Daft and his half-century of malignant IPs and userids are banned or they are not. If the former does truly apply, then how can User:Johnlp be allowed to resist attempts at removal by both User:Dweller and myself to keep offensive lies by Daft on his talk page? There are two subjects in question, headed "Blackjack/Jim Hardie" and "Jim Hardie", both perpetrated by Daft using IP 86.155.74.151, which has been proven at WP:SPI to be yet another Daft incursion, but Johnlp who is a known Daft sympathiser (despite Daft's long record of disruption and harrassment within WP:CRIC) has steadfastly refused to allow removal of these edits from his "sacrosanct" talk page.

According to WP:BAN, "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances". Daft is banned site-wide. What are the administrators going to do about this? The posts on the Johnlp page are scurrilous lies about myself and User:Jim Hardie designed to drive us both from the site. Jim Hardie has evidently already left in disgust. I have officially retired for other reasons but I came back as a reader and found this garbage among other acts of vandalism by Daft.

I am totally opposed to the doctrine of "anyone can edit" because it allows free rein to people like Daft but what is the point of arguing against blockheaded stupidity? However, I strongly object to Johnlp, the sole Daft sympathiser in CRIC, insisting on "his right" to reserve his talk page so that Daft and the like can use it as a souding board to insult and harrass bona fide WP members.

I recommend that the offending edits are erased (not merely deleted), that Johnlp is warned about colluding with known trolls and that his user and talk pages are subject to protection from all except autoconfirmed users, regardless of his protests. His insistence on talk page control is completely out of order if he allows people like Daft to use it. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow night for responses I guess. Obvious question 1, where is the report that says the users are the same? Obvious question 2, Johnlp hasn't had a chance to yet reply. You don't seem have attempted discussion before bringing this here. Johnlp has not yet made any edits since your posting and its a fair bet that he won't see them till at least tomorrow. This is a lot of storm and fury, but I don't see much substance in your claims. Without evidence, this will come to nothing. And if you REALLY want to disrupt Wikipedia, you don't do it like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I find that in situations like this, where no one is taking any notice of the spurious allegations anyway (such as that your account is controlled by the same person as Jim Hardie), it is generally better to simply ignore them. Especially when they are on a rarely visited user talk page. It's just feeding the trolls. Also, in regards to your suggestion that the edits be "erased", RevisionDelete and Oversight are tools not used lightly on this project. The edits to which you are referring do not warrant such drastic action. And, as Chris points out above, it appears that you have not yet attempted to communicate directly with Johnlp (by which I mean a two-way conversation), which should always be the first step. Chris, I think BlackJack was referring to the claim make on User talk:Johnlp that "Jim Hardie is Blackjack" relevent diff. Regards, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:31, 9 December 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.

POV and new/ip editors at White privilege

There is a new editor at White privilege, as well as a new ip editor, both pushing the same POV. This POV is nearly identical to that of an editor Apostle12 believed to have violated WP:CAN in the past, down to the focus on the lede paragraph and the insertion of mitigating language, which has been discussed at length on the talk page. I do not know if Apostle12 is involved, nor frankly do I have any reason to suspect them other than their previous seeming violation of WP:CAN. Regardless, the article could definitely use some experienced editors and/or administrators to help with this influx of new editors. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't now Apostle 12. I was interested in the topic long time ago, as it interests me how we can talk about white privilege of whites for example in Nazi camps compared to their Japanese allies-or state European colonialism where majority of European ethnic groups were not part of colonisation.--Questionentity (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I too have little reason to think that Apostle12 canvassed the new editors to the page. However, if anyone finds it relevant, here are diffs of Apostle12's apparent canvassing of other users: [247], [248], and [249]. There is currently an RFC/U being drafted to address this and other problems.WP:RFC/U/A#First_RfC -- Marie Paradox (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I asked three previous editors to consider rejoining the discussion. I was completely transparent about my request and announced it on the White privilege talk page. Ever since, Marie Paradox has been endlessly harassing me about "canvassing," referring others to a section she opened on my talk page. Now she raises it once again.

For the record, when I contacted the previous editors I had no idea what their edits had been, since I never looked. I knew only that they felt the article lacked sufficient criticism to be considered NPOV. As I recall, at least one editor had quit editing out of frustration because the entrenched editors kept reverting his edits. I had no idea whether or not their opinions were similar to my own; I knew only that, in general terms, they felt the article lacked balance.

One previous editor I contacted, Thucydides411, did rejoin the discussion a few days ago. His comments have been extraordinarily thoughtful, and he brings a high degree of scholarship to the article. He too has become frustrated by editors UsetheCommandLIne and Marie Paradox.

Apparently some new editors have arrived (Today? Haven't read their edits yet, since I decided to take care of this first.) I certainly didn't canvas them--I assume they aren't even among the three I contacted several weeks ago.

Perhaps UseTheCommandLine and Marie Paradox would do well to drop their intransigence and accept that the article as presently written, and especially the lede, is flawed. The article carries an NPOV tag for a reason. Any similarity between the new editors' work and my opinions may simply be a case of "great minds thinking alike."

UsetheCommandLine has also raised the possibility of me using sockpuppets. I will expect a full apology when he discovers how mistaken he is.

By the way, in early November UsetheCommandLine explicitly requested that I add a "Criticism" section to the article, so I spent a full evening doing so--refreshing some criticisms that had been deleted for poor sourcing, finding new sources, and adding some new perspectives. Immediately I was attacked by Marie Paradox, and then by Usethe CommandLine himself - for adding the requested section.

Following these attacks, and especially following Marie Paradox's endless nagging about "canvassing," I decided to stop trying to edit the article. My participation since then has been limited to monitoring Talk and commenting occasionally. Apostle12 (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of the blue an editor with the same agenda, with a one track mind. --Inayity (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will note that after further consideration and a bit of looking at edit histories, I filed a request with WP:SPI anyway. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, when I reverted the disruptive edits, I got this little bit of cheek. Clearly this user is a troublemaker. Midhart90 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you call somebody requesting source regarding a highly controversial statement and weasel word like "many societies" a troublemaker is beyond me. The article mentions three countries out of over hundred I believe, it is completely valid to ask for source that claims this is found in many societies.--Questionentity (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question for Midhart90, how is this edit [250] vandalism? It seems to me you are abusing twinkle. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem new to the page yet you are hitting one editor (User:Midhart90) while doing actions outside of wiki policy,There is a talk page discussion about those insertions, have you read them. Or are you beyond reading them? Do you help by talking about NPOV without referring to the issues raised on the talk page?--Inayity (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I could see, the edits in question served only to inject weasel words into the article. Apologies if legitimate material was caught in the crossfire. Midhart90 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And even if weasel words had been placed in the article, how is it vandalism? Or this your next revert[251] How is adding a tact tag vandalism? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I might have been a little quick off the draw in marking all this as vandalism. In hindsight, I probably would have been better off using the neutral revert button. However, judging by the edit history, I feel that the intent of peppering the article with these tags was more to disrupt the article than as a serious request for additional sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midhart90 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Note: UTCL has opened an SPI case against Apostle12 and Questionentity here. It is currently awaiting CheckUser attention. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And you gave him a final warning?[252] and then reported him to AIV[253] in which you make a personal attack by accusing the user of trolling. You need to have twinkle acces removed and read WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, this[254] was also not vandalism, removing unsourced content from a BLP rarely is. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't have the ability to revoke twinkle access, as far as I'm aware. However, you're right in saying those edits are not vandalism and Midhart90 needs to take more care over how he characterises the edits of others. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that content was unsourced. To me it appeared that a random IP blanked out half the article without explaining why. I left a message for the IP reminding him to use edit summaries in the future. That being said, I am still relatively new to using Twinkle and I think I'll lay off using it for a while until I have studied it more so as to avoid burning the place down with it. In no way did I intend any of my edits to to have been a personal attack against anybody. Midhart90 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense to me. It looks to me like Midhart90 was involved in a classic edit war and when Questionentity tried to discsuss the matter, not only did Midhart90 arrogantly ignore the conversation, but called it "a bit of cheek" and added a personal attack. Then forum shopped at AIV trying to get his/her opponent blocked. Talk about bad faith! Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Inayity's tooth-and-nail behaviour with White privilege is starting to attract more badly needed attention, and she tries the 'lump all comers into one entity' gambit. Questionentity, Apostle12 and I are three unrelated commenters. I stumbled across this mess only yesterday after seeing some of Inayity's activity on another page. It appears for some time she in the main has been actively resisting any attempts to neutralize the discernible "point-of-view" the article is written in. I also saw where she wrote on the SPI 'I call my mates, get them involved'. No doubt exactly what she does while fighting a batteground with all unified monolithic opposing hosts when her behaviour starts getting more attention. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that one must assume good faith. This type of edit, specifically inserting additional mitigating language into the lede, was the subject of a protracted discussion a month ago. As a relatively new editor, I am unsure of how to help deal with this, particularly given that both editors involved, Apostle12 and Questionentity have showed resistance to discussing the issue, often re-inserting the same or similar edits after they are reverted, without substantial good-faith discussion. This is particularly significant for White privilege, because putting out these proverbial fires surrounding the lede does not allow me or other editors time to do meaningful work improving the remainder of the page, a task that seems clearly necessary.

As a new editor, I was frankly unfamiliar with WP's advice on criticism sections. I suggested it to Apostle12 because the history of the article contained similar sections, and I believed that Apostle12 could help substantially improve the article if they were recruited to find and summarize relevant criticism. After weeks of patient good faith suggestions on my own part to produce such a section, other editors pointed out WP:CRIT, but I raised the issue of the quality of sources Apostle12 introduced (and their non-free nature, which was quoted). At that point other editors raised the issue that the section Apostle12 contained a number of sources that had been previously introduced, discussed, and felt by the editors at that time not to be worth including.

So again, I am a new editor -- what mechanisms are available to manage the edits to controversial subjects, as this one seems to be, in order for editors of all viewpoints to avoid constantly being drawn into edit wars? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User Dark something has just causally reinserted the same language which was fought over for months. I have used the talk page but Talk pages do not matter, why bother with a talk page, when your opinions on controversial issues matter. Then there is zero point in contributing. B/c 4 minutes after a 2 week debate on such language, some unknown to the page casually reinserts it, ignoring that talk page. I wouldnt even bother to reply to the ip above. --Inayity (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This exact same language has been inserted three times in the last three hours by three different editors (one an ip editor) without discussing it on the talk page. Inayity has actually started a new section at the talk page pointing to the previous discussion about mitigating language, and Apostle12 has been the only one to respond, though Apostle12 has, presumably, not been the one making the edits. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Her "discussion" consists of her saying she refuses to discuss it - because it was already discussed and decided permanently by a small group of Wise Elders in days of Old, long before lots more people started showing up asking questions. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this to be a mischaracterization. There was substantial discussion about this very issue on the talk page, and so perhaps your concerns are addressed. I seem to recall us coming to something that at least looked a little bit like consensus over this very issue. If you have additional concerns that are not addressed in that discussion, it would be much more helpful to be familiar with the previous discussion, which was extremely protracted and covered a great deal of ground, in the interest of not rehashing the same issues. If you have additional concerns, or feel as though the lengthy discussion did not address yours, then perhaps you can use the previous discussion as a starting point for your particular criticism. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that over the past month I have posted at WT:MOS, WP:DRN, and i believe here at WP:AN/I in reference to this same article. I and others had begun drafting an RfC/U in regards to Apostle12's behavior, but my and others' lack of experience with that process has meant that it has not been completed in a short enough time frame to be useful -- we are again putting out the fires set by those who seem to be unfamiliar with either WP:OUTRAGE or WP:SOAP, among others. Even further, additional historical interactions (before my time) between other editors and Apostle12 have found their way into the draft RfC, making any potential product of this process more of a jumble. Again, I believe I have assumed good faith and tried my best to maintain a NPOV on the page, as my edit history will attest, but I simply do not have the time or knowledge of policy to effectively navigate this ongoing edit war. I can only speak for myself, but I would very much appreciate guidance. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A person of admin status (assuming) does this enters a unresolved dispute because THEY single person agree with it. What should have happened was a contribution to the talk page to add to the resolution. That would be wiki policy per WP:DISPUTE--Inayity (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin, where did you get that from? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Its good that I returned to this page to read statements of UseTheCommandLine-contrary to what he/she says I have tried repeatedly to discuss the issue on the talk page only for editors interested in keeping the POV-mess that the article is currently in rejecting any sensible discussion. However at this time, at least one of the editors openly stated that he is not interested in NPOV of the article but will advocate a POV position, and declared that he will not discuss the issue with others...some people are hell bent on inserting a tone that cast doubt over the existence of WP.(its all in our heads) I will not waste time repeating the prolong contents of the discussion i have made ref to

--Questionentity (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I find the the request for a source by Questionentity to be reasonable. He stated his case here: [255]. I did comment, but I notice people are dismissing non-Africans, claiming some sort of white bias: [256], with the edit summary "Thanks for educating me about my continent". Considering the title of this section is POV, one should look at the strong views expressed by Inayity on the issue: [257][258]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

On the Star Trek: Klingon Academy article, I removed some info, another editor reinstated it, and the end result after some back and forth was that the article was protected to stop edit-warring and facilitate discussion on the talk page. The original editor hasn't responded, but another IP-hopping editor who is apparently following me around, has jumped in and started reverting. Eik Corell (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone reading this does it first, go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection for some stretch of time, like a week or two (for now). That will fend off the rabble while allowing regular users to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Things are pretty crazy backed up at RFPP right now. I gotta go to the gym so if any admins could investigate one or two cases I would appreciate it. Laters -- Dianna (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We are back down to a handful of RFPP requests; thanks to all who helped clear the backlog. The Star Trek case was declined by another admin, so sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So now what? I can't talk to someone who does not communicate beyond "rv v". I've proceded to file yet another complaint(this isn't my first), detailing what I know about the IP-hopper to BT, which is their ISP. Their love of the edit summary "rv v", the IPs they've used, etc. Likewise, I've contacted a bureaucrat in the hope of providing more technical information if they need it, which they did last time. I'm still at a loss by the way. Eik Corell (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Misconduct by Reaper Eternal/Elockid

WP:DENY again...Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am writing to complain about poor quality of administration of these two accounts who, respectively, refused to undo any of the vandalism edits of a sockpuppet, and banned a user for making a complaint, with no evidence or proof to show otherwise, and placing them as a sockpuppet of an account that is not even a sockpuppeteer. Is it not possible that these accounts are actually meatpuppets instead? PewDiePi (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Blatant censorship. How can someone be blocked just for making a comment about administrators? This sort of comment goes on all the time against mere users. But oh dear me no, admins must never be questioned. Thoughnot (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Blatant WP:EVADE. Such childish and trolling behaviour doesn't even deserve a comment. Sock evaders are one of the lowest form of low (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:52, 9 December 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.

SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_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.

---

Obviously a very controversial topic, but SaltyBoatr is being highly disruptive. He has created FIVE talk page sections today [259] , all making essentially the same complaint. He is repeatedly failing to WP:AGF and making personal attacks accusing all the editors of extreme bias. Several editors are attempting to engage him, and address his concerns, but he continually making accusations and highly sarcastic comments. A few choice comments from today (basically every comment he has posted today).

• Regardless of lip service to the contrary, this has all the appearances of biased 'mediator' serving the purpose of defending one POV at the expense of another.
• This is proof that constructive conversation on this talk page is difficult to the point of being hopeless. S
• and these responses from Gaijin42 have the appearance of bad faith debate diversion tactic.
• I find your sarcastic question to be extremely offensive. Further, I am astonished that measuring undue weight quantitatively by counting biased words is not "evidence". That assertion appears to be harassing and a stonewall. I consider your use of the talk page in that way to be highly disruptive
• [...] the apparent intent of suppressing the non-pro-gun point of view. Evidence of a NPOV balance problem here.
• The word appears fifteen times in the article! Maybe that is a little bit on the "undue weight" side of a POV push? Get real.
• Only six times. (laugh) One time would be sufficient
• GregJackP, provides even more evidence that this article suffers from ownership by a brigade of long term 'pro-gun' editors

I'm tempted to ask for a topic ban, but at a minimum a trouting to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and let one conversation go through, rather than starting up 5 sections all saying the same thing would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of a topic ban, I note that Salty's block log is decently extensive, and all related to gun topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 your porcine misspelling of my username 'Saltyboar' is insulting and harassing and over-the-top offensive conduct. Do you really mean to describe me as swine and piggish? Wow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, This was completely unintentional. Your sig uses an unusual font, and I misread. However your over the top reaction to an innocent mistake is certainly part of the larger trend of why we are here at ANI. WP:AGF please. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your apology, without even bothering to correct your insulting porcine misspell of my username (seventh word, opening sentence), falls short. Assuming good faith comes into play when there is a chance of a good faith explanation. In this case, your deeply insulting mistake which you claim to be innocent remains uncorrected in the opening sentence. What assumption should I take from the reality of this persistence of your insult? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Reinstated SaltyBoatr's comment, which seems to have gotten lost in an edit conflict. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)]

That's ridiculous. You want him to back and correct a tiny typo you have already blasted him for, and that he apologized for? Mountain, molehill. No, smaller than a molehill. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, It's an easy to make mistake with that font. I made the same mistake once, and I'm guessing that other people have too. And "Saltyboar" sounds like a cool name, not all of that stuff you describe, and it's clear that none of that was intended. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right--now I see it. "Salty" pertaining to the sea, and "Boatr" a slightly more economic version of "Boater". I didn't get it until I saw the "get wet" bit (it is an unusual and tiny font; it was difficult on my old eyes). "Get wet" is obviously a playful reference, a virtual invitation to jump into the lively brine that is the editor's world. They're not really asking us to take a bath, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming what I've seen Salty do before. Extremely aggressive fighting. Most painfully, using large amounts of general accusations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for feeling frustration, but perhaps my feelings are understandable considering the hostility, edit warring and stonewalling aimed at me for my good faith efforts. The crime I have committed, at least according to my understanding of the barrage of attacks recently aimed at me, is having the audacity to attempt to edit in an article that has a POV ownership problem by a group of like minded editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a relatively new WP editor, but I get the impression that Salty and some of the editors he's engaged with on the page in question have a past on gun topics. As for editors currently active on the page, I have observed not-AGF and not-NPOV behavior from several in recent days. Although I have only been an active WP editor for less than two months, my experience in that time leads me to suspect that this article might suffer from some sort of pro-gun or anti-ban editor ownership problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ya think? ;-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• SaltyBoatr is obfuscating the hell out of everything there. The claims of gangs of POV ownershipper is ridiculous. Their demands are overblown, and they are clogging up the talk page with their whining about things that should be obvious. I mean, someone who points at Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times and claims they're of the pro-gun lobby, such a person has no business editing an article where common sense and a basic knowledge of facts are required. I say block 'em next time they make any of these ridiculous claims on the talk page or elsewhere, or ban 'em from that article altogether, and anywhere else where they're preventing editors from getting some work done.

  Also, I'm with the anti-gun gang (we don't have a lobby, just a room in the basement). Every conceivable kind of gun should be banned, and your bullets too. If you want to hunt elk or whatever, learn how to thrown stones, you pussies. <--This is my disclaimer, lest SaltyBoatR (hope I spelled that name correctly--they're so sensitive) thinks that I'm part of the pro-gun lobby as well. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Salty didn't claim that Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast or the LA Times were pro-gun. The authors of the cited sources weren't the publishers or their editors. The articles weren't corporate editorials. Lightbreather (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh, please give me an alternate interpretation of "Does the 'cosmetic' sentence really need six footnotes? And all from 'pro-gun leaning sources?" Those are the sources that include the ones I mentioned, and these are SaltyBoatr's words--are they not? The rest of your sentences I don't understand: yes, the sun looks yellow and typically rises in the East, from where I'm sitting. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure you have a clear understanding on how wikipedia judges reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, with their 22:41 post above, Salty is illustrating one key aspect of the problem. Rather than discuss the particular item at hand, their approach is that they just hurled 5 accusations and attacks in that one post. This has been the nature of their approach / "discussion" there. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, considering saltyboatr's history, that a topic ban would be very appropriate. The article was very stable, and has become a mess. Saltyboatr has accused me of making POV edits, ridiculous accusation since I actually supported the ban. When on Wikipedia, we should be Wikipedians first, and advocates second. I've had a very long trouble free history on Wikipedia working in this way. No, prior to these disruptions, the article was very "whitebread", and uninteresting, and STABLE, qualities which I feel made the article very NEUTRAL. All it needed was perhaps a few tweaks, not a wall of undiscussed edits that amounted to complete rewrites of the article. A topic ban is in order here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sue. If I understand positions correctly, Sue, LB, and Drmies are more on the anti-gun rights (er, gun control, ;p) side, while I'm on the pro-choice, support gun rights side. I really don't have a clue who else is where, nor does it matter. We've been discussing things in a rational way and able to come to agreement. Not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone saw consensus. Unfortunately, Salty would not discuss matters. Based on his history, I don't anticipate that changing. Support topic ban, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 05:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one case where I would agree with a topic ban. There was a massive amount of discussion, rarely pretty, in the two months since Lightbreather began editing the article in earnest; It never crossed my mind to suggest, consider, propose, or participate in a topic ban, even with behavior that was unbecoming at times (but ostensibly 'forgiveable' by a newcomer). However, what happened on friday was outrageous; saltyboatr burst through the saloon doors and began knocking over tables and and trying to instigate fights, relentlessly. When other editors either demurred or tried to engage, we were met with - sorry, it has to be said - this editor's standard refrain that everybody else was acting in bad faith, that we're all horribly biased - practically a conspiracy - and that we were all attacking him. Completely unacceptable editor behavior. I tried in numerous responses to tease some semblance of actual engagement or rational discourse; none was forthcoming, only the repeated refrain above. It was one of the most disruptive displays I think I've seen on wikipedia in a very long while. Things have been silent this weekend; if it remains so, then of course there's no need for a topic ban. If it resumes on monday - enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• In light of their recent comment on the talk page, where I find nothing but a reiteration of hollow-sounding claims, and in light of the rather ridiculous attack leveled at Gaijin42, I fully support a topic ban from all gun rights articles, broadly construed. If they want to work on stuff like .22 CHeetah (not my finest work, I admit), that's fine--but no articles discussing guns and rights, legislation, politics, or other controversy. Basically, per Anastrophe. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(involved) Based on the continued issues today, I withdraw my suggestion for trouting, and support the topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Each time I've crossed paths with Salty, they have been at firearm-related articles, their approach seems to be to aggressively make large amounts of accusations, to me it seems as a way to further their goals. The exchange in this very thread regarding the easily-made user name error also seems an example, as does the other exchange in this thread where they put 5 more accusations into on short post instead of discussing the question at hand. 6 blocks on firearm-related articles seems to reinforce the above impression. Support topic ban per Anastrophe and Drmies. I think that the only other viable alternative (or a route out of the topic ban) is some type of mentoring or close oversight on these and such seldom seems to happen. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again this morning editor saltyboatr has taken the time to share an unremitting string of directly personalized attacks on his peers - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFederal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=575299122&oldid=575273753 . Is there any remedy for this disruption? Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Can we get an admin to look at this and close it per WP:SNOW? Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

A lot is being undone here

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.

---

Right now SporkBot (talk · contribs) is busy ripping out templates from every IP tagged as a sock based on the TfD discussion. I don't think four people should decide such a drastic thing in such a short amount of time. Is this enough of a consensus for this? Should this have been better advertised when the consequences are so large? Doc talk 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is enough of a consensus for it, following several discussions on tagging IPs as socks outside of WP:HSOCK policy. The discussions were held at VPP, at ANI, and at HSOCK, just to name a few of the places. First off, unless the IP has been previously blocked, policy prohibits the IP from being tagged as a sock. Going through the list manually shows that a vast majority of the IPs are tagged in violation of policy and, in some instances, being subjected to harassment without cause. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The consensus at the TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock is overwhelmingly AGAINST deletion. The bot needs to be stopped, just like people who are emptying categories before the category deletion discussion is finished. They are destroying evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Real evidence or super-secret, can't tell you evidence? GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless an IP has been previously blocked it cannot be tagged? Ridiculous, really. What this is doing is taking a tool for tracking disruptive editors away. Sure, some people get abused when the tag is abused. I can't believe it's come to this. Doc talk 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think tagging suspicious IPs is a useful endeavor, and should be supported. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the editors here share the same views about this and have edited the same page here. I guess I have a lot of sockpuppet tagging to do on these editor's pages. Now remember, you are not allowed to take them off without further reprisal, possibly blocked without further warning, they don't time out ever, and there is no apology template to retract them if I am proven wrong at a real SPI. That would appear to be OK from the sockpuppets I have identified with my methods I use. I can use the WP:DUCK assumption to back me up because I know when I see one, proving it, because that is the way it has been done for so long. It's a really useful tool for me to keep track of all those voicing the same view in the same time frame. DUCK's your uncle. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you tag the page of any editor participating in this discussion with a sock tag, you will not like what happens. DUCK is not some sort of a free pass to provide zero evidence for tagging an account. Quite the contrary. I agree with the IP at the bottom of this thread that this should be closed. No editor misconduct has occurred and the issue has moved to the TfD page. Doc talk 03:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the IP like it? Tagging an account is not, in your view, a personal attack, and he states that he has evidence and will take it to an SPI. It seems like it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, under the guidelines that you are proposing we follow. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his to his being an IP. Anyone that uses these tags without very good evidence, especially to prove a point, is ill-advised to do so. Doc talk 03:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I still see no answer to Greg's question there but rather just a repeat of your same point. I do see your claim that implies only editors with a named account and a personal reason may use sockpuppet tags. Doesn't this constitute the reason so many want this template usage stopped? Now you have never answered a question I have put forth to your snipes of my comments before but perhaps you could actually discuss your opinion on this one and not sweep in under the rug without discussion. Again, why is it OK for some editors to place sockpuppet tags based on their own single personal opinion buy not for others to place them based on their own single personal opinion? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand the notion of DUCK. So, if you want to, throw sock tags around using just your intuition. As an IP or a named account. Try the IpSock template on a named account, for laughs. I'm done explaining it to you now. Doc talk 10:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have searched the whole page and yours is the only mention of "intuition". I will only base the sockpuppet tag, I place on your page, on WP:DUCK. As I stated in my hypothetical scenario, I see you arguing this same fringe theory as Brangifer and in the same forum venue! That's WP:DUCK and that doesn't need anybody else's input to place such an invaluable tool for tracking of your disruptions here. But don't worry. It isn't harassment or a negative thing so why act so concerned and defensive about it? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag me up. Then please: be quiet. DUCK describes what good sock hunters go through when determining something: and it is always reviewable by the community. All of it. The vast majority of those who use the tag know this, and if they don't they get reprimanded. Doc talk 11:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Can you give us some examples of those who were reprimanded? GregJackP Boomer! 13:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of confirmed blocked IP socks using this template. Has any consideration been given to the 'confirmed' parameter? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there was not. The basis for this that I'm seeing is roughly "It gets abused sometimes, so it's bad." I, for one, do not buy that as a rationale for removing it. Doc talk 03:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention the TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the empirical evidence that going through them manually shows that a vast majority were tagged in violation of policy. For example these three

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs)
• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs)
• Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs)

people are long term vandals (and all three still pop up) who used 100s if not 1000s of IPs and not all of their IPs were blocked. But, the tagging of them helps in tracking their hopping. At times simply placing the tag stopped them from using the IP. It also help to show admins who are unfamiliar with, or new to, the problem editors just how pernicious they are. The discussions linked to are disparate and, in no way, can be construed as indicating approval to remove the tags. We should work to reduce the abuse to our articles and the harassment of editors who work to stop this abuse rather than increase it by acting like there isn't a problem. MarnetteD | Talk 04:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! The people who do this kind of work appreciate the tags. Another PITA is Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs) who continues a Hong Kong-based IP evasion of his ban as we speak.[260] Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So what do you recommend doing with the editors who tag IPs as suspected socks because the IP is dynamic, and who tells IP editors that having a dynamic IP is automatically a violation of the socking policy? Or the users who tag anyone who disagrees with them as a sock? The policy was changed because at one time, 1 in 5 of the suspected socks of Scibaby were false positives. 20% of the blocks were innocent users. Say, oops, sorry? Or enforce the current policy? If you have proof, provide it, get them blocked and add them to the list. Otherwise it is just another personal attack without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who tags (or says) that using a dynamic IP is in violation of policy will be corrected by those who know policy better. It is certainly not in violation of SOCK for any editor to use a dynamic IP address. When people abuse that right to edit anonymously from an IP, we get problems. Which is why the template exists. Doc talk 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet. I can show one editor that has been told repeatedly that using a dynamic IP is not a violation, including by WMF staff, yet has tagged at least 50 and probably many times that as socks and told many more that having a dynamic IP was automatically a violation of the socking policy. No one stepped up until an IP editor started raising the issue at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But you can't show one editor who has done it recently after this debacle, so going back in history is not fair. Even by your strict interpretation of an illogically worded policy, tagging IPs being used for block evasion is proper. When a registered user or IP is blocked, and they continue to edit and comment with other IPs, we have ALWAYS used Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. You're not just reinterpreting history, you don't even KNOW the history of how this template and category have been used! @MarnetteD:, @Doc9871:, and @Binksternet: (below) are right. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Gee. I guess the fact that I don't have a problem with it being used properly, in accordance with policy, means that I shouldn't be concerned about the past violations? Have you ever apologized to any of the dynamic IPs you falsely accused of violating the socking policy? GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One or two false positives are not enough to stop using the system. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not one or two false positives. At the point WP:HSOCK was changed, it was 1 in 5 false positives. All you have to do is provide your evidence. If it supports a block, then tag it. If it does not support a block, do not make a personal attack by labeling it as a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a realistic view of the situation. You are saying there must be more red tape in order to tag any IP because sometimes people abuse a tag. SPI is backlogged enough. Anyone who has had extensive experience dealing with socks knows that to require they be blocked first is unworkable. Stretching a sock tag into a "personal attack" (thus in violation of policy) is remarkably creative. And frightening. Doc talk 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you would not have a problem with a sock tag being placed on your user page? I mean since it is not a personal attack, does it really matter? I've been accused of being a sock (and cleared through CU) - I can guarantee you that it is a personal attack. It was also frightening, that some editors could get away with accusing others of being socks based on "secret tells" which of course they could not share with anyone. It was sort of like what I imagine the Salem witch trials to be like. Especially when the "sock" is blocked and can't defend themselves at SPI. "She turned me into a newt!" GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to accuse an account of being a sock. It just isn't. Doc talk 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, then why is it listed as a form of harassment? Or noted as an "inherently personal attack" over 8 years ago in a template discussion? Or that only sock hunters think that it is not a personal attack? The history in the project shows very clearly that accusing an editor, whether an IP or registered, of being a sock is a personal attack unless you can provide evidence to substantiate that the editor is in fact a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be very annoyed if Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg is depopulated. Only about 3 other editors even care about his ban evasion, so hindering me from dealing with his constant stream of sockpuppets is going to be counterproductive. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A spotcheck of that cat showed that all of the IPs had been blocked or sent to an SPI or both. None appeared to be in the category outside of policy, unlike several others that I've checked. GregJackP Boomer! 05:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with edits like this. There exists an agenda to stop tagging IPs, yet there is no real community consensus aside from policy "changes" like this to rely on. It's an ongoing issue. RfC time? Doc talk 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Greg. The vandalism is a far bigger problem than a handful of IPs not being able to edit for a short time. Some of the vandalism that Pé performed sat in the article for more than a year. We say "oops sorry" all the time around here (because none of us are perfect.) I would rather say it to an IP whose short block had expired than have the articles vandalized and/or the editors harassed or trolled who deal with these problems. MarnetteD | Talk 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. First, the "oops, sorry" rarely happens. There is a discussion right now on unblocking a user who was mistakenly blocked and just wanted an apology. Many editors will not apologize, feeling that being blocked is minor and easy to get over - it's not minor and it's not easy to get over.

I would rather have proof before we lock someone out or label them as a wikicriminal. GregJackP Boomer! 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is that simple and I can't speak for other editors ability to apologize. As to proof perhaps you are unaware how things work at SPI. Socking can go on rapidly but response to reports about it do not. I filed a report on Pe [261] including proof that he admitted to being a sock that saw ten days go by for any action to be taken on it. So you are saying that I should not have been allowed to tag any of the IPs he was editing from before or during those ten days? I am sorry (see!) but that is taking a simplistic and absurd view of how thing work around here. IPs who have received an improper block happen (and some of those are for reasons other that socking) if you feel that is wrong then that is your prerogative. Articles that get vandalized by socks and editors who get trolled by those socks occurs much more often and my concern over removing the tools to deal with that is mine. I am logging off now so this takes care of stating my opinion on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of how things work at a lynching. Someone makes an accusation, and then someone gets hung. Sometimes the hangee is guilty, sometimes not. As long as you're part of the mob, everything's fine, but it sort of sucks to be the one that is falsely accused and standing under the tree branch. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice piece of OTT sophistry. Adding a suspected IP tag isn't even a block so what hardship are they facing. In the case of an IP that is blocked having to sit out a few hours or days is in no way comparable to a lynching. On top of that they have options wherein they can continue editing. They can post an unblock request. Though not required they can even register. It is always odd that an editor thinks they are more anonymous by staying an IP. It only takes a few clicks to find out where they are editing from where a registered user can create a user name that has nothing to do with who they are or where they are and, thus, be much more anonymous. Once again your concern for the occasional IP is fine. Our larger concerns for the damage done to articles and editors who get trolled are hardly going to be changed by this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. MarnetteD | Talk 05:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request close

1. The TfD was closed, innocuously, as delete (3-0-1) by @Plastikspork: at 23:33 28 Sept 2013 [262]. It looks like they just went through TfD and closed a whole batch -- SOP for regular admins.
2. This ANI was opened at 00:51 29 Sept 2013. I don't see where Plasticspork was notified??
3. Discussion was initiated at User talk:Plastikspork#IPSock Template at 01:37 29 Sept 2013.
4. Plasticspork asked if Doc9871 wanted it relisted, and then did relist it at 02:30 29 Sept 2013 [263].
5. The balance has now shifted to not delete.

• So why is this here? It was resolved peacefully with the admin on their talkpage. Every single comment above should be at the TfD. Please close. Rgrds. --64.85.215.69 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the large number of IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever - the tagging of IPs is an invaluable tool in range blocks for blocked and banned editors. As far as I am aware nobody else edits from these ranges. GiantSnowman 11:42, 1 October 2013 (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:Harassment from User:Binksternet

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.

---

FYI, FYI User:Binks is currently continuing his Edit Warring on multiple pages even as this investigation is taking place. These other pages include "Max Weber", "Augustinian Theodicy", "Iraneaen Theodicy", etc. This is apparently being done to flaunt the seriousness normally associated with an WP:ANI. In addition a long list of his history of the WP:Gaming of Admins has also been recorded on the Max Weber Talk page. Apparently he has learned to present himself in a warm-and-cuddy version of himself when making edit warring complaints for Admin action while selectively misrepresenting his conduct in leaving out key details. The receiving Admin sees a report that looks perfectly reasonable on the surface and make a corrective action because of the deceptively but practiced wording of his Admin requests. He has also posted a campaign against anonIP-users in a picture and poster campaign on his own User page and on the "Max Weber" Talk page which is Contra user:Jimbo and contra-Reagle. At last sighting of his contrib history, User:Binks is apparently on an edit spree to delete multiple sections on as many wikipages as he can visit causing countless hours of repair time to conscientious wiki editors. The picture and poster campaign of User:Binks against all anonIP-users must be seen to be believed. (On the "Max Weber" page and on his User page.) 209.3.238.62 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have warned a user three times to stay off my talk page (1) (2) (3). Following each of my warnings, he continued to post inflammatory templates falsely accusing me of edit warring and threatening to block me (4) (5) (6). The claims of edit warring are specious, making the harassment motive all the more clear. For instance, he twice accused me of edit warring on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a page which (on both occasions) I had done one total revert on over the course of several days.

This is WP:harassment, plain and simple, and I'd like to see a temporary ban imposed to teach Binksternet that harassment is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink is on a roll: he's simultaneously edit-warring, removing other user's talk page comments and trying to get me blocked for pointing out that he's edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted an edit warring note on Steeletrap's user page because it is required to do so before filing a report at WP:3RRN. Steeletrap uses hyperbole in the above note, saying the standard templates are "inflammatory" and that I am "threatening to ban" Steeletrap. In fact, I have only used Twinkle's standard edit warring templates, so no discussion of banning is possible.

Steeletrap appears to be unaware that an editor may be reported for edit warring, and blocked, for long-term edit warring, or for tendentious editing. Steeletrap has engaged in all of the above at various articles I'm aware of including most recently Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the latter a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a lie. You're the one edit-warring, along with SRich. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet will get another WP:* for defending the Wiki against WP:TE editors once this nonsense is over. Baseless. WP:GAMING. Bullshit. That's about it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

boomerang, the response to generic warning #1 was to question Bink's competence then adding revert over the course of several weeks does not constitute an edit war, which actually is warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[reply} Dark, What on earth are you talking about? He posted a template threatening to block me for "editing warring" (on a page I had 1 total revert on over several weeks) and I questioned his competence for his 1) Erroneous accusations 2) failing to respond to my previous request to stay off my talk page Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

you questioned Bink's competence in the same breath you proved your incompetence. 1. a single revert is edit warring when discussion is ongoing. 2. asking someone to stay off your talk page does not exempt you from your disruptive behavior. 3. if you were smart, now would be a good time to find the exit and move on to a new topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has been harassing and hounding Steeletrap for months

User Bink has been attacking, misrepresenting, and hounding user Steeletrap for months now. It's a long complicated history and has driven away many editors who might otherwisew be here to affirm Steeletrap's complaint. I recommend that any Admin who chooses to step into this mess review the long-term pattern of hit-and-run attack and harassment. It seems to have begun when user Binksernet began following various articles relating to libertarianism and the Mises Institute. Shortly thereafter Binkser went on a campaign of personal attack against Steeletrap, and a few other editors, driving them away from these topics -- (see Ad-hom, here) -- but Steeletrap continued to work on content and articles which aroused Binkser's ire. I would say that Steeletrap is within her rights to request relief in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So which of the "many" editors did I drive away? Please name names. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

To name just one, uninvolved, well-respected user:Stalwart111 ended his good-faith efforts to improve Mises Institute-related pages, in part because of your misattributing quotes to, and making false allegations/personal attacks against, him (1). Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Stalwart111 go, but to me it looked like he became initially frustrated with Carolmooredc's work to stem the bias introduced by Steeletrap and Specifico, a bias he had not recognized himself. When I joined the effort to stop the bias Stalwart111 found the topic's complexity and the talk page debates to be too much. So Stalwart111 left the topic; that makes for exactly one editor out of the "many" I have supposedly chased from the article, according to Specifico. As long as we are talking about editors leaving out of frustration, we can add Carolmooredc to that group. She left because of constant attacks against her made by Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What fabulous historical revisionism! I left because the discussions were too complex? Get real. I left (and said so several times) because Carol's completely unsubstantiated personal attacks, deliberate misquoting and disruptive editing made involvement in the topic area futile and unpleasant. Having been completely discredited (withdrawing many of her attacks when she couldn't back them up) you picked up where she left off and repeated her ad-hom rubbish verbatim. When I challenged you to provide a single shred of evidence you couldn't. And for the record, Carol's work to "stem the bias" involved "protecting" sometimes completely unsourced BLPs from the inclusion of sourced content she didn't like. When I pointed that out neither you nor she could provide an answer. Contributions histories are there for all to see. Stalwart111 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet crossed a line with me with this edit. It seems innocuous. But there is a problem. I think the word "misconstrue" describes it. You can't make an argument that fails to correctly acknowledge the points of contention. A WP:TALK page is useless if it is not used properly. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, the diff you show is completely unrelated to Specifico, and does not shine any light on the matter at hand. Perhaps you can explain your point more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet—Editing Wikipedia and interacting with other editors is not identical to Gamesmanship. If we are disagreeing over a point, there is an obligation to stick to the point of disagreement. You can't just pretend that some unrelated argument is taking place. You can't argue against points that are not even in play. To make up your own point of contention and then to argue against a position which is not even maintained by another editor is to present a straw man argument. Doing so creates an atmosphere of distrust. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I had no idea back then that you were feeling this way about my statement at the Whaam! FAC2 page. You made no indication at the time—nothing. I thought I was stating my position clearly enough, that I had supported the FAC the first time, and that I would continue to support it the second time if the improvement points I had earlier indicated remained addressed satisfactorily. I continue to think that the Whaam! article requires some perspective from the cartoonist angle, which it now has. I did not take part in the FAC so that I could argue finer points with people there; instead I took part in the FAC in the manner of a voter who has only one vote. I gave my (very few) thoughts and then I checked back from time to time to see if they were implemented. I was not there to engage Tony and the other FAC reviewers in debate. I'm sorry that I did not meet your expectation of being a dedicated debater. I'm sorry I angered you with my simple position statement. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear that was your experience with Binkser, because that is exactly what he did here in this thread -- launching into entirely irrelevant accusations against user MilesMoney. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When tightly coordinating meat puppets/tag team players like Steeletrap and Specifico constantly engage in biased editing (including adding negative poorly sourced material while removing neutral better sourced material that might make a BLP look good), ignore neutral editors comments (brought from various noticeboards), and when appeals to various noticeboards to sanction these editors go no where, any editor might lose their temper. I was losing mine and had to stop editing articles with these editors, unwatched them (and now notifications that mention me in them), and am doing my best to avoid them (despite occasional lapses). (Also have unwatched half of my articles in frustration with Wikipedia.) (Note that per Binksternet, their personal attacks on me certainly aggravated the situation, especially repeated various vague and false accusations and, once they discovered Wikipedia:Competence is required, repeated false and/or exaggerated allegation of my incompetence in a harassing manner. )

If some neutral editor who does not edit these articles but has seen (or chooses to review) the pattern of disruptive editing by editors Specifico and Steeletrap especially would bring a topic ban on their editing Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism to WP:ANI, and it succeeded, it would be a great boon to the project. User:Carolmooredc 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What total, utter tripe! As was comprehensively laid out at RS/N, many of the BLPs you were trying to "protect" had few (or in some cases no) sources before SPECIFICO and S. Rich started editing them as part of a broader clean-up of unsourced or badly sourced BLPs. You disagreed with some of the material being added and rather than discuss the issues or start RFCs, you started a campaign of forum shopping, making the same allegations (mostly editor-related rather than content-related) everywhere you could. When anyone bothered to respond (often to tell you that you had either misread a talk page discussion or misquoted a diff) you ignored them and moved on to the next forum, claiming each time that you had been "ignored" at previous noticeboards. Eventually your allegations became simply outrageous and (honestly) incoherent. Some were just completely off-the-wall, blatant personal attacks. Unfortunately for Binksternet, that's the point at which he became involved, repeating your claims that certain people were trying to "attack" BLPs (by adding reliable sources). In some cases, SPECIFICO, S. Rich, Steeletrap and myself were the only editors who had touched certain BLPs (beyond minor edits) in years. Articles that were originally created by COI editors and were entirely unsourced in 2012 saw a flurry of activity and are now, even with ongoing content disputes, in much, much better shape than they were only last year. Jesús Huerta de Soto, which you got particularly upset about in a number of forums, was sourced to a single dead-link press release right up until the point that SPECIFICO started cleaning it up late last year. It now has 33 sources and gives a full account of his background, ideas and written work. There are outstanding disagreements relating to a specific section but it is infinitely better than it was only 12 months ago, thanks in large part, to the editors you want topic banned.

This re-writing of history (where you claim you left because others were "frustrating" you) needs to stop. You left because people finally stood up to your bullying and harassment, forced you to withdraw the worst of your ad-hom commentary and personal attacks and you haven't been back to make them again. I don't recall citing WP:CIR myself but I can tell you it would certainly have applied to a good number of your noticeboard posts where you misquoted other editors and then used those quotes to attack them and claim all sorts of things about their character and backgrounds and personal lives. If the constant misquoting was a mistake then CIR certainly applies. If it was deliberate then you should have been blocked a long time ago. Stalwart111 02:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not sure how to read this. Are you defending Binksternet regarding the harassment & hounding allegations? (Even with reservations?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what Binksternet has been doing lately and haven't been involved in any articles in this topic area for a couple of months. I was around when he joined this topic area and he did so with an absolutely awful attitude and little-to-no assumption of good faith - introducing himself by accusing editors (myself included) of all sorts of things without any evidence beyond Carol's earlier accusations. But while I think he has an awful attitude that probably needs some serious mentoring to adjust, it never manifested as harassment or hounding of me personally. I did not leave the topic area because of his clumsy and juvenile ad-hom, I left because of Carol's bullying. Stalwart111 03:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm always for replacing primary source material with secondary source material. That's not the issue. The issue is POV editors finding the most negative things they can find from their POV and making it the focus of the article, while making sure information that may be from better and more neutral sources that makes the individual look somewhat or quite credible is taken out by hook or by crook. Including by supporting the idea that the essay WP:Walled Garden (and non-Wikipedia variations on the same) can be used to over-rule Wikipedia reliable sources policy. And there have been a number of editors who agreed with me over the months but who got too disgusted to continue; I finally was smart enough to follow their example. Except for those pesky notices that told me my name was mentioned. But now I've gotten rid of them... User:Carolmooredc 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you've told yourself your own tall tales so often that they've become your truth. Stalwart111 05:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This portion of the thread, which started with Steeletrap's complaints about Binksternet, has gone wayyyyy off topic. Is there something that should be done with regard to Binksternet's interaction with Steeletrap? If so, why? I think any admin looking at this would appreciate Diffs. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all in Steeletrap's initial statement above, diffs, policy rationale, and cure. Have you read it? If so, what do you think is missing? If you have not read it, why comment? SPECIFICO talk 04:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I read everything. But I am not going to comment on Steeletraps's complaint. And I read this stuff which does not address Steeletrap's complaint – so that's why I commented. I am restating the obvious with the hope that Steeletrap can receive whatever redress is justified. E.g., this side issue does Steeletrap's complaint a disservice. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2013 (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.

Belittling personal attacks on Binksternet and Srich32977

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:MilesMoney has engaged in personal attacks against me and User:Srich32977 in the last four hours, apparently for the purpose of belittling the contributions of me and Rich, to WP:HOUND us off the articles we are interested in; all in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Here is what MilesMoney has posted recently:

• "The SRich and Bink Show: Welcome to the show of shows, where our pair of entertainers will dazzle you by tag-teaming to edit-war!" This is a belittling comment completely inappropriate for an article talk page.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• "The show goes on. Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so."
• "... the Rich & Bink Show." A belittling comment.
• "Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet." A belittling comment.

I reverted the first MilesMoney post with an edit summary referencing his violation of WP:NPA. I reverted the second MilesMoney post using Twinkle to place an "only warning" on his talk page saying that he should stop engaging in personal attack. After two more posts I reported MilesMoney to WP:AIV where DanielCase said I should be reporting here.

MilesMoney is usually more balanced and objective than this. In the past few hours he is not his normal self. I think he needs to wait out this tendentious period of time. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments cited above are remarkably mild/do not constitute personal attacks and by your own admission, are out of character for Miles. This tedious ANI should be closed immediately. Steeletrap (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of tag-teaming are rarely a good thing unless the point can be proven. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NPA speaks against those who would "comment on the contributor" rather than the content. MilesMoney's article talk page post was wholly focused on belittling two contributors; it was devoid of article content. I was within my rights to immediately remove each of these comments as NPA directs "derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." MilesMoney was in the wrong by repeatedly replacing his belittling personal attacks, no matter how "mild" they might seem. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content, which is that you and Rich are tag-teaming on Murray Rothbard. Each of you goes up to the red line on 3RR, then then next takes over. You keep reverting regardless of what reasonable compromises other editors propose and you absolutely do not have any sort of consensus. These aren't attacks on you, they're a commentary on your poor behavior, which comes down to various forms of tendentious editing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing personal about these remarks. MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously upset about something. We need to ascertain whether he has good reason to be upset. If so, we should solve the underlying problem, not punish the person complaining about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a fairly long block log for past edit warring and a prior 6 month 1RR restriction, though they've not been blocked since 2011. I don't think edit warring is the way to solve a problem. Participating in an edit war and then complaining about opponents, well, I take a dim view of that. Could you all please agree to use dispute resolution to settle your disagreements? Reverting doesn't solve anything. There's no urgent BLP issue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've already taken a step back to avoid getting further embroiled in their edit war. Instead of being part of it, I commented critically about it on the article talk page, which I believe is the appropriate place. I would be glad to use dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if Rich and Bink stopped edit-warring and joined us in discussion. If not, then the rest of us can come up with a consensus even without them, although I suspect they might edit-war against that consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, user:Binksternet has a history of repeated, unsubstantiated personal attacks on various editors including User:Stalwart111, User:Steeletrap, myself, and others. He is, shall we say, "selective" in his concern for NPA and other WP policies. At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 –
No new points being made, and I (one of the "victims" of the belittling remarks) do not consider the remarks worthwhile of this extended discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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.

---

FYI, FYI User:Binks is currently continuing his Edit Warring on multiple pages even as this investigation is taking place. These other pages include "Max Weber", "Augustinian Theodicy", "Iraneaen Theodicy", etc. This is apparently being done to flaunt the seriousness normally associated with an WP:ANI. In addition a long list of his history of the WP:Gaming of Admins has also been recorded on the Max Weber Talk page. Apparently he has learned to present himself in a warm-and-cuddy version of himself when making edit warring complaints for Admin action while selectively misrepresenting his conduct in leaving out key details. The receiving Admin sees a report that looks perfectly reasonable on the surface and make a corrective action because of the deceptively but practiced wording of his Admin requests. He has also posted a campaign against anonIP-users in a picture and poster campaign on his own User page and on the "Max Weber" Talk page which is Contra user:Jimbo and contra-Reagle. At last sighting of his contrib history, User:Binks is apparently on an edit spree to delete multiple sections on as many wikipages as he can visit causing countless hours of repair time to conscientious wiki editors. The picture and poster campaign of User:Binks against all anonIP-users must be seen to be believed. (On the "Max Weber" page and on his User page.) 209.3.238.62 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In light of the statements of a cross-section of editors here, I propose a topic ban for user Bink on articles related to libertarianism, broadly construed, subject to standard rights of appeal. The only statement in support of Bink appears to be from user Srich, whose own tendentious behavior on these articles has been noted recently, and his comment is "bullshit" -- not a convincing counterargument, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Bink, per above. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I believe this is the only way to avoid long, long blocks for the both of them. Either one can be reasonable, but when they act together, they run roughshod over libertarianism-related articles. Removing the worst of the two gives the other a chance to reform. MilesMoney (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Inappropriate proposal – This discussion started with a thread about the warnings that Binksternet had posted on Steeletrap's talk page. Diffs were presented for inspection. But no resolution of that editor behavior issue has been made. Moreover, it switched gears into accusations about Binksternet's alledged harrassment of other editors. Then we have Binksternet's complaint about MilesMoney (which I agree did little to resolve Steeletap's initial complaint). But that subtread spun out of control with comments about EW on other articles. As Specifico said, the discussion of the initial topic of the thread should be the focus of this discussion. With that in mind, a topic ban is not appropriate. If Binksternet was pushing POV, then that issue should be raised on the WP:NPOVN because that board addresses concerns about how editors contribute topic-wise. If Binksternet is harassing Steeletrap, then administrative action should be taken to address that particular behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about Steeletrap when the subject is Bink. If I didn't WP:AGF, I'd almost think you were trying to distract us with something completely irrelevant. Is this the famed Chewbacca defense? MilesMoney (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As Specifico said above: "At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap." – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The harassment is what the topic ban will fix. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• *Strongly oppose. A cross-section of editors, is it? What nonsense. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

Could you please be more clear about your reasons? I'm not sure I understand them. MilesMoney (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – The "bullshit" here is characterizing a cadre of folks with a bone–to–pick with Binksternet as a "cross-section of editors". Mojoworker (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that sure is hostile and counterproductive. Do you have anything to say on the issues? MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I encountered several of those involved here at Hans-Hermann Hoppe which I saw on a noticeboard. It turns out that Hoppe has stated some strong views—views which are easily misinterpreted by quoting phrases out of context. Wikipedia has no defense against groups of editors who want to expose the evils of the world, no defense other than individuals like Binksternet. Johnuniq (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are factually false but also irrelevant to Bink's outrageous behavior on libertarian articles. The falsehood is that Hoppe himself wrote about how these views were focused on by his colleagues and used against him, which means that nobody can claim Steeletrap or any other editor is doing original research or "quoting phrases out of context". Anyhow, even if you weren't dead wrong about this, it wouldn't excuse Bink. MilesMoney (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice, MilesMoney, commenting after virtually every oppose vote is not going to do your argument any favours. It tends to give people the impression that you are harrassing. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being familiar with the protocol here, but I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to be mislead by such a false impression. MilesMoney (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (multiple ec) I cannot see that Binksternet has done anything that is disproportionate. This report and proposal does have the appearances of ganging-up and I do agree with the sentiments of the other opposers above, especially Johnuniq. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• *Qualified Support An apology and admission of wrongdoing and hounding by Bink might moderate my thinking in these respects. With all the off-topic banter, I encourage readers to read my original post clearly documenting hounding by Bink. Off-topic Though Bink's behavior has been egregious on libertarian-rleated forums, these particular charges are off-topic for purposes of this thread (and would need to be meticulously substantiated to justify a topic ban). I urge editors to please refer to my original complaint -- that bink is harassing/hounding me -, and the evidence (diffs) I use to document it, in my original post. Please do not get side tracked with these side issues. Steeletrap (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Another example of one of the worst editing antipatterns infesting Wikipedia -- a cascade of reverts, followed by the amplification of grievances, and then one group of editors coming to AN/I to get the other group banned. Talking about the issues (not the editors!) is the first step of dispute resolution, followed by third opinions and possible topical RFCs. Try it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's a recognition of the fact that Bink's behavior is routinely beyond the ken when it comes to these articles. Please address the issue at hand. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as Binksternet has behaved this way in many different topic areas in the past. Hopefully this will cause him to watch his behavior elsewhere. Instaurare (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I echo Stalwart111 below. A topic ban won't fix the root problem. Instaurare (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. You haven't even begun to make a case for action this drastic. At best, Binksternet should be asked to stay off Steeletrap's user talk page and leave the templating to others. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me out: What, in your eyes, would it take to justify this topic ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

The presentation of evidence of multiple, long-term violations of core content policies like NPOV and RS on multiple articles within the scope of the topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Though there may be merit to these charges against Bink, I would really like everyone to focus on my original complaint, since this is my thread (two of these sub-sections, one of which relates to Bink's allegations against Miles, are completely off-topic). The specific complaint is that he keeps hounding me on my talk page, with false accusations of edit warring and threats of blocks, despite being repeatedly warned to stay off. This is an obvious violation of policy re: WP:Hounding and WP:harassment, which I have documented in diffs. It should be swiftly dealt with by an admin such as you, Gamaliel. Steeletrap (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's all one thing. Together, Rich and Bink exhibit these behaviors in a variety of contexts, most of which seem to be focused on their ownership of all things libertarian. Rather than blocking them both for a long period, I think it would be more effective to take the worse offender and banish him from the articles on the subject that drives him to such extremes. This would give Rich a chance to sink or swim on his own merits, not his membership in a gang-of-two. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, having interacted with Bink for a long time now, I completely agree with your concerns and am sympathetic to your proposed solution. But this thread is devoted to my (much more modest) charges against him. Your "meta" allegations deserve their own thread, and will need to be meticulously documented. Steeletrap (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, despite having been the subject of some of Bink's most vitriolic and unsubstantiated "bullshit". Topic bans won't fix generally problematic editor conduct. I think the topic here could be cheese or sky diving or physics and it wouldn't matter - the problem here is Binksternet's willingness to resort to ad-hom and personal attacks first and collegial discussion a distant second. This 8000 byte rant (repeating, almost verbatim, the unsubstantiated claims of another editor) was his "introduction" to this topic area. When the other editor subsequently withdrew most of her personal attacks and deliberate misquoting, Binksternet doubled down, dug in and simply repeated his claims over and over again (still without providing evidence). Topic bans are designed to prevent disruption - all a topic ban would do here is push Binksternet into another area of the project (with which he is not familiar) where the attitude would likely remain the same. His historical revisionism above is laughable, as is the suggestion he is "defending" BLPs - a claim that was comprehensively put to bed when it was revealed Bink & Co. were "protecting" entirely unsourced BLPs from being sourced. No, his attitude is a problem bigger than can be solved with a topic ban. Stalwart111 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank your for linking to that post. I composed it myself, taking quite a bit of time to do so. I didn't copy "verbatim" any editor at all. I thought the argument would be quite convincing after listing 57 of the notable people who were in the "walled garden" (the observation that the Mises Institute people were not neutral with regard to each other), this phrase being one that you first brought to the discussion back then. It's kind of a far-ranging walled garden, don't you think? More like an estate or park? Yeah, I'm proud of that post and I wish it had achieved more of its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• What rubbish - you listed 57 people and then claimed those were people I had referred to when I'd not even read most of those articles, let alone referred to them and had specifically listed (multiple times) those articles I was referring to. It was a blatant misrepresentation of my previous comments (the same blatant misrepresentation Carol had tried and was forced to strike) and when I challenged you to provide evidence (any evidence at all), you couldn't. It was a strawman argument designed to play the man rather than the ball and I'm genuinely surprised you're not completely ashamed of it. You should be. Stalwart111 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not only have the complainants not made their case, but they're guilty of the same behavior of which they accuse Binksternet. MIlesMoney in particular seems to have a battlefield mentality, engaging in edit warring and invective that is completely inappropriate for this project. Funnily, his battlefield behavior is almost identical to now indefed editor StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). A coincidence, I'm sure.

A look at MilesMoney's talk page and several article talk pages suggests that there is campaign on the part of SPECIFICO, Steeltrap and MilesMoney to control certain articles and portray those that disagree with their edits as incompetent and tendentious. This is not a productive way to settle content disputes, nor is ganging up on respected editors at ANI. - MrX 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Bullshit" is probably the kindest description of this clumsy power play by remaining, unbanned members of a political clique. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've severely cut down my editing of Wikipedia because visits to a number of noticeboards showed an inability of Wikipedia to deal with the incredibly biased, vitriolic edits against certain Austrian economists and/or libertarians by Users:Steeletrap and Specifico (User:MilesMoney later joined them). (I can provide multiple links to archives if people want to see them.) I'm amazed User:Binksternet and User:SRich have had the energy and stomach to continue to put up with their destructive and disruptive editing behavior. I think they both should be topic banned from all articles on Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism. User:Carolmooredc 02:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Um... no. You "severely cut down [your] editing of Wikipedia" because you attacked others, deliberately misquoted them and made all sorts of outrageous accusations without evidence, and when people stood up to you, you begrudgingly struck the worst of your personal attacks and you haven't dared try again since. It was you who drove people away from Austrian economics articles, not the other way around and your "alternate history" (which draws attention to Bink's blind support for your "protection" of unsourced BLPs) does Bink no favours. Stalwart111 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilariously, Carol just minutes ago (right after her "break" from these articles ended), made (1) and then deleted (2) another erroneous (and therefore libelous) allegation of libelous editing. The "libel" was a direct paraphrase (almost a precise quote) of the passage, which she presumably hadn't ever read when she characterized my interpretation of it as libelous. Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dividing the question: It looks like the Proposal, which addressed the behavior of Binksternet, will not be adopted. Assuming so, is there another course of action which addresses the initial complaint raised by Steeletrap? Or should the whole thread be closed? – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the "proposal" thread is totally off topic, it should be hatted promptly. My original concern hasn't even been substantively addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carolmooredc, Carlton, MrX, Mojoworker et al. And Sitush also hit a nail on the head. Writegeist (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (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.

Being wikihounded for sure

My letter to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org (re AFD on everything I am associated with musically in the open source and on the greatest online encyclopaedia ever

Haello all, delete my page but leave Adam Rabuck's and Mike Wagner and Josh Alpert's bands alone. This is my note to the ppl who are supposed to aid me against this duffbeerforme witchhunt against everything I have ever done.

[show]Copy of en email to WMF re a series of AfDs

Hi all, I know I am notable. So do you because I was told so unequivocally several times and have screenshots of chat room transcripts and more wiki archival correspondence to support what I started this email with. It's true. But Ellin Beltz and DuffBeerForMe in particular are ignorant of this.

The Dennis Donaghy page (abbrev 'DD') may need cleanup (again, first time Revent was the user that neutralized the DD page). But not AFD Deletion.

Why? I am a musician, subject to musician guidelines as far as living people.

Musician guideline 6 even as reads now and even without my note edit a few minutes ago, is how I was repeatedly told you can never really become un-notable unless they change the rules or something. IU may be mistaken but I have screenies showing vet wiki ppl tellin me this. Snapped shots just in case Duffbeerforme types who inevitably emerge to strike ppl like me (is how i truly feel) instead of getting up and earning a possible notability if thats what they want. I didnt ever want notability (actualy in '07 I unpromptedly made a page called Iteprunct (Multimedia Artist) but didnt contest the deletion, had fun with it. Having fun with this one too, as much as I can, but it's stressful and I thik it's unfair for this and here is why I characterize it as a witch hunt-

This Duffbeerforme person is AFD'ing everything I am associated with. He's trying to unnotable all the bands that made me notable. Look fer yerselves, dont believe me as I am the biased subject.

But seriously, I am aware Duffbeerforme is perfectly entitled to do these afd's the tags etc, but man it really seems like overkill, like you know, some OTHER motivation other than loving and defending the wikipedia. maybe jealousy or to prove a point, or to flex wiki muscles, I have no idea. I don't have and never had 'wiki-jealousy' or feel the need to slash away at ambiguously notable ppl. I have been simply trying to adhere to the rules, creating pages (Button King, Golden Eagle Regional Park and Sports Complex, and I just helped oon the Navy Yard Aaron Alexis thing) and not editing DD page except those two minor times after RRevents neut. where I made totally minor uncontroversial edits to correct wrong info.

Anyway, Duffbeerforme has quickly slapped tags on everything associated with me. I don't care what happens per se as long as it is FAIR.

It seems fishily unfair at this point to me and I am trying to be careful pointing fingers. It's weird for this user to start hacking away at a very admittedly grey area as if its some clear-cut flagrant violation of some highly prized moral code he's crusading on. I made a page about me, it was neutralized, I corrected it, uhh, LOTS of time transpired where I either did nothing, or edited other pages.

The DD page is a listing of a man, a person (me) who seems fairly notable despite fragmented open source citation material, and virtually or not virtually, admittedly absolutely zero major media. WHICH IS WHY I was characterized initially as OUTSIDER MUSICIAN! read the entry, thats me almost to a T but I digress...

For the interest of your time and efforts please realize Revent was the first user who neutralized the DD page. It can be done again, but DELETING Dennis Donaghy, Blanket Statementstein, and Dirt Bike Annie over this is seriously weird since I had nothing to do with either of those bands since I left, nobody was questioning their pages and now they are due to my page being suspect.

You guys should leave Adam's andd Mike's pages alone (Rabuck and Wagner) they don't deserve to be part of this witchhunt, if its me you want knock me out of the wikipedia I wanted that in the fucking first place

This is so frustrating, but thx guys (meaning guys and or gals)

Dennis

So that's it. I'm done. (with this afd defending myself bs, not done contributing quality volunteer work here lynching successful or no. squigglies. Phaedrx (talk) Phaedrx (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the Help Desk for requesting help with using or finding your way around Wikipedia. AfDs should be discussed on the relevant discussion page. If you genuinely feel you are being wikihounded by a user systematically reverting your past contributions or nominating them for deletion, you can report it to administrators at WP:ANI, but their first concern, like any other users', will be with the individual merits of each revert or AfD nomination. Other than that I'm afraid there's little for us to do here, unless you have a specific question. - Karenjc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)"

in the interest of full disclosure I felt the need to prominently publish the above text, verbatim, on my personal Official Artist Website at www,phaedrx.com and use it as a platform to defend myself, however MY site's rules govern what I can do there. I am acting with love and in righteousness as I always do. I am not simply gonna sit and take this if I think it's wrong. Please be fair. Thanks. squigglies Phaedrx (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND THANK YOU ADMINISTRATORS. LOVE, PHAEDRX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talk • contribs)

??? I have no idea what's is going on here, or what is being asked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought it was just me. Looking at his website, I'd guess he's cross with us. Not that what he's written there about us makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So, we AfD'd some articles he created. Most were deleted by the community. He whined to the WMF, and is copy/pasting those e-mails here. He's mad because the community determined his "work" was not-Wikipedia-worthy ES&L 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on some of the comments, like "I know I am notable," I get the impression he's also talking about articles he or someone created about him, and is complaining that they were deleted. I think maybe WP:COI might apply as well. If this editor can establish through sources that the subjects of the articles involved, whether they directly relate to him or not, meet guidelines as per WP:NOTABILITY, then I guess he is free to create pages on them, although he probably should indicate his relation to the subjects of some of those articles somewhere. Otherwise, honestly, I don't know if there is anything that can really be done here, and I guess maybe, except for perhaps someone maybe advising the editor of some of the relevant policies and guidelines, this thread could be closed as there really doesn't seem to be in any way really actionable. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. He presumably ended up here because of my response to his email copypaste here at the help desk, which he's then repasted here along with my reply. The catalyst seems to be the AfDing of the article about himself but he was claiming a sustained campaign. I hatted him but offered links to WP:HOUND and here, with what I hoped was a suitable caveat, in case he found he did need admin assistance, but he's obviously not reading links or taking advice, just forum shopping. Sorry to give him this as another venue. -Karenjc (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this today, so it's new to me, too. It's a COI and a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. His associated IP account was blocked for edit warring on his bio [264], and in his dudgeon he's taken swipes at other editors [265], [266] and played with the music notability guideline page for WP:POINTY effect [267]. The subject interprets the AfD process as a personal attack, and is questioning the integrity and motives of other editors. JNW (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A person with no wiki experience and little knowledge of our processes who is understandably (not "justifiably") irritated with what he sees as a concerted effort to wipe him off the wiki map. Pay it no mind, let the AfDs run their course, and this will all blow over. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right on all accounts, as usual, Drmies. But: he has edited at least since April, when he created his bio, and has subsequently edited primarily to debate his notability, using--per his admission and credible claim that there was no intent to sock--multiple accounts [268], [269]. This is someone with enough wiki knowledge to have created and, as much as possible, controlled their own bio. That's not unusual, but it neutralizes our response when the subject cries foul. JNW (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, maybe I should say "limited" wiki experience. I do believe that this will blow over. Then again, I'm not singled out on their website. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi: I was one of the people working with this editor from the beginning. On my advice he left a note on his userpage about his previous use of other names and various IPs, and has since edited under the single account of Phaedrx. The article on him was rewritten by an experienced editor to be more neutrally worded, and Phaedrx has been occasionally tweaking it to make it more accurate. (Those edits are in the record of course; I have the article watchlisted and did not see self-aggrandizement in them.) He's also written a couple of other articles about topics other than himself. His notability rests on his having played in various bands; now the bands have been taken to AfD as well as the article on him, and the nomination statement refers to it as a vanity article. Unfortunately his response culminated in his blanking most of the article while logged out, and I was forced to block him for edit warring, so he will not be responding for a few hours more. That's the short version. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a good summation of the history, Yngvadottir. Though for all your good intentions, perhaps you, too, will receive acknowledgment at Phaedrx's website. JNW (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already been thanked [270]. This and Ellin Beltz's experience to be filed under the heading of 'No Good Deed'.... JNW (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As one of the ones getting the "barnstars" on this user's personal webpage, I too hope this blows over. The user asked me to review the article. I read the notability criteria for musicians, offered my observations on the situation and he was apparently displeased. While I found the writing in the article to be non-biased, the citations didn't have the content to back up the phrases in the article. Also I noticed that the subject's name as shown on the Wikipedia page did not occur in several of the citations listed, including "The New York Times". "The New Yorker" and "The Seattle Times" articles. There were valid links to his own website and a couple of blogs. Please let me know if there's anything else I have to do to reply to this ANI? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to Yngvadottir and to Drmies (who thinks it'll blow over on its own), I have indefinitely blocked Phaedrx. It's mind-boggling (to me) that he's gotten this far with this kind of conduct. Too many examples of crap to justify giving him any additional latitude. That said, if any admin, including the two I've mentioned, wants to undo what I did (completely or partially), they can do so without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Alfred H. Bartles

Some time ago I submitted to Wikipedia an article on Alfred H. Bartles, American composer. Some editor decided that it had too much "original research" in it and that it needed more references. I presumed that that was the end of that submission and thought it completely canceled and rejected.

I then gave what I had written to the library of the Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt University, where "original research" is welcome. With minor changes, it was then put on the library's website, as I had hoped. It was my intention then to rewrite the article for Wikipedia with references to the Vanderbilt website for facts. Today I get a notice from Wikipedia that my Wikipedia article -- which I thought had been completely rejected and thrown away by Wikipedia -- is in flagrant violation of Vanderbilt's copyright! Well of course! The website IS my rejected Wikipedia article!

I find it extremely difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. For example, there is no clear way to respond to this strange notice. Your instructions for authors are verbose and confusing. I have no idea whether I have found the right way to respond. But I know that I do not like being accused of plaigerism of myself when the problem is the difficulty of communication with Wikipedia.

In any event, would you please completely remove the previously submitted article from any place where it is still lurking in Wikipedia files.

Someday, if I have time and get over my irritation with the self-righteous attitude of Wikipedia, I or someone else may send you an article on this remarkable American composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClopperAlmon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ClopperAlmon. I'm sorry for the frustration you've been put through. The Alfred H. Bartles page was posted on 10 January 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. Wikipedia uses a variety of namespaces, each having a different purpose. Wikipedia articles are posted in Main/Article namespace. Your post was in Wikipedia:Project namespace in a project called "Articles for creation." In that WikiProject, contributions can become Wikipedia articles, but are not Wikipedia articles themselves (because they are not in Main/Article namespace). The notices you received on your talk page included a username of the person who posted the notice. You can communicate with them by clicking on the "talk" link next to their user name. The previously submitted article has been deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created Alfred Bartles and notified ClopperAlmon on his talk page. I think some of our templates (particularly the standard Twinkle notifications for A7, G11 and G12) are bitey in the extreme and said so previously. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to provide an explanation at User_talk:ClopperAlmon#My_view_of_the_sequence_of_events--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if undeleting the AfC and histmerging it into the new article would be appropriate attribution? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So here's a dumb question... we tend to blindly accept university publishings as reliable sources, but it appears that ClopperAlmon was able to write a paper (which, itself, is totally unreferenced, by the way) and get a .PDF hosted on a .edu domain. We now have the exact same text that was rejected as OR being used to reference an article, which summarizes the original OR (OOR?)... Is this really according to the spirit of WP:V? Is there even the remotest hint that someone at Vanderbilt reviewed this paper? Usually a university applies some kind of peer review process on "papers" published by their students. I agree that a university is the right place to do and publish research (and WP Is not the right place to publish research), but in this case, I think we've gotten twisted around. I suppose I should take this to a different noticeboard, but since all the history is here, it made sense to ask it here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to figure out how to explain this to the well-meaning OP, but the "Vanderbilt pdf" [271] is just personal text at what appears to be a student-faculty-alum webhosting service. [272] It's not a reliable source, and the article can't be based on it. I'd be very happy (for the OP's sake) to learn that I'm mistaken in that evaluation. EEng (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threatening me

Admin User:RegentsPark removed properly sourced "Pathan" [273] from Prithviraj Kapoor and now telling me to stop adding this ethnicity in articles.[274] I find this as a threat and a bad behaviour by an admin. This all started when POV-pushers User:PISCOSOUR786 (talk · contribs) (from India) and user:Saladin1987 (Pakistani from Australia) repeatedly removed Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor. [275] I reported them, PISCOSOUR786 got blocked as someone's sock and Saladin1987 got blocked for a month. RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler now took over the article and are removing "Pathan" from it. On the talk page I presented more than enough reliable sources (RSs) for the Pathan claim, which includes: 1) Kapoor identified self as Pathan; 2) his father and grandfather were described as Pathans; 2) his son Shammi Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells that his parents and grandparants were Pathans [276]; 3) Madhu Jain (author of a 2009 book on the Kapoors) explains in details that Prithviraj belonged to a "Hindu Pathan family" [277]; 4) and several other RSs which confirm this. [278] The mentioned users strictly refuse to accept Prithviraj as a Pathan no matter what experts say [279], and they wonder how can there be such a thing as a Hindu or a Sikh Pathan (note: Pathan is alternative for Pashtun, both terms redirect to each other). I also provided convincing evidence that there in fact are Pathan Hindus and Pathan Sikhs [280]

They consider themselves “sons of the soil” – Pashtuns to be more specific – and are identified as such. “We are proud to be Pashtuns,” says Sahib Singh. “Pashto is our tongue, our mother tongue – and we are proud of it.”[281]

I think it's appropriate to warn RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler to stop removing Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor's article.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all. You're going to have to try to work with them because getting rid of them like this isn't appropriate.--v/r - TP 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it as a form of threat, especially coming from an admin. I told him and the others to wait until editors familiar with the issue come and resolve the issue but why is he telling me to revert proper edits?--Fareed30 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A "form of a threat" is not a threat. It's an extreme hypersensitive emotionally-biased interpretation to suit your own purposes. The question is whether it is or is not a threat. The diff contains no mention of action against you. Admins are editors as well, they can make comments such as "You're close to violating XXX policy" without it being a threat. The only time it becomes a threat, or even against policy even if it were a threat, is when they say they will take action against you themselves while they are involved in a dispute. That hasn't happened, move on.--v/r - TP 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The expressions "Hindu Pathan" or "Hindu Pashtun" do not appear in the reliable sources of the last 50 years. See here (what appears are five copies of a sentence, "Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution; Hindu, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English, all are masters in turn ...") I have already told you, your sources are unreliable, "Pathan" is not relevant to his notability (there were no Pathan or Pashtun schools of Over-Acting, or Theatrics in Peshawar, Kabul or Kandahar, besides he wasn't from those places anyway; he was reliably only from Lyallpur in the West Punjab. Your claims about "blue eyes" and "sharp features" of Pathans etc (see talk page) are in the realm of lore and speculation. Finally, as I've stated on the talk page, India is a multi-ethnic country with a great deal of diversity. There are people there of all shapes and sizes, colors and looks. The Indian constitution doesn't recognize the imagined phenotypical claims of a few. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are again and again mentioning "Hindu", a term that relates to religion, and I told you again and again that I'm not interested in religion stuff. This issue is over his Pathan background, it is mentioned in every source so it should also be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This is done everywhere, and him being born in Lyallpur is another issue that has nothing to do with his Pathan background. Hasnat Khan was born in the same area and he is Pathan as you can read in his article. Peshawar is where Prithviraj grew up, his father was a sub-inspector of police in this Pathan cultural center. When Prithviraj went to India, he even made a popular play called The Pathan (or Pathan), which was about his personal experiance living in Peshawar among Muslims. This play was performed about 600 times on stage in Mumbai, India, to the mostly Hindu audience. You cannot hide someone's background just because it may upset you. Btw, there were stage shows and cinema schools in Peshawar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly Fareed, no one has threatened you. I merely pointed out that repeatedly adding an ethnicity against consensus is tendentious. And, doing that in numerous blps, and possibly in an underhand way, is disruptive. When the ethnicity on an individual is in doubt, it is better to leave it out. Once again, my suggestion is that you demonstrate your good faith by self-reverting yourself. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm making constructive edits, properly sourcing everything and nobody other than you guys are challenging me, and I'm not being silly so please don't use such provocative words. You have to learn to wait until this argument over the Pathan background is exhausted.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called getting consensus. You should try it sometime ES&L 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did try it but the above users (RegentsPark and Fowler) decided to flee from the discussion, see the last few comments at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can read, you tried to gain consensus for the addition, but failed. You then continued to insist, even though consensus was against you. You've become increasingly belligerent about it. Please stop - consensus rules on Wikipedia, as per WP:5P ES&L 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• ES&L, you probably didn't understand the situation correctly so let me explain. I added in the early years section of Prithviraj Kapoor's article that he was of Pathan background or at least he presented self as that and cited reliable sources, and then Saladin1987 changed Pathan to Punjabi, which is a different group of people. After he got blocked, RegentsPark and Fowler decided to support Saladin by completely removing "Pathan" from the article, claiming that it is disputed but nobody has ever disputed this. I asked to provide a source which mentions the dispute but they failed and decided to flee the discussion. I told them on Prithviraj's talk page that I'm busy and would take the issue to ANI so others can have a chance to review everything and decide what is best. There was no need for RegentsPark to leave a message on my talk page in which he tells me to remove "Pathan" from Anil Kapoor's article. These actions of RegentsPark are inappropriate, he's suppose to discuss edits on the article's talk page so others may get involved and if that doesn't work then he's suppose to start discussion somewhere else, he's a long time editor and an admin so obviously he knows these basic rules.
• Whenever I read an article about a famous person I get to learn everything about that person, including race or ethnicity, but here they're saying don't menion Pathan. Why shouldn't we mention this when it is mentioned in articles of other famous Bollywood actors, including Shahrukh Khan, Kader Khan, Madhubala, and Feroz Khan?--Fareed30 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I write for a living; please don't ever suggest that I had trouble reading something well enough to understand ES&L 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a first? A complaint about an India-related discussion in which I have been a participant but I am not being lambasted? Since I agreed with RP and F&F, the consensus thus far is even stronger than the reporter acknowledges. Fareed, the whole ethnic thing here is nebulous, you've had the issues explained to you time and again and those explanations have come from some contributors who have a pretty vast experience in dealing with the subject matter on Wikipedia. Of course, they could all be wrong ... but it isn't likely and this is not the place to resolve your differences anyway. At most, it is a content dispute and there certainly has been no threat. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, that is indeed a first, you should treasure it. It's also as far as I know the first time the mild-to-a-fault RegentsPark has been taken to ANI in the guise of a "threatening" administrator. Shows it can happen to anybody. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

You guys work together editing Indian related articles so the consensus is unfair since you guys share the same anti-Pathan POV. It would be different if non-Indian editors get involved.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So go follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution if you want to shift the consensus. Coming here and whining about it isn't going to change anything. Nothing is going to come of this ANI complaint, so you may as well drop it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not whining. I'm busy renovating one of my bathrooms (marble and tiles cutting and grouting, etc.) so I can't concentrate on this right now.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(I might be repeating something already said, but here goes.) Fareed, simply telling you to stop adding material is not a threat. If the admin said "Stop adding this or I will block you", then it would be a threat, and then the question would be whether the "will block you" part was within policies (eg. if you were in an edit war, you can be blocked temporarily for edit-warring regardless of the merits of the content.) And I posit that a truly inappropriate threat would have taken the form of "Stop adding this, or I will hunt you down and do nasty things to you." THAT would be the sort of thing that would warrant an AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added relevant information in Anil Kapoor's article which many readers like to know. If there was a problem with the edit, someone would have reverted or removed the addition. I'm not into edit-wars, it's silly and just a waste of time. I just want to expose these editors so they can cool off with their anti-Pathan POV.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If everyone else who edits the article says to NOT include what you consider "relevant" (which it isn't), then it doesn't go in - hence the word "consensus". You re-adding it ran the risk of getting yourself blocked. It also does not mean they're "anti-Pathan", and saying such could ALSO get you a block, because now you're accusing someone of racism. Time to rethink your way forward ES&L 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusion very fast. First, I didn't re-add. Second, I was saying they're against the term "Pathan" so they're anti-Pathan. That's the shortest description, what should I call them? Pretend that their editors from different background when they're not? I'm not accusing someone of racism, you can clearly see what they're doing or what they're up to. They edit mostly Indian articles and that's not something they can hide from anyone. It means that they think like Indians. Based on their edits, it is more likely that they are Punjabi Sikhs of Indian origin. It helps to know this whenever there is a consensus or a dispute, especially when ethnicity is the primary focus. I'm an expert in this area (on South Asia), the Punjabis hate Pathans (Afghans) with a great passion. This is due to the wars between these groups since 1738 until around 1818. Pathans destroyed their holy sites, killed many Punjabi Sikhs, including Sikh leaders Baba Deep Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and others.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Fareed, I notice that you're busy editing here but you haven't reverted your addition of the Pathan ethnicity to various Kapoor clan pages. I'm going to do that for you. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I got most of them. Now please don't re-add it without first going through some sort of WP:DR. --regentspark (comment) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Anil Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fareed, I an assure you that I for one am not a Punjabi Sikh. I'm not even religious and I'm not even Indian or indeed from anywhere in South Asia. I also certainly do not "think like Indians" and that is one of the reasons why I have been reported here myself so often. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure How to Proceed

Effective today, Nielsen has completed it's purchase of Arbitron. As you all may know, back in 2009, Nielsen filed a DMCA Takedown Notice (via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854), which caused all TV region templates to be removed because they had Nielsen television "DMA" information. Since Arbitron's radio "DMA" information is now owned by Nielsen, this will carry over.

Currently, most radio station pages carry a link to the Arbitron page for the respective station in the external links as part of the {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}} templates. To avoid another DMCA takedown notice, should we remove the Aribtron links from those templates (which would require an admin as they are indef full-protected) or will they be OK as-is? If this isn't the proper location for this discussion, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a takedown affect something they didn't own at the time of the takedown demand? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but they do have a copyright on the term "DMA" (which stands for "Designated Market Area, by the way) and from what I understand Nielsen was allowing Arbitron to use the term "DMA" in their ratings. That copyright is what caused the DMCA takedown notice back in '09. Arbitron didn't have a problem with us using it, so we didn't have a problem there. We do now since Nielsen has said they don't want us using their copyrights here on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you DMCA a link to your own public database? Linking to them, isn't the same as hosting the data onwiki. That said, without having OTRS access, or being familiar with the past removal, its hard to say with any certainty. Still, my preference would be to wait and see if they DMCA anything. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would rather they don't DMCA anything. Last time they did, legal didn't fight it (the "DMA" information could have been easily removed) and it took 3 months or more of non-stop work to get the TV region templates created and back up (sans the Nielsen information, of course). I don't want to have to do that with each and every single radio station page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would wait to see if they take any action on the radio database, though have a backup template ready in the sandbox for the AMSD and FMSD templates sans Arbitron info ready to go if we get the C&D. The Arbiton people are still there for now and until we hear from Nielsen we should be able to go forward with it. My thinking though? They'll eventually throw it up behind a paywall to block all access to everyone except paying customers since the only way to get the weekly Nielsen ratings publicly is the USA Today chart on Wednesdays, and they're even more strict about their numbers than Arbitron has. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Render unto English Wikipedia what is English Wikipedia, and render unto WMF what is WMF's Since DMCA take downs go to WMF (as the actual owner of the website) it seems it like something they should provide guidance on. (Message left on liason's talk page) NE Ent 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Things change, corporations change. WMF should wait for a takedown before any action is taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's good and all, but what do we do if legal decides not to fight a DMCA notice from Nielsen like last time and we have to rebuilt thousands of radio station pages? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no point worrying about stuff that might or might not happen someday. We will deal with it if and when it happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. I just hope that DMCA notice never comes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have interest in content that is the subject of a DMCA notice, and you feel the notice is invalid, it is possible to file a counter-notice (or "put-back" notice) with the hosting party (see OCILLA), which would be WMF in this case. Doing so may open you to additional legal liability, however. I would definitely not take such an action without consulting a lawyer. Possible additional sources of assistance would be organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The WMF also has an assistance program for legal fees for users exposed to liability as a result of being administrators or other functionaries on a project, though I don't know how this would work out if the WMF was claimed to be hosting infringing content—they do have the safe harbor protection, as long as they comply with the DMCA, which includes complying with authentic take-down and put-back notices. Anyway this would only be relevant if a notice was actually filed, of course. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"DMA" is a proprietary (to Nielsen) value assigned to each radio station for the purpose of grouping them for various statistical reports, right? It was the publishing of this DMA value in the TV templates that was the target of the DMCA, right? How is this the same as simply providing a link from a station article to Arbitron's (or anyone else's) website? We are not publishing any information proprietary to Arbitron – the link doesn't even contain any sort of code specific to them (e.g. like those produced with transclusions of {{IMDb}} and {{Find a Grave}}) – they solely use the FCC-assigned callsign as the key. Arbitron has a similar grouping code (ARM) for radio stations, but there is no mention of this in {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw 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.

---

Montanabw has been making personal attacks on me that violate BLP rules at Talk:Labor unions in the United States I reverted (citing BLP) and she put it right back in a couple minutes ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States&oldid=575206902&diff=prev Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation. I removed the one bit about how he lies about his own credentials and moved it to his talk page here There also is no "outing" involved, as I just explained to him:

"You publicly disclose your identity on-wiki, so I am not "outing" you to mention what you yourself are apparently very proud to admit. In this link you post on your user page, so also no BLP issue involved; you aren't the subject of a wikipedia article (and, frankly, you aren't particularly notable, so that makes sense). But, I moved the personalized comment from the article talk: "You also behave in a deceptive fashion, keeping up the lie that you are a professor at MSU-B when a search of the current and emeritus faculty clearly shows that you are not." (Going back to 2009. You have a right to your POV, but you need to re-read WP:SOAP."

Frankly, I am sick of this POV-pushing right-wing editor, who PUBLICLY SELF-IDENTIFIES on WP (with first initial and last name plus a link to his works) and is also an administrator at Conservapedia, (see [282]) and has an obvious pattern of pushing a political agenda into WP. He's nearly derailed some FACs with his POV-pushing edits (see Richard Nixon and Thaddeus Stevens) and is now throwing a temper tantrum because he's getting called on his stuff. He's pissed because I removed his overactive adjectives from the article in question, but who needs to keep adding the words "liberal" and "left-wing" every three sentences, particularly when NOT adding the words "conservative" and "right-wing" in an equal fashion? Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in a dispute on the article Real Clear Politics. The opposing editors are insisting adding "Founded by conservatives." By your logic, should they be blocked for POV pushing? What does being an administrator on conservapedia have to do with anything? BLP applies to all living persons named on Wikipedia, of which Rjensen is one so BLP most certainly does apply.--v/r - TP 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Montanabw's rhetoric above speaks for itself in terms of personal attacks on me. As for Montana State-Billings, I have been a Research Professor there for years see this Montana State University website Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, this was pointed out to you before you posted it here: [283] and that's the MSU-Bozeman library's page about the wikipedia ambassador site, not MSU-Billings faculty list. It also doesn't say you've been anywhere "for years" AND it looks like it's a resume you yourself submitted. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is seeking to have me sanctioned in some vague fashion for calling him out on his agenda when he is the one doing what you decry (only in this case, adding "liberal" everywhere he thinks it needs to be added). The point is that he's being called on his POV-pushing and is throwing a fit because he's caught in the act. Rjensen is doing precisely what you are critical of, inserting POV language into an article and then making personal attacks. I try to keep things neutral. When he becomes all condescending and attacks me personally in edits and edit summaries, I called him on his shit: Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• creates personal attack section header titled, "Montanabw is misinformed"
• I responded (then fixed typos in a few subsequent edits)
• Rj responds with vague generalities
• I edit the NPA attack header and reply on-topic
• Rjensen claims neutrality, I call bullshit, but provide some suggested source material
• Rjensen essentially, in a tl;dr, calls me stupid
• Rjensen is dismissive of another editor who confronts him
• and we have the edit of mine that he dislikes

Okay, ya'all back off for a little while so I can look.--v/r - TP 23:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen Your comments toward Montanabw, while not a personal attack, have been highly uncivil. You've been patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive. On the whole, your behavior on this talk page disrupts the building of an encyclopedia.

Montanabw Your comments toward Rjensen have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia, and accusations of POV pushing. That behavior is not constructive and counter-attacks are not excusable.

The both of you While I am intellectually mediocre compared to the both of you, especially on the subject of history, what doesn't take an idiot to figure out is that your current paths lead no where. This is a collaborative project. The bickering isn't helpful. You have clearly opposite political viewpoints, either of you could be considered POV pushing (Montanabw, white washing in your case by removing the liberal label). I am not going to rule on content, that's not in an administrators remit, however on the subject of POV pushing, I can see at least one case where I think you both could be wrong. As two intellectual types with advanced degrees, you have the opportunity to get this article well balanced and to GA or FA status if you can cooperate. So, what needs to happen here to get you two to cooperate?--v/r - TP 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to just drop the stick and declare a truce wherein the personal snark stops. I have other fish to fry than this particular article, I was only alerted to the problem via a third party post. I'm fine with the article as it is as of the moment (I did a bit of cleanup just now of my own last edit). My changes, which gave rise to this talk page spat, involved tossing what I viewed as some unneeded editoralizing. Through all the snark, Rjensen and I were basically disputing two issues: 1) Whether Ronald Reagan was a "liberal" (as opposed to merely a Democrat) in the time he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild - and whether the qualifier was even relevant in any case; and 2) If strikes declined solely due to corporations threatening to close factories and move jobs abroad. So for #1, we seem to have dropped the issue on Reagan, even at talk - I agreed he had been a democrat and union president, Rjensen seems to have agreed that he wasn't a screaming liberal and that he was quite the anti-communist as SAG leader. For #2, I kept Rjensen's useful stats, and all I really wanted out of the union decline thing was to either keep the tone neutral as to causes, or, if causes were to be explored, then a truly full and NPOV exploration of all non-fringe views, including the impact of things like right-to-work legislation, the changing world economy, yada, yada... but we got all bogged down in snark. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia. That's not an ad hominem, that's a warning sign. --Calton | Talk 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly an ad hominem. It uses a person's characteristics to challenge the validity of the argument instead of actually providing a counter argument. The use of conservative as a perjorative on this site is startling. I've seen RS's like Fox News, Washington Post, and USA Today called non-RS's simply for their viewpoint. That an editor edits on a project with a conservative viewpoint doesn't mean they edit here with a conservative viewpoint. Ad hominems are not a substitute for discussion.--v/r - TP 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "a person's characteristics". It is a person's associations, which makes it ad hominem in the present case. Conservative is not a "characteristic" in that characteristics, (eg. skin color), are generally something the person does not choose -- political outlook for mature people is something they generally choose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rolls eyes* I can't believe we have to argue about the definition of a characteristic. But yes, a person's affiliations and associations are a characteristic. Skin color would be a physical characteristic. Despite that, the argument about what is a characteristic is pointless because you agree that the issue here is an ad hominem.--v/r - TP 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you gentlemen agree that words like "misinformed" in the contest used (a section header with my name on it) also constitutes an ad hominem personal attack, even if spread out over multiple tl;dr paragraphs of a talk page? Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Misinformed" isn't an ad hominem because it's not using one of your characteristic to discount your argument. It's a step above an ad hominem, but it's still patronizing though.--v/r - TP 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Misinformed" is not an ad hominum, because it is not saying that someone's argument should not be listened to because of who they are or who they associate with. Having your name in a section header is incivil, but that has been apologized for. You would do good to also apologize and you really should strike all your mistaken discussion about the university, as that seems BLP block worthy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the statement "Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation" is erronious; WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, to any living person, notable/article-having or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • However, Montanabw is correct that Rjensen does edit from a very definite political position. Most of the time he keeps it under control, but not always, and there's nothing at all wrong in pointing out those instances when he allows his POV to override his instincts as an historian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• All true and fair enough, and it is just a heated talk page discussion, it actually began with Rjensen's personal attack on me, (his original section header at the article talk was "Montanabw is misinformed"), and he's mad that I called him on having an undisclosed right-wing agenda when he kept claiming he was "neutral." But no BLP issue here: I stated the truth, sourced, and I pointed out facts he boasts of on his user page. Rjensen self-discloses his identity and claims a number of academic credentials on his user page ( to be fair, most of them are true). Still, look at what he removed in the link above: criticism of his editing approach and calling him on his POV-pushing, which is not a BLP violation, and even then, a couple edits down, I decided it was more appropriate to move my comments about him being a Conservapedia admin and not a real MSU-Billings Professor (even though both true and sourced) to his talk page, where he promptly deleted them (which he is entitled to do). ;-) He also distorts his credentials on his user page and claims he is a "research professor" at MSU-BIllings, when the Montana University system has no such title as "research professor." (His link above is to MSU main campus in Bozeman, and it's his wikipedia ambassador bio, which he probably submitted himself) I've seen him listed elsewhere as a "retired historian," which appears to be true, and an "active scholar," which also appears to be true. But he's not on the faculty of the Montana University system anywhere and should not be presenting himself as such. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read through Montanabw's comments both here and on the article talk page and find his comments beyond what one would expect of civil discourse. See Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States. Rjensen began this discussion thread by saying that Montanabw was misinformed about what Montanabw has here identified as their two points of disagreement - Reagan and strikes - and provided sources. Montanabw then replied by accusing him of personal attacks and of editing from a "right-wing view only." I do not see the disagreement as being left-right, but will discuss that on the talk page. I think Montanabw should redact his excessive attacks and promise to stop. Many editors have been blocked for less than this. TFD (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I removed the bit about conservapedia from the talk page already, and moved it to Rjensen's talk page, where he chose to delete rather than discuss. I also think his active presence on conservapedia is completely relevant, as the site exists primarily to attack the perceived "bias" of wikipedia and openly advocates inserting a conservative view into WP articles, which is permissible, I suppose, but surely not NPOV, particularly when connected with calling other editors stupid and "misinformed" for holding certain center-left views. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

for the record: 1) I am really annoyed that Montanabw continues to imagine that I have some sort of "right wing agenda" for Wikipedia. That is completely false. Like most historians and indeed many Wiki editors who work on political topics I do have my personal political views. For Wikipedia I do not broadcast them and have tried very hard to be fair to liberal leaders such as in the 364 edits I made to Franklin D. Roosevelt and my 469 edits to New Deal. Take a look. s) As for my agenda for Wikipedia I do have one and have presented it in public for several years now--it involves putting more scholarship into long-established history articles. see my 2012 statement here. 3) Montanabw calls me a liar, based on her failure in one poorly done Google search. I have been an official "Research Professor" at Montana State U., Billings, for years and have the formal letter from the chancellor to prove it, should anyone ask. (I've been officially retired for years; the appointment lets me teach courses and use the library; it does not pay a salary.) I have also officially been a paid professor at numerous other universities such as Illinois-Chicago, Washington, Michigan, RPI, West Point and Harvard (including even Moscow State University in the USSR in the days of Communism). 4) In the article at hand I also think Montanabw's edits erasing a few uncontroversial words of mine were poor ones and were motivated by a lack of good faith and a fear of having a conservative actually write for Wikipedia. That did indeed tee me off and I wrote in an angry mood that does not encourage civility--sorry. Rjensen (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently finished battling with Rjensen over at the US labor union article; noting that his editing style is right wing and not neutral is stating the obvious. Equally problematic is that he's largely unaware of this (see here [284]). To see an example of his POV pushing see here [285]. My fairly limited interaction with user:Montanabw has been fine. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is it POV to note that after the 2010 elections, Republican state houses passed legislation limiting the power of public service unions? TFD (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I see Rjensen thanks you in the credits of his paper linked below. Just noticed that. BTW, kudos to him for pushing for JSTOR access on WIkipedia, that's a plus Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments strengthen my case. He makes unwarranted assumptions about my motivations (he has no clue, can't read my mind), and assumes bad faith, both constituting a personal attack. He deleted two paragraphs of my comments at the article talk, claiming "BLP" when there was one sentence that may have contained any BLP issue. As for others, his "putting more scholarship" into articles nearly derailed the FAC for Thaddeus Stevens (do read that talk and FAC, if interested). To the best of my knowledge, he has never been lead editor on one single FAC or even a GA on wikipedia (I've been lead or second whip on many); he makes hit and run edits across multiple articles, often with insertion of subtle stabs of "left-wing" or "liberal" where the context does not require such WP:POINTy adjectives. WhiIe I'm happy for him that he has been a "paid professor" at various universities and I am sure he is a genius (in spite of his own admission on his user page link that he currently edits history books mostly targeted for fifth-graders), he could not be an instructor or adjunct in the Montana University system without pay, (as he apparently alleges) and getting permission to use a library within the Montana University system is no big whoop. (I have similar access, they hand it out like Skittles). He appears to be a wikipedia ambassador, but does not appear on any lists of classes taught at MSU-Billings (I'm sure he can set me straight if he finds one), and while I could discuss his credentials further, I chose not to share other results of my own simple google search per WP:OUTING; I confine myself to verification (or not) of his disclosures on-wiki and closely related activities such as conservapedia, which is, basically, a wiki attack site. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

• Support an interaction ban between User:Montanabw and User:Rjensen. We have two editors here who dislike each other. The details (having to do with ideology) do not matter, because their acting out of their dislike is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  It's only gotten personal in the last week or two; before that, Rjensen was merely (as TP said) "patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive" in discussions, not so much in edit summaries and section headers (which or more permanent records). Other than articles about Montana and the west, we don't interact much elsewhere, though we cross paths when I am helping others on various American History articles. Before you take this much farther, please note that Rjensen has a prior sockpuppet problem. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see anything actionable on Montana's part. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We need more knowledge on our articles, not less. And both editors bring a good bit of knowledge. Find common ground or back off for a bit. There is nothing here that can't be solved by a little good faith. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no evidence that there is any problem beyond one article. TFD (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose These are both experienced editors that can work it out. Agree with User:The Four Deuces that the problem is limited to one article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Oppose I don't see a ban actually accomplishing or solving anything in the greater scheme of things. Intothatdarkness 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Unless it is self-imposed (I would encourage that), I don’t think a community interaction-ban is warranted. @BW and @RJ – It is much too early for cabin fever to set in and cloud your judgments. We have at least 2 more weeks of summer/fall (maybe three) to exploit here in Big Sky country. Get outside and enjoy it. I know I am. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose....Wikipedia needs divergent viewpoints to achieve neutrality. I see a difference of opinion in some editing issues that should be easily worked out.--MONGO 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. These people can work it out; the matter is not so divisive as all that. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Close this?

Given the interaction ban proposal directly above is going nowhere, and the comments from either side aren't the kind of thing we typically warn or block for (mainly a disagreement over who's following WP:NPOV and who isn't) I don't really see anything else for admins to do here. Can we close this, with perhaps a reminder to everyone to try to get along a little better? 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2013 (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.

CFredkin again

An incident was reported here 2 days ago about CFredkin, which went to the archives without any action. Well, the editor is again inserting original research and synthesis into articles concerning living persons. Kay Hagan Mark Udall Joe Donnelly Amy Klobuchar Al Franken All of which he was reverted and warned on his Talk page, which he deleted without comment(as he does to almost all attempts to discuss his editing). And then promptly reinserted the edits without comment. He is also inserting claims by one blogger into articles concerning climate change without discussion. I have asked the editor(and another editor) to stop reverting the addition here and follow BRD, which was ignored. The editor was recently blocked for using socks to edit war on other political articles.This editor has been making mass changes to many articles and does not seem to want to follow basic Wiki guidelines. Something needs to be done. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Let me also add the climate change edits(1,2) are either unreferenced or by known paid advocates that were hired to disprove climate change. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Those looking into the matter may wish to add Jon Tester to the above list, though his edits there are not as problematic as the ones above. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been through all of the edits in question but, at least as far as Amy Klobuchar is concerned, the claims of original research and synthesis appear wholly unfounded, and certainly not appropriate for any sort of Admin action. The editor has supplied extremely well-sourced material which, on its face, contrasts with the other material in the article. The reader is left to draw his own conclusion. Are the edits made because of the editor's POV? Of course... as are the baseless criticisms reflective of the critic's POV. John2510 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit should signify the level of maturity we're dealing with. This editor has demonstrated a lack of good faith, and an extremely inappropriate habit of snarkiness, insult, and WP:POINTy, contentious editing. When DD2K pointed out that CFredkin's is canvassing at John2510's talk page ([286] John2510's is the only other user talk page CFredkin seems to have ever edited) CFredkin's only response was to accuse DD2K of whining and bias. This is extremely troubling, and I see no signs of this improving with experience. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin suggested I might want to participate in the discussions, but made no attempt to influence what my position should be. As such, it wasn't canvassing at all, and that sort of invitation to participate is specifically condoned by the canvassing guideline. This strikes me as a common political POV edit war, with one side throwing around a lot of spurious guidelines accusations.John2510 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Grayfell and DD2K raised a series of different objections (lack of context, synthesis, unreliable sources) to my above edit to Amy Klobuchar, which I addressed in every instance. After running out of excuses to block my edit, Grayfell then applied his own revision to my edit which involved adding an inappropriate reference to Al Franken. I believe this demontrates where Grayfell is coming from.CFredkin (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you (eventually) added valid sources after we pointed out the serious problems with your edits, and that is exactly what I wanted you to do. I clarified your addition because your phrasing was inappropriately painting Klobuchar in a bad light without giving enough meaningful context about a complicated situation. Franken is the other senator from Minnesota, and the source you added specifically mentions both of them. If you don't think it warrants mentioning that, fine, that's what WP:BRD is for, but what does that have to do with where I am coming from? Please remember that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. So when you make edits, it's WP:BRD, but when I make edits it's "POV pushing nonsense". How ironic for you to lecture me on assuming good faith, after you've just accused me of "a demonstrated lack of good faith".

Let's look at the sequence of events on this edit:

Edit 1 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax)

Edit 2 by DD2K: <remove edit without comment>

Edit 3 by CFredkin: (Undid revision 575226755 by DD2K (talk) Restore content removed without explanation)

Edit 4 by Grayfell: (Undid revision 575234833 by CFredkin (talk) Again, please find reliable secondary sources that this is significant.)

Edit 5 by CFredkin: (Undid revision 575248186 by Grayfell (talk) It's notable due to the claim that precedes it.)

Edit 6 by Grayfell: (Undid revision 575309858 by CFredkin (talk) You added a "gotcha" without any context. Many problems with that. Please, try engaging on the talk pages.)

Talk

CFredkin: Currently this article includes the following statement: "In December 2012, Klobuchar advocated to "repeal or reduce" the tax on medical devices included in the Affordable Care Act, as it would be harmful to businesses in her state." This seems like reasonable context for adding her recent vote to remove the amendment repealing the Tax from the government funding bill.[1]CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DD2K: Just like almost all of your edits, you cannot use original research to make additions to articles....

CFrekin: Um, how exactly is this post original research?....

Grayfell: It is a matter of original research. You are combining two primary sources into the same paragraph for the purposes of making a point. That is WP:SYNTH, pure and simple. If this really is a significant aspect of her voting history, find a weighty, non-primary source making that connection, otherwise it's just POV pushing nonsense.

Edit 7 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax w/ additional source)

Edit 8 by DD2K: (Medical device industry website is not a RS, +no consensus on Talk page)

Edit 9 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax with another source)

Edit 10 by Grayfell: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added context from source.)

Edit 11 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Franken is not relevant.)

First, it needs a secondary source for significance. Then, it needs context. Then, it's original research/synthesis. Then, when you can't explain how it needs context or is synthesis, it's back to requiring a secondary source for significance. And at the end of it all, you claim I'm the one acting in bad faith...CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What? I'm completely lost. When did I say you needed additional secondary sources? The StarTribune article was fine, and I have even added info from it. Are you talking about this edit to a third article, to which you still haven't added any secondary sources? It was SYNTH because you added a primary sourced point directly connecting two complex issues that were not connected by the sources. You then, after being reverted a couple of times, added a decent source explaining the connection, although you didn't actually explain the connection, leaving it in a very misleading state. I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for your edits to have multiple problems, but it certainly is, and it's also possible to fix those issues. You did, eventually, fix some of those problem with the help of other editors. Adding barbed little jabs to articles that don't have enough context or high-quality sources is a big, big problem. It violates several policies at the same time. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

400 articles about Transformers characters?

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 was checking the number of transclusions for the Template:Infobox Transformers character, and the number of articles using it seems seriously excessive, there are 425 of them, which is almost as many as the total number of articles about video games characters (currently 622). I have not seen something on this scale since the days when each Pokeman had his own article so I thought it would be worth reporting somewhere. This is probably not the right place to discuss this, but since the notability noticeboard was shut down a week ago, I can't think of a more appropriate venue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this relates back to a spate of AFDs that had been raised in the past on Transformers articles largely created by Mathewignash. Hard to think what encyclopedic value articles like these could be. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

bah, 400? thats nothing. check out the bazillion articles on D&D related creatures, gods, characters, locations mentioned once in a sourcebook. Like this guy Guardian daemon -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You could send the articles you think aren't notable to Afd or perhaps PROD them first, but you'd need a better argument than "this many transformers articles seems excessive". Reporting it here on ANI is not going to accomplish anything.--Atlan (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure what the notability requirement would be for a fictional transforming robot. And at least here I can find out if I'm not the only one who, yes, thinks that this many transformers articles seems excessive.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I get depressed about the number of topics on here that just really should go on some other website, but the best thing I find to do is to just ignore them completely and work on your own stuff - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and there's no reason somebody can't look at me taking The Who to GA status and scoff at me for not going for more serious and highbrow stuff like Shakespeare or periodic table elements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know if even the people at WikiProject Transformers would agree that they need that many character pages, or if they just accumulated over the years because nobody bothered to delete them. I would ask the WP which ones they want to keep, but it seems pretty dead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to run out of space? I think not. I have not created any of these, and probably haven't edited them except to make the occasional disambig fix or correct typos, but I don't see the problem here. The Transformers media franchise has been around for thirty years, including hundreds of different episodes across multiple TV series, a theatrically released animated film, three blockbuster live-action films, video games, comic books, not to mention the toys. Billions of dollars have been made from these. If there are stubby articles without potential for expansion, those can be merged into a group reflecting the next higher level of abstraction (the particular series they were featured in, for example), but it is not that surprising that such a broad media empire has this many articles. bd2412 T 12:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The same description can be made of other media franchises, like The Smurfs (55 years old, comics, 3 major movies, an extremely succesful and long-running animated series, heaps of toys and merchandising, ...). Yet we only have three (3!) articles on characters from the series, Papa Smurf, Gargamel and Smurfette. The others are combined into List of The Smurfs characters. 400 for Transformers is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Having an article on every Transformers character is what TFWiki is for. Having an article on characters with real-world notability, such as Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream to name three (but not to say those are the only three), is what Wikipedia is appropriate for. Those that don't have out-of-universe notability can, and should, be in lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No surprise this was raised at some point. I once tried to start tidying up the area however found Mathewignash hard to work with as they kind of went about in an WP:OWN way with these articles which they are largely responsible for creating so I gave up and let them rule the place. Though looking at the whole project - it is seriously daughting, with the major problem being the reusing of names in the different Transformers franchises. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Being part of a 30 year old media franchise does not grant inherent notability to every passing character of that franchise. The requirements for a stand alone article are clear - the subject of the article needs to have significant coverage about it published in an independent reliable source. There are a number of Transformer character for which that is true. there are vast numbers of characters for which that is NOT true. Ignoring the problem and allowing such content to linger sets a bad precedent, as newbies who are not aware of the policy see an article for some throw-away character that appeared in one scene of one episode the impression that "Gee, we should have an article for Y".

but this is not really an ANI subject. probably better suited for Village Pump or Jimbo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It was suited for here, but, like WP:WQA, somebody got the bright idea we didn't need it anymore. Oh, BTW, somebody should probably check on all those Pokemon articles; I get a feeling the number has snuck back up...significantly... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD, The gravamen of the discussion is "there are too many of these", not "these lack coverage in reliable sources". One could as easily say, "we have over 180 articles on characters from Shakespeare's plays, that's too many". My response was addressed solely to the proposition that we have too many articles on this particular topic. However, I also noted that stubby articles can be merged up. bd2412 T 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I tried, a few years back, to cut this number down. I merged some obviously non-notable ones into lists (after a number of reversions), a few of the really bad articles got deleted, but many of the AfDs simply resulted in Keep-spam from the usual sources. However, 425 isn't as bad as it was - I think the number was something like 650 at one point. To be honest, I waas more bothered at the time with the outrageous overuse of non-free images, which no doubt has gone back up since I stopped watching the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the vast majority should be deleted. Wikipedia needs a "bulk move to wikia" button. However, also agree that success at this venture is unlikely do to the cliques that will come out in support. Also we should delete the "page for every episode of every popular tv show" and many other crufty pages, but down that road lies despair. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a glut of articles on Transformers, Pokemon, lots of anime titles (and for some reason, roads and highways). I only object because the requirements for new articles is so high and yet these cartoon/toy pages seem to get a pass. The problem is that the people who would like to winnow down the number to just those that are notable are not the same people as those that are knowledgeable enough to separate the essential from the trivial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about the highways and road ones. They cite state or federal documentation (after all, the government needs to know what it's supposed to maintain) but often little else, so in my view they fail GNG. Try and AfD one and they all go nuts. But then again, somebody else could equally come along and say, "look, we don't need those articles on Pink Floyd albums, just redirect them to a discography" and I'd at least put up an argument. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Five Pillars; part of them is that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a gazzeteer, and articles on geographic locations and state-level-and-above highways fall under Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a look at some of the articles listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Transformers character I have to agree with the OP that our coverage of these fictional robots is pretty excessive. I recommend starting an RfC, where the community can chime in on to what degree these robots need their own articles or can be merged to a list. Another option would be to start a batch AfD discussion, but given the small sample of articles I looked at do appear to be referenced (I can't vouch for the references being reliable sources, though) that would likely be a messier discussion than a structured RfC, where the initiator could proposal some reasonable inclusion standards. Either way, this isn't something AN/I can fix. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

True, this has turned out not to be something AN/I can fix but this conversation is happening now, seems to be moving forward and you made a proposal so strike while the iron is hot. Is there any way this pruning can be done through article assessment (low-importance, start/stub articles)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) To be honest, yes, this doesn't belong on AN/I, but since it's here, I may as well comment. There's been AfDs on these, D&D, and other crufty articles for years, many by User:TTN; he's had lots of concerns brought up on his talk page and even been brought to AN/I for it a couple times. Of course, he's right, but as is evident there's lots of obstacles here. Maybe a RfC could be useful. Ansh666 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I love some of the logic and the extremes put forth thus far, deleting articles on episodes of TV shows and such, which is completely off topic and can be considered rather extreme when some editors actually have excellent GA or FA level articles on individual episodes. Wikipedia is not a macro or micro encyclopedia and "move to Wikia" is a poor excuse to actually go by N/GNG. I chalk such comments up to the "Angelo Notability" issues of the past where "other Wikipedias should cover foreign topics". It is that kind of asinine mentality which causes more harm than good. Let's put it this way... many of the transformers can meet N/GNG, if you put a lot of work into it. Tier 2 and Tier 3+ probably have no need to be on Wikipedia outside of localized and specific character lists. Anyone here know of Feng Zhu? Doesn't have his own article, but the man's work is instrumental in the look and form of the Transformers movies and he's done even Star Wars. While the Wikia does far better than Wikipedia on these niche aspects, lets take a peek at one, namely Mirage (Transformers). Numerous different series, media and a line of toys, and a presence in the new movies. The problem is that Mirage is not one robot, but many different ones all bearing the same name and the inuniverse discussion is 90% of the article. The page needs to be restructured and refocused, but this could possibly be one that can be saved since thirty years of appearances exist and this character is likely tier 2. Many "tier 3" are already redirects like "Star Saber" though even the "list of autobots" is glaringly wrong about "Star Saber". The entire franchise is extremely complex and downright nonsensical from an educational point because the same name refers to different robots or concepts. A disamb would be needed for some of the bigger names and this includes ones like Bumblebee (Transformers). Many of these character pages serve as "transformers named X" and despite the individual pieces not meeting N/GNG, the entirety may also not meet N/GNG but exists solely because any other presentation is overly long, overly complicated and confusing to even avid fans of the series. Transformers has a huge problem of organization; not even Transformers is decent, so why expect character lists of multiple robots named "Bumblebee" in the Transformers universe to be any better? I don't got the time to fix this, but clearly someone with great organizational skills COULD fix this - until then I say keep the pages because it isn't hurting anyone or anything. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I love some of the logic and the extremes put forth thus far, such as We cannot even keep the main article clean so why should we be expected to keep the bazillion of non notable spin off articles clean? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So if articles are poorly maintained that's a reason to delete them? Better start the AfDs for 90% of Wikipedia's articles then. As a bonus, many of those will be BLPs, where there's a chance vandalism/etc. can cause real-life harm to people, as contrasted with someone posting "bumblebee is gay" on the character's page. People are constantly kvetching over Wikipedia covering things that aren't "serious," but the problem, in addition to the fact that "only cover 'serious' stuff" isn't in the project's policies anywhere, is that everyone's definition of "serious" is different. Many people in the world think Salman Rushdie's works are blasphemous garbage that should be destroyed (and the author possibly locked up or killed), yet I don't see lots of Wikipedia editors complaining about our coverage of his works. Either all art is worthy of coverage, or none of it is; there is no objective distinction between high culture and low culture. Quality of articles is a different matter, but the solution to that is not deleting articles wholesale but editing and improving them. I get the feeling much of the "opposition" to certain topics comes from, "I don't like this topic, so I will never edit articles on it because I don't find it enjoyable. Why can't these articles just go away, so I never have to think about them?" --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see anyone stating that we should be deleting the articles because they aren't "serious"? people are stating that we should be deleting them because they are not and will never be covered in a significant manner by reliable third party sources. So yes, poorly maintained now and unable to ever be properly maintained because there are no sources is in fact a reason to delete.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Chris, "Many of these character pages serve as "transformers named X" and despite the individual pieces not meeting N/GNG, the entirety may also not meet N/GNG but exists solely because any other presentation is overly long, overly complicated and confusing to even avid fans of the series." - if both the individual pieces and entirety do not meet our basic inclusionary guidelines, should they stay? You cite WP:HARMLESS - might be good to read that section.

@108-IP, that's a massively WP:POINTy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument laced with some WP:AGF failures.

I still think a RfC would be useful here, to determine to what extent we want to cover this. Then, the WP:HARMLESS precedent issue will go away. Ansh666 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about WP:HARMLESS, I'm pointing out that the articles don't have any negative impact on the function of Wikipedia in the sense of NOTPAPER and that these articles are a list and do not necessarily need N/GNG because a reading of CSC says that the main topic needs to meet N/GNG, but a list article does not. With that being said, I recognize the functionality and the limitations of such pages and say that they should be merged provided proper reorganizing can be done. You misunderstood me, but that's okay, if anyone happens to have a readable system of organization for these pages, I'd say let's work to fix the problem. After all, deletion is the last resort, it is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original post in this section when he said "This is probably not the right place to discuss this." I also am not aware of any rule about a limit on the number of articles covering characters in a fictional series. Until a rule is established limiting that number this subject is pointless. Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (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.

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

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

---

Unacceptable commentary regarding the BLP subject and transgendered people during the debate was a big problem the last time a month ago. I see the first such comments in the second RM have already come along, with User:KoshVorlon making inflammatory and disrespectful commentary regarding the article subject.[287]. His comments were redacted by one editor, then reinstated, and he has refused on his talk page to make any changes to it. -- Josh Gorand (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter has already stepped up to patrol it. Other uninvolved admins are welcome.--v/r - TP 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, anyone who wishes to make outrageous comments while an ArbCom discussion is contemplating sanctions for other editors who have made similar comments is fishing for trouble. I am quite certain that this sort of thing will be dealt with accordingly, without being raised here as the sort of "incident" that administrators might not be aware of. bd2412 T 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd call them nonsensical (I could use stronger words), not necessarily outrageous. IMO. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If one compares Kosh's comments to those currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies, his words are similar to those editors who are unlikely to face sanction if the votes continue to trend as they have been. There appear to be only 3 editors who face a real possibility of a topic-ban for their incvility; IFreedom1212, Hitmonchan, and...you yourself, Mr. Gorand. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it. I'd appreciate a fuller explanation from Josh Gorand as to the specifics of why he thinks the language unacceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not really helpful, Tarc. Despite picking each of Fluffernutter's actions to selectively support or oppose, we should just be happy that some admin is willing to subjecate herself to torture to try and keep some resemblance of civility. Let's give her wide discretion and support because I doubt anyone else is willing or could do it better.--v/r - TP 16:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact , my comments are not outrageous. Please close this up as an attempt to chill discussion on the move page.−  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's issues like this that show why this move request should have been put off until the ArbCom case had closed. But, ultimately, I don't think there's anything that needs to be done with a comment like this; KoshVorlon is entitled to say He is NOT Chelsea, not legally, not biologically, not even reliably. The best choice of words? Probably not. Inflammatory and disrespectful, at least to the degree that warrants admin intervention? No, I don't think so. And if you look at the proposed decision in the related ArbCom case, you'll see that it doesn't look like the ArbCom will sanction comments like this.

If you want to register your disagreement, go ahead. That being said, given the trajectory of the RM discussion, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be worth your time. -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, KV's comments are certainly naive/ignorant (he demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of trans issues) but that does not mean they are offensive/unacceptanle/outrageous, and certainly not worthy of any sanction. GiantSnowman 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I redacted part of Kosh's statement earlier today on the basis of discretionary sanctions allowing me wide latitude to take actions I felt were needed to "ensure the smooth functioning of the project". My redaction was reverted by MZMcBride and I've not re-done it, but I would very much appreciate other opinions (preferably from people not already involved in this dispute) about both the acceptability of Koshs's comments and how the community would prefer problematic comments on the RM be handled. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the discussion is not about whether Manning is male or female, or whether she intends to live as Bradley or Chelsea, I think KoshVorlon's comments are needlessly inflammatory. They are discriminatory in tone, as they disregard Manning's expressed gender (even questioning whether Manning actually wants to be Chelsea at all). The entire point of this RM is to discuss the article title and a proposed change to that title - not Manning's ability (or inability, according to KoshVorlon) to determine her own gender. I think Fluffernutter was justified in removing the comment, and I'd re-redact it myself if I had not commented at arbcom on this issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! is monitoring the discussion taking place and attempting to keep the waters calm. The recent comments on her talk page might be an indication that this is too big a job for one person. Can someone help her please?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....and the current consensus on Fluffernutter's page is 3 to 1 with Fluffernutter being the lone dissenter. Again, please close this out, there's nothing to see here, just an attempt to silence discussion on the move  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, you are free to disagree with my judgment, but please do not accuse me of trying to "silence discussion." The only thing I'm trying to do here is keep things from spinning out of control, and I would appreciate you assuming good faith of me even if you disagree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't directing that at you, I already posted on your page that I realize you're attempting to keep the flames down over on that page (even though I disagree with you reverting my comment ), I was directing that Josh Gorand.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be no agreement over what constitute an acceptable comment, it might be best not to redact absent clear abuse directed at a community member.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is wise. In retrospect, it seems that the original Manning RM turned into the mess it did in no small part due to the largely hands off approach taken by admins while it was occurring. Now, I don't know what the best course of action for admins to take this time is, but I think waiting until the RM devolves into direct personal attacks and the like before taking strong action is probably a recipe for disaster. Simple Sarah (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The redaction is reasonable. 1) The selective enforcement claim, is an argument for no discretionary sanctions, but there are discretionary sanctions, here. Second the selectively removed part does not change the gist of the User's support or its reasons, "He ..." (so no silencing); it was the belaboring/inflamatory that was removed in discretion. The other comments complained of for "even enforcement" don't belabor ('she is a woman like Christine Jorgensen,' 'she says she is a woman' 'she says she is seeking treatment' - none belabor); it is, moreover, another issue (a BLP/Civilty one) when you start arguing with the Subject of the article about themselves and needs to be addressed with carefully chosen wording (or not at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for or against removing the comments, I think Alanscottwalker has a point here. The problem is is this isn't a discussion in abstract but about a living person. In other words there's a difference between saying 'I reject the concent of gender identity and only follow genetics' in a discussion(even if that ignores the actual complexity of genetics) and saying living person X is a man. And the nature of BLP means that if person X clearly identifies as female, saying person X is female doesn't have the same problems as saying person X is male. For better or worse, that's the way BLP works. This doesn't mean there can't be problems from the other side. Clearly accusing other editors of being transphobic is problematic. The main saving grace here is that this is such a hot button public issue with so much external commentary that I'm not sure how strict we should be. (For example, if someone says 'recent US president Y is a war criminal' I don't know if we'll necessarily bother to do anything even though someone saying 'fairly unknown person Z is a war criminal' may be removed.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there might be a difference between calling someone a man and calling one a war criminal. The point is that one side of this argument does not recognize Manning as a woman. They may be right, they may be wrong. But removing their right to say so as "hate speech" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It would certainly have an effect on the debate, but I'm not certain chilling said debate is a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can substitute 'not a Muslim', 'not Jewish', 'is gay' or whatever you want. However I think you have missed my point if you think this is about hate speech. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no "right" here. Saying "Manning identifies as a woman" is clearly true, and sourceable. Saying "Manning was raised as a boy" is also clearly true, and sourceable. OTOH, saying "Manning is a woman" or "Manning is a man" is not sourceable, nor necessarily true, since woman is a social construct, and what is included in that box, and under what conditions, is subject to social negotiation, and the parameters of that negotiation are still being debated. Our particular society, circa 2013, has not yet come to consensus on this, and there are for example women who exclude trans*women from certain spaces because they were born male. There are multiple points of view on this, and they all have some validity (see this exchange for an example of where accusations of transphobia go too far). But the main point is, NONE OF THIS MATTERS for the article title. Not one bit. There are oodles of arguments, that can be made on either side, that have nothing to do with what gender or sex Manning "is" (as if we could even sort that out definitively). Since the very discussion of such things here ends up pissing people off, and wikipdia is not a forum, I think the best route is to redact all mention of Manning "truly" being one gender or another, from either side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, but determining, as you do, the removed comment is irrelevant, is not a basis for restoring the comment that is, after all, irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If the comment's only problem is irrelevancy, then the appropriate response is to ignore it, not censor it. – Smyth\^talk 11:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think that would be a feasible course, though as it would not satisfy many, I doubt it will go forward. Have the article under "Private Manning" and perhaps have it begin "The person who identifies as Chelsea Manning, though legally known as Bradley Manning …" Or the opposite.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't object to that, although I do stick by my comment that per WP:BLP on wikipedia, since Manning has clearly identified as female, saying she is so does not carry the same problems that saying she is not so, does. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read carefully what I wrote, I differentiated between saying "Manning identifies as a woman" and "Manning is undeniably a woman and should be treated as a woman for all intents and purposes" - the first is true, the second is much more debatable, as serves no purposes (even the first doesn't help with titling the article, we don't purposefully align articles to the gender of the name, otherwise RuPaul would be at "Paul". But Manning will serve her sentence in a male facility, so saying that per the army she is a man, or per certain lesbians she is still a man, or per certain conservatives she is still a man, and so on, is all TRUE statements of opinion. But there is no final "fact" to be had here. The same applies for assertions that Manning is a woman. So what? Why should I care, w.r.t. titling? Remember, "woman" is a social construct, there are no absolute facts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After taking another read-through of our DS guidelines, I've re-redacted the comment, since MzMcBride's revert was significantly against policy and the point of DS is that they are fast-track actions and are "sticky". Note that community consensus or appeal to arbcom can overrule a DS action; those things would be done at WP:AE if anyone wishes to pursue the matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....You're invovled as you've already voted against the move, and once again, there's already a 3 to 1 consensus against you. Please revert your action, that comment is fine as it was. I won't revert you as I can't (due to voluntary editing restrictions)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, it sounds like you're not really familiar with the concept of discretionary sanctions. I encourage you to read the page describing them, but in short, DS enables a single admin to implement a wide variety of sanctions or other actions, based on their best judgment, in hot-button topic areas. Once an admin has implemented a DS action, that action may not be undone except by that admin, through an appeal to arbcom, or based on community consensus on WP:AE. In this case, Mzmcbride short-circuited that process, which was very much against policy. I have restored it to the status quo, because until one of those three entities undoes my action, my action stands on the strength of discretionary sanction policy, backed by Arbcom's previous implementations of that policy. Is it possible the redaction was wrong? Sure, it could be. But the way to find that out is to appeal according to policy and find a consensus about it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that you didn't restore it to status quo. Status quo would be not reverting it to begin with. You're also involved, DS doesn't permitt that either. Go back and revert yourself, please  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so everyone's clear here: The following have created a shit-storm about my comment and are supportive of moving Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning :

1.) Josh Gorand

2.) TP

3.) Fluffernutter

I request Fluffernutter's action be un-done per INVOLVED .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When did discretionary sanctions start applying to redacting comments that do not violate policy? Kosh's comment was, ultimately, stating that reliable sources predominantly favor Manning as a man. Exactly how legitimate Kosh's opinion is would be up for discussion, but it was a policy-compliant opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The redactions I have seen Fluffernutter make, to Kosh's comment and to a comment that raised accusations of transphobia, have all seemed appropriate efforts to enforce the discussion guidelines and ensure that the move discussion stays on-topic and does not descend into the pit of tangential bickering, denials of peoples' existence, etc, which the previous RM turned into. (I also note that if Kosh's comment is to be unredacted, it would seem appropriate to un-redact the comments that "Manning is a woman" which were likewise redacted.) -sche (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any such redactions. In any case, I think the only way to be fair is to either say "No claims about Manning's gender/sex are appropriate" or "All claims about Manning's gender/sex, stated politely, are appropriate". Otherwise, you are eliminating perfectly valid opinions from one side of a debate - there is nothing essentially wrong with saying the Manning is a (biological) man - it just means your definition of "man" may be different than someone else's definition of what is a "man". But I don't think it helps the discussion in any case, so is basically useless here - as such all such claims should be discouraged and redacted, from either side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Transphobia" allegations are bullshit, sorry, but that's just what it is. There's nothing transphobic about stating what's verifiable information about Bradley Manning.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't do anything to explain the part where you speculated about a BLP subject's sincerity and intent to follow through with their stated identification as female. What relevance does that have? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kosh, the only involvement I have had in the Manning issue is in an administrative capacity. It is entirely false for you to assert that I support moving the page to either (or any) option and am thus somehow secretly involved. Where the article ends up is far less of a concern to me than the fact that the community is warring with itself and it needs to stop. I understand that you're upset and offended that your comment was singled out for action, but your reaction here is neither helpful nor constructive. Now, I have explained to you how to pursue an appeal of my action. If you want to do that, the Arbitration Enforcement page is thataway. If you don't want to do that, you're going to have to live with the action I took, preferably without being disruptive any further on the topic. Either way, this noticeboard is of no use to you in getting your comment restored, and asking that someone unilaterally reverse a discretionary sanctions action is of even less use unless your intention is to get somebody blocked for crossing one of our bright line rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support admins using discretionary sanctions remove anything from talkpages that isn't, realistically, a useful contribution to the discussion and is likely to wind up other editors. I think admins were in dereliction by their inaction during the August RM. Given that it is settled that WP is using female pronouns for Manning, her gender is not realistically up for discussion and dissent about it is not useful at this stage. There is no issue of free speech or "chilling" discussion here, because WP:NOTAFORUM. Formerip (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the user involved has been blocked and topic banned I think this should be closed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The block could be easily seen as a violation of WP:INVOLVED and the topic ban is, in my opinion, a violation of common decency. Personally, I think Fluff should have the block button taken away, but we all know that won't happen. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be closed either. There seems to be significant abuse of authority here, and if people are blocked for the sort of !votes discussed here, then the whole move request is compromised. The discussion guidelines do say "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman" but that has already been broken numerous times by people saying "Chelsea Manning is a woman". StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I'll reiterate for you what I told Kosh a few lines up: if you want to contest the actions I took under Discretionary Sanctions policy today, you need to make that appeal either to Arbcom directly, or to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. As much as discussion here might feel cleansing to you, it can do nothing about my redaction or the block because this isn't the route to appeal Discretionary Sanction actions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)wikt:discretionary: Available at one's discretion; able to be used as one chooses; left to or regulated by one's own discretion or judgment. That's what "discretionary sanctions" mean; the sandwich was well within the role the community elected her to perform. NE Ent 22:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary doesn't mean "block anyone who holds a view you disagree with." I thought Wikipedia was opposed to censorship. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's mostly applicable to mainspace. WP:NPA is a fat fuzzy gray line that Wikipedia has perennially quibbled over, never converging to a common consensus; KV was clearly in the gray. Given that the original discussion spiraled out of control into a huge mess that ArbCom is now trying to unravel, quick decisive admin action is both authorized (by WP:AC/DS) and warranted. NE Ent 23:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So why is it that the people who said "Manning is a woman" aren't facing sanctions? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, I reject the claims that this action was warranted. The comment by KV was not egregious. The fact that it led to a block shows that the situation was wrongfully and high-highhandedly escalated. Fluffernutter caused a lot of the disruption and now she is hiding behind Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions. This is censorship. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

KV wasn't blocked or banned simply for making a comment, and people claiming that this is the case are either badly misinformed or deliberately acting in bad faith. When Fluffernutter redacted Kosh's comment, which was already in violation of the discussion guidelines Kosh claimed to have read, Kosh was warned that his comments were inappropriate, and repeatedly posted them back in anyway. Had he left well enough alone, he would still be editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said he was blocked simply for his comment. The supposedly offensive comment should never have been redacted and Fluffernutter is the one who should have left well enough alone. She didn't and look what happened. The discussion guidelines are not being applied both ways and now a somewhat involved admin has handed out both a block and a topic ban. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

While not a cited reason, I seem to recall that Kosh is currently under a 0RR restriction, as well. Repeatedly reverting the redaction doesn't quite work with that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I refer AutomaticStrikeout to this principle, which appears to be likely to pass in the Manning arbitration case. Kosh's comment was not in keeping with that spirit of non-discrimination, and as such it was entirely appropriate for Fluffernutter to redact it, and to apply a block and ban under the discretionary sanctions when said redaction was reverted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this fiasco shows that there is a clear spirit of discrimination against people who hold the view that Kosh holds. Besides, that principle hasn't passed yet, so it shouldn't be enforced yet. At any rate, it's a bit of a stretch to even say that Kosh's comment was offensive. Have we really become a community that will only accept popular and politically correct views? Apparently, because I see no action being taken against the users who violated the discussion guidelines in the opposite direction from Kosh. Meanwhile, look what happened to him. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh wasn't blocked for his views. Kosh was blocked for his behavior. The opposite views of Arkady Rose (Support #47) were also modified by Fluffernutter and yet Arkady Rose isn't blocked. Why? Because she didn't edit war with the administrator enforcing discretionary sanctions.--v/r - TP 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh was blocked because he rejected the suppression of his views. If the silly discussion guidelines are being enforced more evenly than I thought, then I suppose that's a good thing. Nevertheless, it is not Wikipedia's job to endorse specific belief systems and attempt to censor dissenting opinions. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a very thin line between objecting to the move and being offensive. It's easy to cross. So it comes down to an editor's intentions on whether or not to sanction the editor. Fluffernutter felt, in good faith, that the line had been crossed. Right or not, she's the only administrator who has volunteered and so we must offer her some level of support within reasonable discretion. I think she was inside reasonable bounds. Initially, because Fluffernutter couldn't know of Kosh intended to be offensive or not, she simply redacted the offensive part of the remarks leaving the vote and the majority of its text available. I believe that that action alone, leaving the vote and the majority of its content, defeats the argument of censorship. It was Kosh restoring it, despite other editors calmly trying to nudge him in a less offensive (even if his comments were to be judged on a already less or least offensive nature) manner of expressing himself. Kosh restored the comments. At that point, intent is expressed and Fluffy was forced to take a preventative measure by blocking Kosh to prevent him from restoring the remarks. Do I expect you to agree with her? No, I'm sure that some folks see it in a different light than her. But, ask yourself, was she so far outside of reason as to be abusive? If not, we need to trust her for now so she can focus on more pertinent matters like enforcing civility in this RM.--v/r - TP 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What if Kosh wasn't trying to be offensive? What if he actually believes what he wrote? Is it our job to tell him what he is allowed to believe? I'd say we are setting a dangerous precedent here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. He has a right to believe whatever he wants. And if this were a US government owned site, he'd have the right to express those beliefs here. But it's not, it's a private site. And we're not telling him what he's allowed to believe, we're telling him what he's allowed to share on a private site.--v/r - TP 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. That's why we have discretionary sanctions. And that ban can be appealed at AE, and debated on the merits, and maybe it gets lifted - or maybe not. But we don't get to undo it here - nor should we. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And why is that? Explain to me why we shouldn't be allowed to discuss it here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently, ArbCom declared from their ivory towers that, other than them or the enforcing admin, only a consensus of uninvolved admins can overturn a sanction and said discussion has to be at AE or AN. Us lowly peasants ain't having no say, so we should get back to the fields and toil!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. It sounds like there is too much consolidation of power going on here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that Arbcom limited the ability of editors to be needlessly inflammatory in their comments about a very hotly contested issue, one that has already seen multiple blocks, a wheel war, three requested moves, and an Arbcom case, then yeah - I guess you're right. The fact that we're even having this argument should be proof enough that discretionary sanctions are warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We both know that is not what I mean. Here's part of my problem: Fluffernutter handed out a block and a topic ban without having to jump through a bunch of hoops to do so. However, if someone wants to appeal those sanctions, they have to go through a lot of hassle. If there's any gray area whatsoever, the admin is likely to win. Maybe this is why so many of us are starting to get really frustrated with the hierarchy we've been placed in. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you're smarter than that. The hoops were jumped through earlier in the Sexology case and passed as discretionary sanctions. Fluffernutter's action is an extension of work that has already been done. That's what discretionary sanctions are and we're all aware that they apply here.--v/r - TP 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notwithstanding, there is a problem when an admin becomes involved in a dispute with an editor and then proceeds to sanction that editor. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue. You believe that Fluffernutter's use of rollback means she is acting as an editor. At no time was she acting as an editor. She even made this clear to Kosh. She was wearing her admin hat the entire time, has made is clear for weeks she's wearing her admin hat in this topic area, and enforces a discretionary sanctions. She was never in a disagreement - ever. Kosh may have been in a disagreement, but Fluffernutter was simply and impassionately carrying out her duties. AetomaticStrikeout - you've switch arguments three times now. First you argued she made an unacceptable action, and I countered that it was within reasonable discretion. Then you argued that she is making you jump through unreasonable hoops, and I countered that she is using discretionary sanctions which already went through their own hoops. Now you're argument is that she was in a disagreement with Kosh. At what point will you quit changing the argument? I've explained away many of your concerns. Can you please accept that she hasn't abused her admin bit? You're welcome to disagree with her on her action, even welcome to open up an WP:AE appeal, but I think it's time that you accept she didn't abuse anyone or anything.--v/r - TP 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I think: She made an unacceptable action in abusing her tools to block and topic ban someone who was reacting to unnecessary actions on her part. Unfortunately, her actions were covered under discretionary sanctions, making the appeals process more complicated. Thankfully, someone else already opened an appeal at AE, so at least it will hopefully get reviewed. To address one of your points, Fluffernutter doesn't become uninvolved simply because she tells Kosh she's uninvolved. Even if she was wearing her admin hat the whole time and wasn't technically involved, it still would have been better to let someone else handle it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone that followed the original Manning RM (Or everything that has happened since then) even slightly could think that the original comment Kosh made was not provocative and inflammatory to a sizable percentage of editors, since it was without question one of the kinds of comments that led to the train wreck a month ago that ArbCom and others are still trying to clean up. That's my view and that was the view of Fluffernutter and her view on this is the one that matters. She took the same view of the Support vote by Arkady Rose. It's just that only one of those editors (To my knowledge) then decided that the discretionary in discretionary sanctions referred to them (Likewise, some of the editors on this page seem to feel it refers to them). That is what eventually led Kosh to be blocked. If you have issue with the very clear processes in place, then fight back against them in general. Don't just go after someone who is following them.

And for everyone saying that there are Support comments that are also a problem, well, point them out instead of making general accusations of unfairness on the part of Fluffernutter. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

They have been pointed out in various places, including here. Furthermore, stating that Fluffernutter's view "is the one that matters" could also be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Her opinion is not more important than anyone else's just because you happen to agree with her. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:05, 2 October 2013 (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.

Without intending to reopen the discussion, I'd like to make a link to where this has been appealed to on the Administration Enforcement noticeboard, as the closing notice recommends. Of course someone at the Administration Enforcement noticeboard is writing that it shouldn't actually have been appealed to there... but so it goes. --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Pro-Gun?) Administrator Needed...

Resolved

 – --v/r - TP 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...to close Wikipedia:Ani#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban, above, where in my totally biased opinion a totally objective consensus is easily discerned. First admin to act will not be furloughed (military personnel excluded). Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this was directed at me :). Actually, I think a pro-gun or anti-gun administrator is not needed, but an impartial or uncaring one ;). I'll take a look.--v/r - TP 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just stuck the headline in to get some attention, hehe. Your bonus, at the C4 level, has been approved. The rest will have to wait for Congress to act one way or another. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "uncaring" admins - I'm shocked shocked, that TParis would say this! Everyone knows that Wikipedia's admins are the most tender, loving and caring group of people on the Internets!!! If I could, I'd give every single one of them a great big bear hug and a kiss. They are truly the "Beautiful People" of the 21st century. Beyond My Ken (vote for BMK for dogcatcher!) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the word TParis was looking for was "disinterested". I have no doubt he is always caring in his actions, even when disinterested. Risker (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh.... never mind. </Emily Latella> Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disinterested does fit better. I care about the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 13:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Implied legal threat

Resolved

 – False alarm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User (Husky2014) is blanking page claiming it violates copyright laws (on this page). Reporting in the spirit of WP:LEGAL. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting a WP:COPYVIO concern is not a legal threat. Unless Husky2014 is threatening to bring action, there's no threat, and no administrative action for a legal threat is required. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to be a legal threat - more vandalism at this point. I note that he was not approached FIRST before reported here ... not even welcomed with the rules as per WP:IGNORANCE ES&L 17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking more and more like vandalism, especially after this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• (e/c) That's not a legal threat, nor is it reporting copyvio issues; they're just copying the notice above the edit window. It's a newbie either making test edits or screwing around, depending on your level of AGF. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I forgot to add the template on her page, but at this point it's moot since it's not a violation. Again, my bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some test modules

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 can't work out how to tag these for CSD, so can an admin please delete this lot as G2 (tests):

KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2013 (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.

Semi-protection of Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy

An anonymous user has been repeatedly making changes against consensus to the GA Irenaean theodicy and the FA Augustinian theodicy for a while now, trying to make sure that references to the contributions of John Hick are as strong as possible, often using inappropriate or inaccurate wording in the article. He was reverted many times by many users. When that failed, he has claimed both articles are copyright violations for using the terms "Irenaean theodicy" and "Augustinian theodicy" without Hick's permission -- a clearly spurious claim -- and keeps revert warring to insert speedy deletion notices on the pages. I have semi-protected both articles for 2 weeks. I just wanted to make more admins aware of the issue, since I don't see it going away any time soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it only 209.3.238.61, or are other addresses also causing problems? Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like 209.3.238.61, 209.3.238.62, and 72.68.5.132 are all different IPs for the same user. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I agree with the semiprotection; note that I didn't see the 72. address and didn't notice that .238.62 was a different number. I was simply questioning whether we should block one IP address instead of semiprotecting; that's why I was asking about the addresses and not the person/people operating them. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is odd, this is the second complaint I've seen about an IP connected to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not sure what that is about. But their edit summaries, with statements like "User:Bink is presently being evaluated for WP:ANI" shows a great familiarity with daily WP operations. Probably an alternative account of a regular who doesn't want it connected to these edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This person, whoever they are, has been doing pretty good improvement work at the Prometheus article, but has engaged in quite a lot of original research at other articles where I have been trying to limit the damage. (My efforts in that direction have not been, let's say, welcomed by the IP.) This person seems to think their opinion is sufficiently authoritative to establish facts on Wikipedia. I've posted a bunch of NOR notices on the various IP talk pages involved. The first step in helping this person to be a more useful editor is to get them to faithfully follow Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The second is to stop posting rambling rants and nonsense claims. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like quite a lot of effort, Binksternet. I wonder what it would take to get them just to create an account? What do you say, 209.3.238.61? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 90.212.73.227 adding derogatory and racist comments to 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.

---

The following IP account Special:Contributions/90.212.73.227 has made a couple of racist comments about foreign nationals in the Coleraine article.

• Revision as of 21:05, 1 October 2013 [288] - "who all need to fuck off and go back to Poland where they belong"
• At 21:22, 1 October 2013 I revert and warn the editor: User_talk:90.212.73.227
• Revision as of 22:46, 1 October 2013 [289] - "who come here and steal our jobs and dont learn english"

They clearly ignored the warning and merit a ban for their racist derogatory additions to the Coleraine article.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the report. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (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.

Continued personal attacks by IP user 92.238.252.159

For the past couple of months, an IP user (last signed as 92.238.252.159) has been very pointy at Talk:Sega Genesis and Talk:Sega CD. He has been blocked before for this. At the center of the issue is that current consensus resides in maintaining the article names as "Sega Genesis" and Sega CD", their North American names, compared to "Mega Drive" and "Mega-CD", their worldwide names. There are a number of reasons for this particular naming selection, and an RFC on the naming debate closed in June as no consensus. It's been a hot-button issue for years, but that's beside the point. What is a problem, though, is that this user chooses to sling around personal attacks, such as this one, where the term "you nationalist yanks" is used in a derogatory fashion, and the user continues to hammer his point about bias without providing any significant evidence to back up his claim, see here for more and note the IP users are all believed to be the same person. This is not the only time he uses the term; the rest of the talk page has more. The user has also had edit summaries removed for personal attacks on Talk:Sega Genesis. What I'm looking for at this point is for the personal attacks to stop; for a longer block for the IP user to settle down and understand that this is not permitted. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This user wants you to censor all non yanks 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's another personal attack. You're really not helping your case here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact, you are asking for users with a different view to yours to be censored, you are a yank... some revision on English comprehension might help you differentiate attacks from statements of fact... 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 1 month. That was a very easy decision to make. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) As I've said repeatedly, all we ask is that you come to the discussion actually prepared to discuss the issue and to bring information to the table that hasn't already been argued to death over years of consensus discussions. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I won't miss you if the international group of admins on this board decide to take action to curb your disruption. But you also obviously haven't been paying ANY attention to what we've been saying.

For anyone who's interested in looking into this further, there is a consensus on Talk:Sega Genesis that prolonging the dispute over that article's title without any new information would be considered disruptive, and I've given multiple warnings there for people to cool it with the accusations of North American bias. I also added an WP:Editnotice to that talk page specifically pointing editors to the title FAQ, which was also established through extensive consensus discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Three yanks collude to stifle discussion, way to disprove that North American bias 41.130.195.106 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the editor's back on a different IP now: this edit came in just moments after the above IP was blocked. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Original IP reblocked with TPA revoked due to continued attacks, even in their unblock request. This IP blocked with the same settings as the original as the loudest of quacking WP:DUCKs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bwahaha, I was amused by your reference to {{megaphoneduck}}. :) ->  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe {{megaphoneduck|ultimate}} ( 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny) would be more appropriate! Ansh666 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; unfortunatly templates don't display in edit summaries or log entries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Need block adjusted

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.

---

Mayugamou316 (talk · contribs) has been abusing their talk page as a sudo spam article. Can some admin please either salt or adjust the block? Werieth (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2013 (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.

Part II

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.

---

Jamiah Citizen (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. Werieth (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:43, 3 October 2013 (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:Grapestomper9

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 re comments here, everything from insults to a call to censor everything I've posted. Am I to be subjected to this, yet slapped with a block for less? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Grapestomper9 called Trekphiler a "dirtbag". This is unacceptable. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And elsewhere, a post so full of misrepresentations, I hardly know where to begin. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also a "creature" you were called. Not very diplomatic language at all. Doc talk 05:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The following has been moved from a thread at WT:NPA opened by the same user.

On this page, Grapestomper9 (talk · contribs) has made his disagreement over content personal, with comments ranging from "juvenile" to "German hater" to "dirtbag". I presume this qualifies as incivil, but I find no way to have any Admin respond to it, despite having been on the receiving end of a block for (AFAIK) much less. So, am I forced to put up with it, yet be subject to punishment? Or is there actual fair treatment here? If so, how do I get it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler. I did not put any block on you of any kind. You have deleted every single word I have had to say on the Day of Deceit article, despite the fact that much of what I had to say was corrections of your juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view on this subject. Your outright mis-quoting. German hater came up in an extremely obtuse way (that you obviously are too full of wind to understand) when you accused me of essentially agreeing with holocause deniers (Which is absolutely absurd) simply because I agree with the idea that the US provoked the Japanese into attacking our assets so we could enter into the war. You used "weasel" language to imply most germans are Holocause deniers. Shall I mention your threats and your promise of obscene insults if I did not leave "YOUR" article alone? Well, I have grown tired of your dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats and have not edited either the day of deceit article or the related McCollum memo article since, out of fear for "my" personal safety. I do not need a creature like you threatening me.Grapestomper9 (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

♠You're joking, right? Fear for your safety? Called Germans (or you) "holocaust deniers"?

♠OTOH, "dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats"? Really? I invite anyone, indeed everyone, to read the linked posts. I invite everyone to read every single word I wrote on that page. Find even a single threat, let alone one of actual violence.

♠Then there's this....

♠"juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view". Obviously, somebody can't stand his POV being challenged. I rest my case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

End of moved material. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is fun. Trekphiler, you are referring to a block from three years ago? Don't bring that up; it has no relation to this case or this editor. Anyway, to the meat of the matter: it's a decent morning here and I don't feel like blocking anyone yet. But Grapestomper9 will have to stop with the nonsense--the sneers, the ad hominems, the accusations (like this kind of stuff) or they will be blocked. No more of that, please. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that any more personal attacks, including in edit summaries, will result in a block. As an aside, I actually found the "dangerous villain" comment rather amusing due to its ridiculousness, makes Trekphiler sound like a Bond baddie. GiantSnowman 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

He's lucky ya'all have gotten here first. I think calling Trekphiler a "German people hater" is sufficient enough for a block among other things. I was about to do it until I saw you two here. I guess I'll just repeat the same, anymore accusations or battlefield behavior will result in a block.--v/r - TP 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• We're the good cops, TParis. No, the language is unacceptable, but I typically don't see much use in blocking afterward, without a kind of final warning (which is how I intended my comment above). If it happens again, I'll be glad to pull the trigger. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a 3yr old block, & clearly I'm being held to a different standard. I don't know why that surprises me anymore. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to relax, guy. Everyone here has sided with you and Grapestomer9 is on the verge of a block. What are you so bent up about?--v/r - TP 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[ec with TParis, with whom I am in perfect agreement this time.] If anyone is interested, they may look at User_talk:Trekphiler/Archive_3#Bad_warning, where one will find ample warning that a block was going to happen if certain behavior continued; since that behavior continued, the block did happen. So I don't know what "different standard" is being referred to here, and it's a moot point anyway--I just note that since Trekphiler saw fit to bring up some perceived wrong from the past, they opened themselves up to an investigation of those circumstances. It has nothing to do with the current thread, and I suggest Trekphiler stop digging, and that they be pleased that Grapestomp has been duly warned. And that's all I have to say on the topic; as far as I'm concerned we can close this, unless Grapestomp wants to come by and say the right thing. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (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.

Continuous unconstructive edits/vandalism by 71.46.49.251, possibly block

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:71.46.49.251 has a long story of disruptive edits (User_talk:71.46.49.251) and two previous blocks.

After the last block expired on June 2013, the user has made unconstructive edits to several articles. The user has also made lawful edits during that time.

The IP in question is assigned to Bright House Networks, which in turn assigns IPs dynamically to most of its customers. Despite this, a look at Special:Contributions/71.46.49.251 shows that most of the edited articles are related to musicians/music bands, both before and after the last block, which could suggest that the IP has been used by only one person.

I suggest applying an anon-only block like the last time, even if the user has not been warned since the last block. Facugaich (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (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.

Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges?

This morning my watchlist is full of changes like this, this, this, this, all made by different IPs, each IP having made about 20 such changes in the last 12 hours. I have hundreds of such edits in my watchlist. Before the end of business day I cannot verify whether the provided links are spam or not ("access blocked, proxy avoidance"). Can therefore someone please

1. check if those edits are fine or not,
2. advise what to do?

--Pgallert (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive.is is one of those "save a page" services like WebCite. And a relatively recent one, started only last year. I have also seen IPs mass-adding links to archive.is. I could not tell you whether it's an honest company. I'm not sure why so many IPs from India are doing this now, and why it's being done from IPs at all, and why they are using misleading edit summaries. Something strange is happening, sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a userfied article about the website at User:Lexein/Archive.is, which had been deleted at AFD about a week ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is, why would they use different IPs? Can somebody confirm that the urls in question contain archived newspaper articles? --Pgallert (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC --Facugaich (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion that is itself heavily tainted with proxy IP edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an old ANI thread on the same subject. It appears as if previous IPs doing this have been blocked, but it also appears as if the operators command so many IPs that blocking them one by one might be futile. I think I'll revert the few edits that break existing syntax and leave the rest alone. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters are above my pay grade, but is it possible to create one that prevents the insertion of archive.is links by any non-registered user? Bobby Tables (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There's one in place. I'll have to research how these are getting past it.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Since about 14:30 the same mechanism inserts links to http://web.archive.org, not to archive.is. --Pgallert (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks needed again, Drmies and others with access to such tools. I've manage to block the proxies used in today's attack. Some of them were caught by filters before making any edits, so some of the contribution lists are empty.

• 120.56.235.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.223.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.238.25.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.196.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.84.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.78.233.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.1.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.212.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.64.190.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.28.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.132.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.205.228.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.125.64.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.65.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.166.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.56.134.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.172.32.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.106.104.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.82.133.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.206.246.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.104.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.176.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.52.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.62.179.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.185.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.99.118.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.177.246.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.203.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.189.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.84.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.103.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.202.6.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.23.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.6.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.139.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.61.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.218.75.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.133.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.225.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.73.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.54.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.141.70.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.58.143.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.203.53.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.190.144.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.200.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.17.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.242.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.159.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.96.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.95.58.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.207.160.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.196.175.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.116.52.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.250.156.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.17.129.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.124.251.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.162.175.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.201.32.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.23.234.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.73.43.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.160.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.2.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.143.115.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the scale of these attacks, Blacklisting should be done ASAP. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That would make editing about 15,000 existing articles nearly impossible, Werieth. That's why I'm trying to get a consensus to remove all the existing links at that RFC. But yes, the scale of these attacks makes it incomprehensible to me precisely why anyone would defend the site. Right now, I've tightened the filter so that it is more difficult to add new links so that the problem doesn't continue to grow.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If its blacklisted you will continue to be able to edit those pages like normal as long as you dont add/remove those links. If its acceptable I can mass remove these. Werieth (talk)

Nope: it blocks you if you edit the paragraph in which the blacklisted links occurs.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug in the blacklist. According to the numbers less than 13k pages are affected. If needed I can mass remove them. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've rolled back all those edits. Might not be a bad idea to check again in case I missed any though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Mark.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

From my watchlist I have found the following related IPs with edits still unreverted:

• 122.161.117.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.57.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 171.48.9.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.166.20.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.142.93.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.64.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 113.21.79.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.92.77.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.98.82.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.187.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The tool I've been using only gets those that are the most recent revision, so if there were subsequent edits after the bot I've been missing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The annoying fact about this latest charge of proxies is that they didn't only add the disputed archive.is but also established services like archive.org which would be totally ok under normal circumstances. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RotlinkBot has always added other archives when it saw fit. I'm not sure what the reasons are.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I read somewhere that it's a tool to remove dead links and replaces them with active ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because of the API used, if you read User:RotlinkBot. I think we're unfortunately dealing with another "star" programmer here, who won't listen to community feedback. If he had a bit of common sense and followed the process, RotlinkBot would have probably been approved in some form... The batch of IPs used today seems to have added only archive.org links though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the efforts to add archive.is were blocked by filters, Someone, but they were certainly made.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required, Someone not using his real name Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a few more from my watchlist:

• 1.186.149.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.22.190.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.22.194.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.220.238.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.180.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.207.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.216.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.1.101.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.194.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.218.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.219.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.6.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.91.111.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.91.68.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.79.189.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.115.184.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.115.78.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.240.15.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.241.230.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.101.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.133.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.51.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.99.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.247.130.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.69.247.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.193.132.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.193.137.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.185.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.116.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.197.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.14.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.149.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.227.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.241.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.57.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.200.214.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.187.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.80.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.90.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.93.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.203.56.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.208.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.212.35.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.214.193.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.252.2.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.97.74.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.56.216.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.59.248.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 121.245.191.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.35.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.74.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.151.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.224.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.47.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.47.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.151.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.26.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.35.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.41.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.60.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.31.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.89.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.172.178.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.174.172.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.145.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.165.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.219.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.177.18.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.63.53.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.123.64.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.253.205.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.62.125.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.62.209.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.106.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.32.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.116.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.215.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.9.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.98.25.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.128.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.137.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.55.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.101.66.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.107.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.152.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.4.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.87.193.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.237.14.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.64.101.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.165.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.74.62.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.82.222.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.83.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.106.54.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.121.101.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.251.169.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.251.6.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.5.208.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.137.147.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.94.42.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.95.15.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.184.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Pgallert (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• All blocked. This guy is giving me carpal tunnel syndrome.—Kww(talk) 07:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of these machines are clearly compromised or at least part of a spam network. I've randomly googled from a above one of them, and the first hit is http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_122.176.219.65. These guys seem to have access to non-public lists of compromised machines. For example, 182.65.174.133 is not listed in any proxy lists by google, though I'm pretty sure it's in some spammer's database because it's listed in several blacklists on whatismyipaddress.com; one of them says "AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services / AS24560 IS AT THIS TIME RANKED POSITION 7 OF THE 20 WORST BOTNET HOSTERS WORLDWIDE." Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Another IP I tried (61.3.184.56) gave "BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone / AS9829 IS AT THIS TIME RANKED POSITION 3 OF THE 20 WORST BOTNET HOSTERS WORLDWIDE." So I think it's pretty clear where these IPs are coming from. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And now rolled back. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Qalnor

I think this is at best an alternate/sleeper account of someone heavily promoting and defending archive.is in the RfC. His recent edits are all there and there's also [290] etc. Given the ability of these guys to use IPs worldwide, checkuser would be useless. I suggest a WP:DUCK block. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have been defending archive.is on the grounds that I don't view Kww's assertions that they're breaking the law as particularly likely. I haven't defended them on any other grounds, and in my most recent post on the RFC I said pretty clearly that I thought the operator probably had done something unethical. My strong feelings about not banning the use of a useful archival tool do not even come close to passing a duck test. edit: Also, for the record, this: 'Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.' was not done. Qalnor (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• An account with minimal content contributions (yours) suddenly taking a very deep interest a controversial policy debate certainly gives rise to WP:SCRUTINY/WP:ILLEGIT editing of project space concerns. And you have been arguing that the proxy IP editor (not archive.is) has done nothing illegal [291] [292] [293] [294], which is not quite the same thing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, well, we'll see what happens. A superficial investigation of my identity will make it pretty clear that you're wrong, although obviously on the internet there's no such thing as 100% proof of identity. Qalnor (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even after turning AGF into a suicide pact, those RfC edits of yours are still pretty clear filibustering, and not unlike the similar talking points raised by Special:Contributions/77.111.172.172 for example. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty 'filibustering' doesn't mean what you think it means. But like I said, we'll see what happens. Qalnor (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Abusefilter

I've added an abuse filter to stop the insertions of this link. As far as I'm concerned, we should mass-remove these links given the very dubious means of insertion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. But is this filter case-sensitive? De728631 (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't case-sensitive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it now blocks archive.org as well, the description should be changed, otherwise you'll get more of this or this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will change archive.org to monitoring only. It's actually my filter that is blocking that, not Reaper's.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Cary Lee Peterson [New Article Creation]

Dear Administrator(s),

Please refer to the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rvplpr/sandbox#Cary_Lee_Peterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rvplpr/sandbox

Thanks in advance for your help getting this article into Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvplpr (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As admins do not determine content, you would be better served by reviewing the articles for creation process. I have also left some useful information about creating your first article on your personal talkpage. Good luck! ES&L 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 72.207.247.59 BLP violations

I definitely think this individual is NOTHERE to make this encyclopedia a better guide. [295] [296]. Notifying them now. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I know ANI is quicker, but it is my sworn duty to point out to you that you should really report this at AIV, and there should have been a final warning, and blah blah blah. Blocked for 31 hours, thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• And I just saw this one. I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't vandalized more. If there is more of this, on a frequent basis, consider WP:RFPP for semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks. First ever ANI start so I will try to keep AIV in my mind if this comes up again. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary; thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor tag-bombing of Erotic target location error

An IP editor has taken to re-tag-bombing the Erotic target location error page.[297][298][299][300][301]

• The IP editor's diff comments include POVs like: "Considering the incredibly dubious, inflammatory, and fictitious nature of this article, I believe this is necessary"[302]).
• The editor has history of tagging the page, to which no other editor has agreed (c.f. [303][304]).
• And the editor falsely claims that sources do not contain info that it is actually easily found (cf., [305][306]).

Because the page falls under the ArbCom sexology sanctions and cites one of my own RW works, I thought it better to ask for a read from other eyes.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a warning under the Sexology DS to the IP for disruption. If he keeps up the disruption we can block. I've semi-protected the article as well since IPs have been a problem in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect; thank you.— James Cantor (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to assume much of the bombing is just the run of the mill objections. I've seen reports and other documents on this under a different attributed name including the well known aspects of the Furry fandom. I think a bit of tidying up is in order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bots editing logged out from 10.4.0.71

The IP should probably be {{anonblock}}ed. See Special:Contributions/10.4.0.71. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be Cyberbot I. The security issue mentioned by WMF and their action disrupted it. It's fixed now, so no worries.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations by user J is for Jesus

• J is for Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:J is for Jesus needs a discussion on copyright. The user has been uploading non-free images and admits it. The user then goes to articles and replaces valid images with the copyright infringements. No FUR is provided and there would be no rationale for their use based on the current understanding of FUR. I have reverted three articles and nominated the images for deletion but there may be more and the discussion should still take place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this wouldn't have been brought up here if the user wasn't a self-proclaimed Christian. Can we please drop the Christian Bashing? If he were a moslem it wouldn't have been mentioned that he was breaking a minor rule. Chloe Grace Moretz Official (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Chloe, uh, Walter is a self-identified Christian, and has contributed extensively to Christian music articles. Neither is violation of copyright a "minor rule". I would respectfully and kindly suggest your read a few (e.g. Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:AGF) of our rules before continuing this discussion. Thanks, and happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's anti-Christian to point out copyright violations. It is, however, a BLP violation to make edits like this one--and this rubbish about "lifestyle choice" is just anti-gay code. Choice, my foot. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to Jesus yet because Chloe Grace Moretz Official and their anti-gay and probably antisemitic edits got in the way. In addition, there user name is most likely a violation, given Chloë Grace Moretz. I've given them a warning for referring to Roscelese as a liberal dirtbag, which was probably not intended as a compliment. I wonder if this is spillover from MRM or something like that; it's certainly a single-purpose account of someone who is not here to improve our project. But I'll let another liberal dirtbag admin do the honors, if honors need to be done. Now, for Jesus. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'm about to sign off--Walter, where did Jesus "admit it"? I agree with you, BTW, but I'd like to see what Jesus has said or has to say on the topic. If they understand and promise to walk the narrow path to glory, then our problem is solved. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Not sure what Drmies is talking about, but Yes, Chloe Grace Moretz Official, I too am a Christian and I am interested in three projects: Christian music, Soccer (association football) and software testing. I'm not attacking the editor I've reported here. I simply don't have time to mentor the editor, and as an editor who is involved in the reverts and nominations think that it would better if a neutral editor would discuss the matter with the editor. No block is required, simply a discussion. This is where the copyright violations page suggests to report issues like this. No Christian-bashing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand now what Drmies was asking. The three images I found that the editor uploaded all indicate that the images are not free: File:Big Daddy Weave 2013.jpg, File:Audio Adrenaline 2013.jpg, and File:Chris Tomlin 2013.jpg. There were other images that the editor uploaded that may or may not be copyright violations. I'll let someone from the copyright cabal investigate that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

? You said "The user has been uploading non-free images and admits it". Where did they admit it? So far I have not seen any actual communication coming from this user. That's all. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if the last comment is that you understand, or something else. On the first image above, the category for upload posts "Uploading a piece of non-free cover art using File Upload Wizard" and then a FUR is supplied. Editor knows that it's not a free image but needs to be informed when and where FUR applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the user's talk page and it appears that there were a few other recent copyvios brought-up by User:Blurred Lines, User:Theo's Little Bot and User:Diannaa. Would someone not involved in the deletion processes please open a dialogue with the editor? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done: Diff of User talk:J is for Jesus -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Shall we leave this open so the editor has a chance to comment here (based on the notice left on the editor's talk page) or shall we close it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If we leave it open, the bot will archive it in 36 hours or so if no further comments are made in this section. The user has yet to make a talk page / user talk page edit, so I doubt they will comment here. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Second apparent legal threat from User:Yatrides

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:Yatrides has made an apparent second legal threat, on my talk page, in this edit.

"I'm not litigious (see ArtPrice> Authentic Yatrides), but the manipulations on the events determined by my professional life, which represent my biography, must stop on Wikipedia USA including Wikipedia France where an US moderator has deleted my biography which become wrong / false." (bold added)

He previously made a legal threat which was reported and discussed on AN/I, here, so he is aware of our policy on the matter. Yworo (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reference to WP:DOLT was made in that previous thread. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Though it doesn't change the status of any potential legal threat, it's important to bear in mind that while this editor claims to be either the article subject or someone acting on his behalf, we have no way of knowing (that I can see) that it isn't instead someone attempting to embarrass the subject via this bizarre behavior. See [307]. EEng (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a problem editor claiming to be a notable person. Has this been verified by OTRS? If not, he should be blocked simply for possible impersonation. Yworo (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I see Orangemike blocked him. Thanks, OM! Yworo (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:Chuy33

per WP:DOLT, a dispute over some content in Raul Julia-Levy (which reads like a vanity bio at this point, but that's another problem). The user posted this (If infact you continue to post these things action will be taken) to my talk page, over the dispute between the subject's claims that he is the biological son of Raul Julia, which has been contested by Julia's wife and was perfectly well sourced to a NYT article. Additional material was removed regarding a "scandal" that was poorly sourced, brought to our attention via an OTRS ticket and separately at WP:BLP/N as well in response to this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that 76.172.80.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also posted legal threats at Discospinster's talk page (link above). Not sure if we notify IPs of ANI threads though. I assume they're the same person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Titleblacklist not getting much admin attention

I think more admin eyes are needed at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Okina. I have a few page moves that have been waiting for over 2+1⁄2 months. Chris the speller ^yack 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment there. Without WP:RM discussions, none of those titles should have been moved in the first place as they seem to violate our WP:MOS ES&L 11:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

IP user 96.244.127.180

user 96.244.127.180 made a number of minor changes to articles yesterday and today, mostly numbers, that need to be reverted ASAP. I don't know if I'll have time to fix these things tonight. Can he be blocked? -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've rolled them all back and warned the user. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

My action of removing 1970 Bhiwandi Riots (an article created by the user) was reverted by User:Darkness Shines[308] (reason "See fuck off"). I have started a discussion on Template_talk:Violence_against_Muslims about link. The 1970 riots is minor compared to Bihar 1946, Gujarat, Bombay riots, but since the user has not responded to the argument and said " do not remove valid links again". I have also created a discussion on Talk:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India#WP:UNDUE_and_incompleteness:_2002_Gujarat_violence (from where I reached the template actually) about completeness and UNDUE of a section, the response I get there is "Court of law? You are a sock and I claim my five pounds" [309]. This behaviour is complete disregard for Wikipedia:Etiquette.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "See fuck off" is...what's the civil word for "stupid"? an untelligent comment. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the repeated use of un-WP:CIVIL language. Closing a discussion by the user citing "WP:WHATAPILEOFBOLLOCKS" [310] I will request an admin to guide the user for using respectable and civil language. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DS is well-known for uncivil language. But, unless directed at someone, it's not blockable. An WP:RFC/U might do something about it, but possibly not. This is outside the realm of the old WQA now, as it's a pattern of behaviour ES&L 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ESL is correct, and DS has been blocked for it before; it's entirely possible that this might happen again if an admin deems that there's too many fuck-offs (this admin deems that not). As for the BOLLOCKS--well, I just read over that discussion, and BOLLOCKS was directed at words, not a people. In addition, the discussion gives DS ample reason to refer to the original complaint there as totally BOLLOCKY. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I am NOT asking for a block. But foul language is not WP:CIVIL. It becomes offensive and insulting, spoils the mode of the discussion and fuels disputes. This was my first time interacting with this user as far as I remember. I just wanted someone to explain to him/her the policy so it is not repeated again. But it seems that uncivil language is now an accepted part of Wikipedia culture. RIP civility. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I left them a note, as a reminder. You will just have to accept that DS is given a certain amount of leeway (not an infinite amount!) since they are dealing with tons and tons of socks and trolls. That's not always an excuse, but handling that is a timesink, and I for one appreciate some of the work they're doing. At the same time, I understand your concerns as well, and so I'm in a somewhat difficult spot, which I'm trying to navigate without blocking them and without giving you feeling that I don't care, because I do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pak disputes

• Not commenting on anything directly related to the post, there are enough problems in the Pakistan/India related articles on Wikipedia. Would it be useful to create a dispute noticeboard solely for those topics? Ryan Vesey 05:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, i don't like that idea of a separate dedicated noticeboard. My complaint about the conflict resolution in this field has been that it gets those same repeated admins every time, who mostly are involved as editors also; maybe not specifically in that article, but definitely in that topic. Also, i feel that there is a image in the minds of many admins that Indo-Pak-Bangla article pool is full of conflicts and is better left aside. Separate noticeboard will not help in these two problems.
Sorry Redtiger to not comment on the actual raised issue, but i had to answer Ryan here itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In a lot of these long-running nationalist conflict areas, subjecting the areas to discretionary sanctions, while not of course entirely solving the long-running feuds that underlie it, at least has helped to curb some of the worst behavior and remove the most problematic and inflammatory editors from the topic. Most of the time these get applied after the whole thing blows up and lands in front of ArbCom, but the community can apply the same type of sanctions. If this really is a long-term nationalist trouble spot, maybe it's time to think about having that conversation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have two sets of discretionary sanctions in the area: Community applied -- Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups and Arbcom decree -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan reinforced per this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Constant vandal

AlphaValkyriesWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pretty constantly vandalising List of most viewed YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a while, after a report to WP:AIV (where there as a backlog). Could an admin please block the account. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared out the backlog. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Stanleyfosterkane

Stanleyfosterkane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very loudly quacking obvious sockpuppet of the blocked Stanleyfosterreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone please do the necessary? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe if you ran for admin already, Mr/s. Hopeful, you wouldn't have to bother important people like me and interrupt their naps. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's Mr and I wanted to get back to my nap! Thanks for taking care of it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I did you one better: I semi-protected the article for a month and will have no problem with longer protection--I'm thinking that a previous series of IP edits may have come from the same source. Thanks, and nap on, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Excellent thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)