Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821

List of Jewish American fraudsters

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.

---

List of Jewish American fraudsters has been deleted. We have List of Jewish American mobsters, why not this? I had Madoff, Dina Wein Reis, Marc Rich, and Nevin Shapiro. MelangePasty (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the intersection of Jewish-Americanness and mobsterness is a relevant one; see Jewish-American organized crime. Jewish-Americanness and fraudsterness: not so much. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As the deleting administrator, the article named a number of living people as "fraudsters" without evidence and implied a connection between their ethnicity and their supposedly fraudulent acts with no reliable sources supporting the claim. This runs contrary to our policy on biographies of living people (and given the lack of reliable sources establishing a connection, could be perceived as an attack on Jewish-Americans). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The linked articles are all sourced. Lists of links usually don't have sources, if the target has sources. Why would you think there was a 'connection'? Is there a connection for list of UK murderers? MelangePasty (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List claming that living people have done or are involved with something bad, criminal, contentious, ... should always be sourced at the list, sources at the articles are not sufficient. For most other lists including BLPs, it is best to source them at the list as well. Fram (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to the policy? What about List of United Kingdom criminals? MelangePasty (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is nobody deleting this as a 'G10 attack page'? MelangePasty (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly because it's not one of those. Pay attention to the discussion and associated policies please ES&L 10:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has linked to a policy. MelangePasty (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) WP:ATTACK – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for pointing to that page, which I have indeed now deleted as a G10. It even included entries without an article, which is a rather terrible BLP violation (a lot worse than unsourced entries with links to articles that have good sources). As for the policy, the start of WP:V has "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." Inline citations are required, not sources in another article. You can also check the "Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it" section of that page, with "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." (i.e. don't simply point to another article that is supposed to have the necessary source, but use the source directly in the article where a source is needed). Fram (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hats off for consistency. MelangePasty (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, Fram. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon reading about this subject, my first instinct is to agree with you. Both lists appear to be attacks on Jews. However List of Jewish American mobsters is also part of Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity, which also includes Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, but surprisingly no Russian-Americans. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

…or of any other races besides Jews, Italians, Irish, or Hispanic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Criminal gangs are often organized along ethnic lines. There is no reason however to categorize fraudsters along ethnic lines, and doing so is offensive to those ethnic groups. TFD (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I just listed the recreated article at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And I was right in thinking I've got no good faith in this editor. The editor's rationale for keeping it is " Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias." So this seems to be intended as a anti-Jewish list. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality involves including pro (which I support) and anti. Bias involves just including pro. MelangePasty (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if any such list should not be at AfD. Maybe it's 'cause I'm sleep deprived, but I find the very notion repugnant. Ethnicity should not enter in. At any rate, I think the venue to decide this is the AfD. Two different discussions with two possible outomes could be confusing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree, alas; rather than being driven by personal feelings, we should be driven by sources. Do reliable sources produce lists like this? Do reliable sources pigeonhole fraudsters according to ethnicity? bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And even more evidence that this editor may be here with an agenda. When the AfD was added to " list of Judaism-related deletion discussions" MelangePasty responded "- I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here." In other words, no Jews wanted. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are we constantly discussing this and not blocking MelangePasty for violating WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't have even have a list of fraudsters nor a list of American fraudsters. You skipped several steps. Honestly, I do not think a "list of fraudsters" is a good idea generally, never mind breaking it up by ethnicity. We do have a list of con artists, but that is a less inflammatory and more informative term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a "fraudster" which sounds like a vague term for white collar criminals. I can see the potential usefulness of a list based on nationality (just as an organizing tool) once there is a clear definition of the term but I think an religious-, ethnic- or race-based list is misguided and prejudicial for this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on that loose definition, not only should this article be deleted, but also the articles on any lists of fraudsters of any race. Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Clear definition or not, we do have a list of fraudsters, sort of: Fraudster#Notable_fraudsters Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Fraudster" suggests "character trait", whereas "mobster" suggests an "occupation", albeit a dishonest one. In one instance (fraudster) the character trait comes first, and from it flows the "occupation". In the other case (mobster) the "occupation" comes first. A character trait may or may not clearly be implied by "mobster". Some mobsters may be deceitful, as is implied by characterizations such as "fraudster", "conman", and "con-artist". But other mobsters may not deceive. They may quite "honestly" point a gun and demand money. Or they may pick locks and steal jewels. We are less likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine group identities (religion, nationality, "race") with somewhat objective designations, such as "mobster". We are more likely to find inflammatory implications when we combine such group identities with character traits. This is because character traits can be understood‚ rightly or wrongly, to be applicable to a whole group of people. The implication that a negative character trait is applicable to a group of people is what we should be trying to avoid. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Lists of American Jews. Characterising any negative information as an "attack" is simple bias. Is positive information then biased promotion? Bus stop's opinion that any list must imply a group character trait is entirely specious. Does the List of Australian criminals mean Australians are criminals? Is that also an "attack page"? If not why not? And what if it is a group associated trait (I offer no opinion)? We can see West Africans overrepresented in sprinting. So what? What policy does it contravene to have a factual list which could possibly result in that opinion? Surely the solution would be to balance with European American Fraudsters or African American Fraudsters, rather than censoring facts which contravene no policy. The bottom line is that no policy is broken here and we have a mass case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MelangePasty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 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:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

WP:TPNO violations and responses:

• At this diff [1], User:SPECIFICO posted off-wiki blog links which identify and/or personally attack User:Carolmooredc.
• The links were removed by me here [2] and a warning to SPECIFICO about WP:TPNO (personal details & NPA) was posted here: [3].
• SPECIFICO reverted the removal of the off-wiki blog attack here: [4].
• He received a second warning from another contributor here: [5].
• The off-wiki comments were removed a second time here: [6].
• Specifico has since responded to the warnings on his talk page, but seems utterly unrepentant for this gross violation of WP policy. (He also sought to change the TP remarks that I had personally made after I had removed the NPA material from his post.)

As he suggests, I seek Administrative action. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This also is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which I've mentioned to User:SPECIFICO before. I don't know if editors have to be warned for sanctions to be levied. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this sanction applies as Specifico's postings were simply directed at CMDC. The NPA & BLP violation in itself is enough for admin action without this added wrinkle. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Incivility regarding the Israel Palestine issue is relevant at all times. Plus, see my necessary reply to SPECIFICO's charges above at this diff. We are not supposed to have to defend ourselves from anonymous smear-monger attacks on Wikipedia. (Thinking about it, I don't even know if these quotes are accurate!!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, it looks like another thread is going off-track. While AQFK may be the eventual outcome, it cannot address the issue of Specifico's blog posting (or whether my raising the issue is "specious"). Specifico defends himself only by saying that Carolmooredc's real life identity is known, and posits that he has somehow permission to post disparaging off-wiki blog links about her. How in the world such postings seek to improve her on-wiki behavior is beyond me. Come on, dear patrolling admins, please take a look at what was done by Specifico in this singular instance and comment or take action as appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, Admins, please admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. I went straight to the ArbCom discussion below and hadn’t looked into the diff here. I saw it now and we are in severe harassment territory here; the edit must be revdeleted/oversighted and at least a warning to the posting user must be issued. Iselilja (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree. Posting the link was inadvisable because it was uncivil. But user Carol has repeatedly "outed" and identified herself on Wikipedia, so it is highly misleading to insinuate that SPECIFICO was trying to bring Carol's "off-wiki" identity into the fore (she has already, repeatedly done this herself). Use SPECIFICO is of course entitled to his views on Carol's wiki behavior, including her statements regarding jews and transgender persons. (In response to my self-identification as a (trans) woman, Carol blatantly disparaged me by linking to a womyn born womyn, a page devoted to the proposition that trans women aren't women; she has also repeatedly referred to me with the masculine pronoun, despite my clearly stated wishes in this regard.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or did I just notice yet another set of allegations against me, with nary a diff in site, where I have to search around and prove I'm not an evil bigot??? Should someone do an ANI on it?

Again, if I don't defend myself people will assume that it is true. I know the one on "jews" --as Steeletrap put it-- was nonsense but won't search around for diffs. See Talk:Bill_Clinton#Allegations, a discussion of removal of the section header on the discussion of sexual allegations against Bill Clinton where Steeletrap and SPECIFICO suddenly appeared and declared, yes, the section header should be removed. Steeletrap had not, at that point, clearly declared whether a proud M-t-F or F-t-M, and I was expressing my own pride. Later I looked more carefully at the Womyn-born womyn article and found it is poorly sourced and reflects the bias that feminists (or anyone else evidently?) are not allowed to question or debate any of the related issues and if they try they are bigots and must be shunned, fired, kicked off wikipedia or whatever. This is a problem on a number of related articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not defending yourself, you're attacking others. This is not the first time you've crossed the line into bigotry against transsexuals. Any chance you could make it the last? MilesMoney (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Note

If there were any attempt at all by Carol to maintain her Wikipedia account as something distinct from her personal and online identity, then perhaps this complaint would have some merit. But she doesn't, so it doesn't. It would also help if she came here with clean hands. Instead, her report is obviously retaliation for Specifico's support for blocking her. This support is due to her ongoing personal attacks against him and others. On the whole, this is the aggressor attacking her victim, and should just WP:BOOMERANG. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] - FYI, I'd love to change my handle to avoid personal attacks, but Wikipedia makes you admit who you were before, and people would go around searching to figure it out anyway, so why bother? Please don't make such false claims. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The two off-wiki threads that Specifico posted are from 2009 and 2011 – well before any recent contentious postings developed regarding Austrian Economics. Posting the links to these off-wiki comments from the get-go was improper. But repeating the posting after it was reverted and after a warning had been issued, takes the cake. And what's going on now? We see an accusation against Carolmooredc of retaliation. Is this supposed to excuse Specifico? – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney. The linked site is vile it the extreme and even incluces a death wish for Carol and her family. Users who think it is OK to post links to blogs who wishes death over another user have no place on Wikipedia. That the link to this post has not been at revdeleted and a strict admin warning issued to the poster is the single most upsetting thing I have ever experienced at Wikipedia. I have previously seen CarolMoore get a direct threath on Wikipedia; it's very typically that these haters specifically go after women. As long as no action is taken regarding the post, Wikipedia is not a safe place for its users and in particular not for women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone here claiming that Specifico is responsible for these posts? If not, then why are we blaming the messenger? Besides, his goal was to show how her off-wiki activity related to her on-wiki activity; anything else was incidental. As there was no reason to remove these links, there's no reason not to restore them.

I would appreciate it if your comments were a bit less over the top and instead complied with WP:NPA. There's absolutely no basis for trying to associate Specifico with unspecified generic misogyny, and it's quite clear that Carol's behavioral problems have nothing to do with gender. It's just as clear that Specifico isn't threatening anyone. What I see here is a shotgun approach to trying to associate various negative things with Specifco when none of them have any relation. I find this series of personal attacks against Specifico utterly disgusting and demand that you redact them immediately. MilesMoney (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, The links are clear NPA and BLP violations. They should not be linked to and the linker should know that. Yes he is responsible for linking to that crap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since when do NPA and BLP get enforced here? Nobody seems to care about Carol's repeated and ongoing violations of both, which is what led to Sitush's report and therefore Specifico's response, so why do we suddenly care now? Not much point pretending we're following the rules when we ignore them anytime they're inconvenient, is there? This is a pathetic joke and I call bullshit on it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes 'the devil made me do it' defense does not work out well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:, if you attempt to assert once more that I claimed personal attacks as my reason for reporting CMDC in the thread currently still visible above then I'll be asking the community to do something about you. I didn't say it, I've explained that I didn't say it and I do not consider CMDC's stuff to be either incivil or attacking - my point was the tendentiousness of it, which was resolved by her producing some diffs and thus moving things on. It is this sort of twisting of facts etc that is doing my head in and I'll quite happily !vote for the lot of you to be topic banned if that is what it takes to calm things down. There are times when the best thing for the project is to limit the involvement of all who are currently involved and let any issues regarding the articles be taken up as and when by a fresh group of people. Please do not use me as a way to achieve your fairly obvious aims. The same goes for Specifico and Steeletrap. I have no horse in this race but you lot are trying to stick me in there as a ringer or something. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC).

Isn't Ms. Moore already outed? Through her edits* to her since-deleted Wikipedia page (and acknowledgement that this was her page), and her sharing of personal remarks she has made on Wikipedia -- not to mention her disclosure of her first and last name, location, website, and personal photo -- hasn't Ms. Moore already "identified" herself on Wikipedia? I think that the situation here is much different than it would be if someone with an anonymous name was "outed." (* I acknowledge these edits were many years ago, but I don't think that's relevant; she made the decision to out/identify herself on WP.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether she has identified herself on WP or elsewhere. The violation occurred when the link to the grossly disparaging blog comment was posted by Specifico. He did not, did not have permission to post that particular personal detail about her. Reposting the personal comment made the infraction even worse. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he posted an article that very harshly criticized her views. It was certainly uncivil. But it didn't constitute outing, and really wasn't much worse than what we see from Carol on a regular basis. With the 48 hour block having been imposed, and the comment having been withdrawn, pushing for additional punishment seems punitive and gratuitous. Steeletrap (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Economics - Is it time for ArbCom?

A couple months ago (or so), the community enacted General Sanctions regarding the Austrian Economics topic space. However, the dispute continues to rage unabated as this thread and the thread above (WP:ANI#Tendentious_referencing_of_other_people.27s_motives) prove. The sanctions have failed due to a lack of admins interested in patrolling this topic space. I think it's time to ask whether the community is capable of solving this dispute, and if not, is ArbCom required to step in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly specious ANIs such as this one by Srich don't help. Carol Moore has freely shared her real-life identity, her personal webpage URL, her photograph and other personal information since her first days here. Srich knows that because there was recently some discussion about whether she had a COI due to a failed relationship with the subject of a certain WP article and there was previously discussion about two WP articles about herself and her life and work. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably. It seems that there is a core group of editors who just can't play nicely together. Interaction bans and topic bans would seem to be in order.- MrX 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, SPECIFICO's insinuations are proved exaggerated or worse when one looks at the diffs. Please don't use noobie mistakes of the first year or two to condemn someone editing for almost 7.5 years. Plus my noobie mistake in first six months or so of working on a silly bio someone wrote of me that I was happy to see later AfD'd. Plus why hide the Conflict of interest noticeboard thread where I discuss knowing the subject of the article 30 years ago and Steeletrap discusses the fact that a faculty advisor suggested looking into these people and that they were a subject of a masters thesis for a while. What's more of a conflict of interest, 30 year old news or this year's masters thesis? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've felt for some time that this is headed for Arbcom. I think we might be able to avoid that with proper use of the general sanctions though. They don't seem to have been used much, and I suppose that's as much my fault as anyone's. This is a hard area in which to act as an admin. In any case, if anyone does want to go ahead with this I would suggest waiting until 2014 to file due to the change in Arbcom's ranks. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've always said more short blocks would wake editors up. I'm happy to take a 24 or 48 hour block for the actual relevant diffs that have been provided, if SPECIFICO and Stelletrap and MilesMoney get proportionate blocks fro their behavior on both these threads. It's much more likely to solve the problem than waiting for Arbcom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. I suspect this should be one of the first cases for the new ArbCom in 2014. The discretionary sanctions don’t seem to have helped much. The situation reminds me of the entrenched conflict that was at the heart of the matter in the Tea Party Movement case, and which the committee eventually solved by issuing a series of topic bans (not much activity in that article now). In some ways, I believe the situation in the Austrian economics articles is more severe and concerning than the situation in the TPM case because it to a larger degree involves BLP issues. While persistent conflicts always is a problem, it’s particular so when sensitive BLP issues are involved; it’s adamant that BLP issues are discussed in a dignified way that inspires confidence and not plagued by infighting among disputants etc. Iselilja (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking it reminds me of that other battle of the "entrenched experts," Sexology. Too personal. Too long term. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If Admins are not willing to enforce community sanctions in clear areas like this, why bother to create them at all? Should I bring SPECIFICO's past pattern of accusations, my warnings to him, and current attack here to WP:ARBPIA because Admins do not want to enforce community sanctions with even a little warning? And let's not forget the Editing restrictions and log on those who violate BLP repeatedly. That's also been brought up repeatedly and ignored, despite existing sanctions.

I'm not blaming it on Admins per se who have to take a lot of grief when they warn and block people. I really think the Wikimedia Foundation has to find a way to pay admins to do the dirtiest jobs. The bad editors (or those who cause "controversy" by resisting the bad ones, dragging them to noticeboards, etc., as I have for a number of years) have driven off scads of good editors. At some point there will be a tipping point and the bad editors will so overwhelm so many articles that Wikipedia... well, leave it to your imagination. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Admins not enforcing community sanctions is why Arbcom is the only thing left. So, the only thing between festering for more months and some kind of working out is Admins stepping up, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want things to go this way, but I fear it's inevitable that Austrian economics will go to Arbcom. Personally, my greatest concern is not the core Austrian articles but the way it spreads out and infects other content. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think after a topic has been brought to AN/I with an ever-expanding number of editors, 6 or 7 times, with no steps moving forward toward resolution, I think ARBCOM is the logical next step. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I have batted for both "sides" in this without ever really doing much at all on the articles themselves - I know nowt & so my role has mainly been as a neutral and very occasional outsider. almost a pseudo-admin role, in the absence of willing/able/uninvolved admins. The subject area is just becoming more and more toxic. That said, the transitional phase of Arbcom means that nothing will come of the suggestion for a few weeks. A few weeks is better than nothing but in the scale of this ever-expanding mess it really would help if some admin types could try to resolve some issues now using the sanctions system. All this said, if it does end up at ArbCom then please do not name me in the case - I have no intention of getting dragged further into the murk and I'm well aware that ArbCom decisions can be, let's say, surprising. By comparison, caste-related articles look like a walk in the park right now. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel moving from ANI to ArbCom so quickly is undesirable and probably unnecessary. We should consider whether sanctions against specific editors are appropriate and can be imposed either through the general sanctions regime or just through a normal community process here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to have sanctions imposed on you? Or are you helpfully volunteering everyone you disagree with? MilesMoney (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to all concerned that most of these disputes are related WP:Biographies of living people policy (including the RSNs, NPOVNs, ORNs, ANIs, etc.) and not merely abstruse economic issues. So it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban people trying to correct BLP problems, as if they are equally destructive to the process, thereby leaving many of the BLPs as defacto attack articles, or articles containing big controvery sections filled with guilt by association/cherry picked/out of context quotes and criticisms whose only goal seems to be to denigrate the BLP subject and all the individuals even loosely association with the BLP subject. Rather like the complaint that is the subject of this original ANI posting. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There are some subjects where editors can make useful contributions without a deep understanding of the subject. It does not appear that Austrian economics is one such subject. What we've learned the hard way is that well-meaning but ignorant editors just make a mess of these articles, particularly by treating deeply biased sources as unbiased. On the other hand, the knowledgeable but necessarily biased editors can't seem to come to a compromise that overcomes their unavoidable bias.

There are reasons for this, but it comes down to a content dispute that isn't particularly amenable to threats of blocks and bans. A scorched-earth approach would simply reset the cycle, only with more ignorance, hence more bias. Policy is of little help here due to the nature of the sources, which are sparse, insular and mutually hostile. Worse, there has been ongoing abuse of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOR to censor articles and harm editors. Still, the problem is rooted in the subject matter, not the people: WP policy simply can't handle Austrian economics.

I don't know if ArbCom is the answer, as I have no experience with them, but it doesn't seem as though regular dispute resolution channels, much less irregular ones such as "community" intervention here, are much good at this. I figure it's worth a try, since nothing else has worked or seems likely to. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued attacks on me in ANIs

I see this ANI is still open, and that the admin who put the block on has not been online to answer my question about these continued attacks on their talk page. So before this ANI gets closed by someone else, I would like to note my objections to the continued attacks on me in this ANI (as well as in this closed one) by Steeletrap and MilesMoney. Such personal attacks and allegations (off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations) are against both Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry. I guess I'll have to put such informal warnings on the two editor's talk pages in case these continue on article talk pages and else wheres and I have to open one or more cases at either. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the primary purposes of ANI is to facilitate personal attacks under the thin disguise of criticism. Eric Corbett 14:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto ArbCom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom's potential involvement seems to be the main reason this section is still open. As for Carol's warning, I believe the response on my talk page says it all. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's an attack, you ask? Your basically repeating "yeah, carol's a bigot just like my friends say" - especially when the alleged evidence lead to a block of an editor and the rest of it non-existent or trumped up - is a personal attack.

The notice I left on your talk page is a user official notice that these arbitrations exist. (That's the only thing I would post on your page.) I don't think there is a template for one like there is for admins.

However, such Arbitrations usually are not enforced unless there are a few blocks on ANIs for these kinds of attacks or an attack is really nasty. The sanctions might run from a 24 hour block, to a ban on ever working on articles about any kind of sex issues or Israel-Palestine issue (because the individual was making a false accusations related to bigotry in one topic area of articles and might bring that behavior later to Sex or Israel-Palestine related articles), to a permanent ban from Wikipedia. That would be up to admins, of course.

Anyway, that's what I can glean. In-the-Know editors, feel free to share a page that explains it all better, since neither of the ones I linked to above did a great job and WP:Sanctions and WP:General Sanctions also a bit vague and seem to have some inconsistencies. Ah, the joys of open sourced wikis... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• By OP (who opened this WP:TPNO ANI). In my opinion, this ANI is closed. A specific complaint was brought about specific editing behavior by a specific editor. Action was taken. As should be clear, the first sub-thread above is actually about another topic – the possibility of Arbcom action (which I do not want to engage in) coming to pass because of editor interaction. (It should be parsed out as a separate thread/section.) This second sub-thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread. But the same sort of bickering, unsupported by diffs, is occurring. I recommend that this entire section be closed at once. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

MagicKirin11

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.

---

MagicKirin11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin try to get this disruptive Israel supporter under control please as soon as possible ?

BLP violations so far.

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10], [11], [12], [13]
• [14]

Soapboxing

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

Edit warring at United Nations Human Rights Council Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

...and maybe a sock of

• MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MagicKirin1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not disruptive, I am trying to add balance to pages that have been taken over by anti Israeli posters.MagicKirin11 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are exploiting a charity to attack living people and promote your personal views. This is not allowed here. It's inconsistent with the site's policies and guidelines. It's disruptive and wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MagicKirin, what say you to these sock puppet allegations? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I say that all three people Sean roland and Zero have a political anti semitic agenda they are pro Palestinians anti Israel posters who want a person who put evidence that contradicts Wikipedia issues related to Israel. This is just another example of Palestinians supporters censoring Jews. You should be addressing my complaint against Sean.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland

Sean Hoyland is reverting my edits and claiming a Jewiush bias. That is anti-semetic which is no surprise.MagicKirin11 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I better start burning my Ben Katchor and Rutu Modan books and stop watching Natalie Portman films then. Damn. Being anti-Semitic has a lot of drawbacks. You need to stop attacking people. You are not helping Wikipedia or your cause. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MagicKirin, your editing consists of going to article talk pages—often involving Israel—and arguing there that the page should reflect your point of view more. That's not really consistent with trying to build an encyclopedia. It sounds more like you want a soapbox for your views. Wikipedia operates by consensus, NOT by soapboxing. Personally, I'm an ardent Zionist—but my individual opinion needs to be deferential to the weight of other things, like what reliable sources say, and what other editors at Wikipedia say about something.

I can assure you that there is no shortage of editors here who try to make sure that pro-Israel viewpoints (where relevant) are represented in articles. The Gaza flotilla raid article, for example (which you said was biased), cites the Israeli government's Turkel Commission in arguing that the IDF's actions were legal. That does not mean that neutrality is guaranteed at these articles, but the overwhelming slant you perceive is unrealistic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, your baseless accusation of anti-Semitism on the part of Sean.hoyland is an egregious personal attack. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One struggles to find a single edit of MagicKirin11 that serves to improve the encyclopedia. Zero^talk 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of combining the two sections as they obviously relate to the same thing. I have also made the (obviously retaliatory) post about Sean Hoyland a subsection. Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

I propose an indefinite block of MagicKirin11 on the following grounds:

1. They are likely to be a sock puppet of the banned user MagicKirin
2. Even if they are not a sock puppet, the user's purpose of being here is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's mission. They have no hope for becoming a constructive editor with their current attitude. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• I was led here by the report at WP:AN3. I've indeffed MagicKirin11 as a probable sock of MagicKirin. Even if I'm wrong, there's no real harm done as MagicKirin11 deserved to be indeffed even without sock puppetry. The evidence of sock puppetry was a bit hard because of the many years intervening between accounts. At a glance, the only thing I saw other than the obvious username intersection, was a pro-Israeli/Jewish bias and suspecting everyone of anti-semitism, all of which resulted in blatantly non-neutral edits and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Greenmaven (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Why go straight to an indefinite block? I don't see enough support here for a block of that length. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Overkill. No significant evidence of a sock. No behavior worthy of permanent punishment. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 3 December 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.

Does AGF apply to a situation like this?

Resolved

 – All accounts blocked as spambot accounts by NawlinWikiThe User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This has the makings of a sockpuppet farm in progress and an extreme promotional agenda..[[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]]. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The links just lead to his talk page and he did not make any contributions whatsoever, even deleted ones. Darylgolden^(talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

the usernames are all promotional and the nature of the multiple accounts indicate that they will be used to sock. I just don't think there is too many reasons to assume good faith in this situation. The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

<- Maybe this is clearer than the links.

• Bcparttimeofflianjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimeoflianjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimeofflnejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimeoflinejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimeoflinejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimeoflnejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes it easier to check contribs. Dlohcierekim 08:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

AGF always applies a priori. We wait for someone to prove us naive. Anyway, none of these have made contribs. WP:UAA isn't my area, but I think they ask us to engage the user first of all. HiaB asked me and I suggested bring 'em here 'cause there's so many & I was otherwise engaged. Still, the shear number . . . . I used to know how to see when a user account was created. Maybe that would illuminate our darkness. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 08:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See the 'logs' links. They were all created today. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, er, thanks. I needed the reminder.08:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Personally in a case like this I think that agf or not they should be blocked but I do understand that the block first think later thing is not a good thing for most..I just realistically don't see much good coming from this.The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with that. It's suspicious at the very least, possibly an attempt to use the user name system to do something with keywords. Like these all seem to be various typos of "BC part time offline jobs". I think this is exactly the sort of place where a preventive block is the appropriate action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And I'll note from that we seem to have even more accounts in this farm:

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

Given the time those two accounts were created, it seems possible if not probable that the same person spent quite a bit of time creating a lot of accounts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) They were all created in the same day. Normally, unless one is IP-block exempt, one can't create more than six accounts in one day. Something is suspicious here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some more I found going through the user creation log:

• Bcparttimedaetaentrejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedaetaentrijobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentrejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentrejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedaetaentrejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcoflianejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcoflianjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcofflianejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcofflanejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcoflanejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentryjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentrijobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentrijob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimedataentryjob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimehomaejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimehomaejob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bcparttimehmejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And many more. I'm not going to keep listing them, but they go back to around 0200 UTC on 1 December. They all seem to follow the pattern of ^Bc.+jobs?$, and not one seems to have any contribs. It looks like the oldest one is Bcfulltimmejobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow...has anyone ever seen this? Am I overreacting in my thoughts? The User Formerly Known as Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the user creation logs, but it seems like whoever this is stopped before this ANI thread started. The last one was Bcparttimeoflianjob created at 0547 UTC on 2 December. It's been a little more than 15 hours since then. Judging by the gaps between the blocks of account creation sprees, the person doing this is getting throttled by the 6-in-24 hours rule, but is probably circumventing it by hopping to a new IP (though at least once there are 7 accounts in a spree instead of 6). I haven't yet found any new patterns other than ^Bc.+jobs?$, but it seems likely that if a new pattern emerges it'll still fit jobs?$ (though it should be clear that any filter or rule based on the latter would probably generate an unacceptable number of false positives to apply automatically). One thing I've learned is that there are a phenomenal number of new user accounts created every day. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One last thing: I see that all the Bc...jobs accounts have been blocked now, some with talk page disabled. I know it's unusual to preemptively block e-mail (and WP:BLOCK frowns upon it), but considering these are pretty clearly intended to be used as spambots, shouldn't we disable e-mail on these accounts? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would !vote yes, but has that been done before? In sockpuppet cases, seems like only the sockmaster's account should still have "Email this user" enabled. I would love to see the policy/guideline about this. --Lexein (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The only controlling policy I know of is WP:BLOCK which states that normally e-mail restrictions shouldn't be prophylactically applied with blocks, but that administrators have pretty broad discretion if they feel it is likely to be necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving page

I would like to move (rename) the page for WWE Wrestler Sin Cara, to a page that reflects his name. Currently, he is listed as Mistico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%ADstico) as that is what his ring name was in an old promotion. However he has been signed with WWE for a number of years now, and is more widely known to the world as Sin Cara. - Zalthazar_666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalthazar 666 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Místico#Requested move. While it was a few months ago that this was last proposed, the universal opposition to it suggests that such a proposal would fail. Before seeking an admin to handle the move (since the redirect already exists) there needs to be consensus that a move is called for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Aadhar

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

---

This is to report about the user Notabede who himself tells on his talk page (new link) that no content should be added back to the article Aadhar without proper discussion and consensus but has himself disregarded the arguments that I wrote to push his own point of view here. I would be highly grateful if administrators take a look & express their views. Links :

• Initial discussion on Notabede's talk page (new link)
• Discussion continued here

I request the admins to please read the entire conversation (even though it might be tiring & especially the newer ones) at both places before taking a stance. In some places RB has been used for the now indefinitely blocked user Ravishyam_Bangalore. I have notified the other user. Regards. - Jayadevp13 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect that User:Jayadevp13 has notified me on my user talk page as is mandatory. Some reasons we could not discuss properly were (a) because he was uncivil and made personal attacks, (b) He was insistent that we must use the entire text contributed by the banned (for POV pushing) user (about 80,000 bytes of hugely controversial text) as the starting point for discussion (c) We work using a collaborative Sandbox -->> which IMHO violates intent of Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and the purpose of Article Talk pages. It may be carefully noted that as this article was stable for over 2 years with a redirect to UIDAI till the banned user began messing with it, my redirect was very much with the established consensus. It was also not "my" redirect, it had been twice redirected by others (including once - uncontested - by an anti-vandalism bot).Notabede (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

He edit warred against consensus and more than one editor, and then requested protection while it was on his version. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What happened to blocking after WP:3RR? Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius. I was never under 3RR or even close to it. As suggested by User:Toddst1 on my talk page, I immediately requested and got page protection for this article to prevent edit warring.

@2Awwsome. The fact that it was "my version" (which in itself is wrong because I haven't contributed even 1 word to the article) is immaterial, as 95% of the article is the precise kind of blatant and weaselly POV pushing for which the User:Ravishyam_Bangalore is presently indefinitely blocked. You may also see that I did not revert the article after Toddst1 warned me but I immediately applied for page protection as soon as I could. It is also inaccurate and weaselly to say I edit warred against consensus with more than 1 editor. The single revert with the blocked user doesn't count since his POV agenda for Aadhar/UID was self admittedly against the spirit of Wikipedia - as more than 1 blocking admin has noted. [24] Notabede (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If this kind of harassment of editors continues, perhaps Wikipedia:Anyone can edit needs to be amended to require that editing by schoolchildren be closely supervised/monitored by adults.Notabede (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, so much for the

1) It is your version, your version is the redirect.

2) He's blocked for a legal threat. And just because he's blocked for an unrelated issue it doesn't mean his opinion should be discounted.

3) Requesting page protection on your version is worse than edit warring. I'll go to VPP to propose that involved editors are not allowed to request protection during edit wars.

4) 2 v 1. The 2011 things - which you linked to on Aadhar's talk page - are irrelevant per WP:CCC, and that war shows the same consensus as this. Bots can't count for consensus. (Edited 20:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC))

5) Yes it does, and no admins have said that. The only thing he was blocked for was the legal threat.

6) WP:NPA. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I restored to a previous stable version (a redirect) by somebody else which was uncontested for over 2 years.
• His block was confirmed by an admin in the following terms "Wikipedia is not the place for promoting or publicising anything, even an anti-corruption tool. The point of the block seems to be that you are pushing a point of view rather than certain things may or may not be true."
• Yes, please go to the Village Pump on this.
• I have not even violated 1RR for this article. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". For over 2 years there was consensus that this article be redirected to UIDAI. A Bot is as much an editor as anyone else - more so actually.
• Please see the previous text cited for why he was blocked by admin Peridon.Notabede (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1) WP:CCC

2) He was blocked for a legal threat

3) WP:CCC. And ClueBot just used an algorithm to decide, can't count towards consensus.

4) He was blocked for the legal threat

5) And please don't refactor my comments 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who blocked RB, the question I have for Jayadevp13 is, what are you requesting be done here? Please answer with a simple request. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Notabede:

• Even though I did not notify in your talk page, I had told about it here. Moreover the Wikipedia notification would have alerted you.
• You are in an edit war indeed. Two times with RB (1st one and 2nd one) and one time with me.
• If according to you the redirects are stable and hence they should never be expanded then let me tell you that all the articles in {{F1GP 10-19}} (from 2011 to 2013) were redirects once and were then expanded. There are many more such cases.
• I am sorry but I can't be more civil than I have been. You are actually testing my patience wasting my time by saying the same thing again & again and not paying heed to what others are saying.

@Toddst1: What I wanted to report was that Notabede was completely ignoring other users view to push his own views (you can see this from his conversation with 2Awwsome & me). He in this way is stalling the development of the page Aadhar by giving completely fallacious reasons (like the page has original research which is wrong & had explained him the reason too). He again and again says that RB is blocked so should his work be. But he is completely ignoring the explanation given by other users. This is just one article. If he continues to do so with other would be articles in future then a lot of community time will get wasted. So I want him banned from editing for resorting to cheap & fallacious methods of explanation for what he is doing, going on an edit war to keep the page as he wants to and then asking it to be protected that way. Moreover he is not cooperating properly in a discussion and is trying to push his own point of view (and that too using the same reason again & again). He himself tells that a consensus needs to be achieved but is reluctant to participate properly in the discussion. Seeing his attitude I don't even think that he will change. - Jayadevp13 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are absolutely no grounds for banning that editor. It's clear there are problems with POV pushers on several sides including Jayvadevp13, 2Awwsome, Notabede and RB. Please, each of you take this as a caution for civility and NPOV and perhaps COI. Editing different subjects would be advisable - unless that subject is the only reason you are here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Toddst1: A ban would of course be too much for what he has done it seems. But please tell him not to waste time by giving useless reasons. I and Notebede are of course here just for Aadhar and 2Awwsome is just giving his views. Now you consider both of our views (Notabede's & mine) and tell what I should do with Aadhar which can be edited now. Do not tell us to discuss since he is not cooperating. You tell a final binding decision (maybe in consultation with other admins). - Jayadevp13 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment I object to the statement made that I am here just for Aadhaar. My editing at Wikipedia is aligned to policy and includes several articles besides Aadhaar/UIDAI. I am perfectly willing to discuss with 'Jayadevp' as long as he works within the community standards. He should also realise that I am not a POV pusher, but its opposite - a NPOVer.

@Toddst1, please factor in the comments (with not a hint of regret) of the other editor to evade acknowledging that he failed to place any ANI notice on my user talk page about reporting me here.Notabede (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note- By here I meant W:ANI and not Wikipedia itself. I wanted to tell that we both are here (WP:ANI) just because of the problems we are facing because of Aadhar. We don't face such clashes with other articles and hence it would not be good if we go from here without finding a proper solution. I believe I have discussed with you within the community standards by giving proof and details for every thing I say. But you are giving fallacious reasons like the article is original research (but 161 references were cited) and RB was blocked for POV pushing (I don't care about it and initially he was banned for making legal threats). I really didn't know that not leaving a notice on your talk page would hurt you so much. I swear that I didn't do it because of the reasons I told you (I thought that you would get to know and you did). I am sorry about that. - Jayadevp13 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: Get a discussion on the talk page. If numerous editors are in agreement that a change should be made, one outlier will not corrupt consensus. Once that is achieved, the article should be edited - even if it is protected. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 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.

Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013

I'm having a polite disagreement with several editors who keep removing content that they perceive as "non-neutral" or "not relevant". Specifically the section regarding the connections of the the initiative U ime obitelji with right-wing political party HRAST [25] as well as some other controversies surrounding it. Two of the editors don't speak Serbo-Croatian language so they can't really evaluate what is sufficiently notable or representative, and the rest are an IP and a single-purpose account User:OpusDbk whose writings are largely incoherent. I'd like to add more content to that section but it keeps being removed under absurd excuses. I keep telling them that 1) It's perfectly OK to present one side of the argument, if that side largely reflects the public discourse 2) even if the article itself is not completely balanced out, there is no reason to censor it by removing the undesirable content - slap a tag until eventually someone adds POV from the other side (if it exist, my position is that in many cases it doesn't so it's basically pointless to ask for it). It would be helpful if someone else would weigh in and advise how to proceed with this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ivan Štambuk. I believe I am one of the otwo non Serbian-Croation users you are referring to. Just a formal note: I think you are supposed to notify the users you are complaining about on their talk pages. But you don't have to notify me now obviously since I am already here. I don't have so much to say about the underlying issue. There is a disagreement about the neutrality of the article, and I have tagged it for such. I will try to engage a bit more on the talk page again. Otherwise, I think the NPOV noticeboard might have been a better place to address this issue, and I will be happy to participate there. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN is also a venue that may be of some service to you. Blackmane (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lizzzybennett1xx

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.

---

• Lizzzybennett1xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lizzzybennett1xx has repeatedly created articles with incorrect/misleading/nonsense titles, especially variants on Nicki Minaj's name, and has been repeatedly warned not to do so. She recently did it again (though the page has been deleted after I tagged it as a hoax, unsure exactly which CSD it fell under). The page can be viewed by admins at Niickkki Mirij. I am not sure where to post this, as it is not exactly vandalism, so I am coming here to request something be done. My apologies if I am in the wrong place. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This sure looks to fall under the definition of WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate to me. The only saving grace is that she requested deletion of the page she created today (it was deleted CSD G7). —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm not an admin I can't see the content of the deleted pages, but for me much turns on whether the alternative titles were Lizzzybennett1xx's attempt to create legitimate articles on the subjects (perhaps because Lizzzybennett1xx didn't understand the concept of redirects), if they were hoax articles about nonexistent persons, or if they were articles about the actual subject that violated WP:BLP in some way. I think the first hypothetical is forgivable and calls for someone to work with Lizzzybennett1xx, at least until it can be determined that he/she is unwilling or unable to work constructively, at which point blocks should be put in place. The latter two hypotheticals call for stern, final warnings (even though I do see a final warning on the page already), followed by preventive blocks should the behavior continue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

40 of this user's 42 edits are now deleted, usually because they were contributions to articles with nonsense titles. A review of those edits indicates this is a vandalism-only account. The same pattern has been going on since their account was created on March 10. She blanked one of her own nonsense articles today and that was taken as a G7 nomination. Except for that it is hard to perceive any well-intentioned edits. The G7 deletion could as well have been done as a G3 (vandalism) since the article itself was gibberish, being a section of prose cut-and-pasted out of our Britney Spears article and slightly reworded to mention Nicki Minaj. Would an honest mistake lead someone to create an article called Niickkki Mirij if the singer's name is actually Nicki Minaj? As a bonus, check their edit filter log. I recommend an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of your logic, EdJohnston, I withdraw my argument that this user deserves another chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have blocked her back in October. That oversight has now been rectified. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:39, 3 December 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.

Lukeno94's lack of civility

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.

---

Having seen the comments made by Lukeno94 (talk · contribs · block user) at WP:DRN is one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL I've seen, and the editor refuses to change his ways from attacking editors to attacking the argument the editor(s) are making. While no one is censored from swearing, use of expletives and personal attacks directed at editors isn't something any editor should face, especially female editors.

• Lukeno94's failure to follow WP:CIVIL has been going on for awhile, "HiLo, I will speak exactly as I want, and given the pathetic nature of the majority of your posts ....." "..... just the pathetic way you're going about things", "Should we treat the utter bullshit that you, HiLo and Laura have spouted at times as being one voice as well?"
• His statement at DRN comments on "Laura and her tag-team"
• Fucking hell Laura, there's no consensus either way. Stop pushing your POV for once, and stick to the discussion...
• Trying to prevent LauraHale from responding his statement and PeeJaay's statement
• Makes a comment directed at HiLo, stating that they were "spouting pure rubbish".
• "Laura, when the hell are you going to get it through your skull ....."
• "Are you fucking kidding me? I refer to you as "Laura" because that is the first name ....."
• "Read what I wrote properly, or go away." "..... one editor who is too lazy/arrogant to even attempt to read what people write moaning about things won't change that."
• "If you're not going to bother reading that, then don't fucking bother replying with clear bullshit statements ....." "You're wasting everyone's time by being pretentious and deliberately misrepresenting what people say. Get a bloody life.", though "Get a bloody life" was removed with an edit summary "probably best not to leave that in there, although I think it still seems valid, given the trolling/attention seeking involved here"
• Then he suggested that an editor used drugs (not naming the editor who it was directed at nor quote the comment stated, since they have the right to have it oversight/revdel)
• I've since tried to get Lukeno94 to see what he has said at DRN has been out of line and to cease it but he admits that he has been uncivil and has tried to pass the buck, also stating he will continue.
• and he continues to make uncivil comments directed at editors. "You're as bad as Laura is ....." "Laura and yourself are too lazy or arrogant to actually read people's posts at all, or are just determined to misrepresent them."
• he has admitted that he'll continue to regardless of people's gender, race ect..

His failure to follow etiquette guidelines and the above listed behaviour is clearly such that is blockable, I hope that an Admin can get him to recognise that he needs to change his ways. Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first diffs relate to above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48_at_Talk:2014_Winter_Olympics and if nothing gets done in that situation, don't expect anything to be done here.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• As usual, Bidgee is misrepresenting pretty much everything. I was not the one who started being uncivil in the first place; that would be User:HiLo48. Yet you're not chastising people for attacking a LOT of people by refering to others as obsessed soccer nuts (the post that the very first diff was in response to), and pretty much every single thing User:Clavdia chauchat has said. People have been flat-out lying about things I have said/done, things such as this, which is very clearly an attempt to make me out as sexist. Equally, the above diffs by Bidgee also ignore the fact that pretty much everything I have said has been in response to clear POV-pushing, WP:IDHT behaviour, and pure misrepresentation of other people's posts. Have I overstepped the mark? Yes, that's fairly obvious. But I am sick to death of having several thousand tonnes of bullshit thrown at me, where everything I say is clearly being manipulated and misrepresented by people with agendas. And the ludicrous comments about things needing oversight or RevDel... again, go and look at what Clavdia wrote on Talk:Australia national association football team (things like [26], [27], [28]), and try telling me with a straight face that I'm the least civil party here. If people had stopped deliberately misrepresenting things I had said, flat out lying about me, and making absurd claims of sexism/chauvinism etc, I would've withdrawn from the conversation a long time ago. The fact I'm still an active party is due to the above things. Again, this doesn't excuse the excesses I've gone to, and a couple of times I've redacted parts of my comments; but I'm not the worst offender. And whether a user is a particular gender, race, colour, sexuality or whatever is irrelevant in a discussion; if you read what I write properly, post reasonable responses, then I will respond in a calm manner. If you post rubbish that is based on a pure misrepresentation of my post - is it any surprise that I get annoyed? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• As for the "trying to prevent Laura from responding", that is blatantly rubbish. As far as I am aware, those sections are ONLY for the opening statements by said users; discussion shouldn't be occurring in there. If I'm wrong, well, then I apologize for being unfamiliar with DRN, having only been there on a few occasions. I would note that no one reverted me, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think all that's needed here is for both parties to dial things back a bit and calm down. While some of the rhetoric has been unhelpful, I don't think there's need for admin action at this point. Some of the diffs listed above are kind of frivolous as well--there's nothing wrong with referring to a contributor by their first name. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I have to agree with Mark here, there really isn't anything actionable in this situation. It's hard to justify the block of one editor when there is general incivility all-around. I think it's time for everyone to take a break and have a nice cup of tea. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• It may not be action-worthy for the time, but hopefully this doesn't happen again. I do believe Admins (despite being editors just like us) have the responsibility of having a cool-head at all times, after all, their admins. and the same thing occured with another editor that was deemed action worthy. so to me, i dont see the difference between the two.Lucia Black (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from; I'm not an admin, and to the extent of my knowledge, HiLo, Laura and Clavdia aren't either. That said, there have been admins involved in the debate; but they've generally avoided the biggest confrontations (sensibly so). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

then all the more reason to remember this event in case it becomes a pattern.Lucia Black (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Both 'sides' need to calm down, and both 'sides' need to be civil. To defend Luke, users such as Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) have also been horrendously uncivil, with comments such as this, where she describes an entire WikiProject (which both Luke and myself are active members of), of being "chauvinistic and pathetic"; she also calls the Project a "circle jerk." That clearly violates WP:NPA#WHATIS, and how is that language and attitude helping anything or anybody? GiantSnowman 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Could Lukeno tone it down a little bit? Sure. But to say that it's one of the worst cases of violation of WP:CIVIL he's seen must mean he hasn't dealt with very much at all here on Wikipedia. Many, many editors are far worse than these difs. Like I said, he could use someone saying, "Hey, calm down a little", but certainly nothing actionable at this rate... Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not the worst, but its not "acceptable" behavior. that should be the only point. it's not actionable "for now". but we should definitely give fair warning to both sides.Lucia Black (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Comment from uninvolved editor) (Non-administrator comment) You can't exactly block Lukeno solely because they are swearing. Definitely block them if they are willfully disrupting Wikipedia. However, this doesn't seem like disruption at all—just a lack of self-control. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

lack of self-control can be just as disruptive. its not vandalism, but it doesn't move the discussion along in a nice way. its not actionable, and i think part of the problem is thinking exagerrating how over the top this is. its not the biggest thing in the world, but like i said, it shouldn't be acceptable. User Ryulong has been noted in the past. opinions on ANI shouldn't really vary so drastically.Lucia Black (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, what about comments from your friends that are also uncivil? Why don't you find issue with them? You are portraying this as if it is a one-sided issue when it is anything but. As I've already said, both parties need to tone it down. GiantSnowman 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

well, that'll tone things right down. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure she'll make a big stink over me saying it, but quite frankly, Lucia has made some very bad calls in the past in regards to deeming other peoples civility. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 3 December 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.

Achievement Hunter

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 closed the AfD as redirect and a user keeps reverting the redirection of the article. I undid his revert once and notified him on his talk page that this was not the proper way to contest an AfD closure and he reverted the redirection once more without replying. I adhere to a 1RR restriction and would appreciate a second set of eyes to make sure I am not perpetuating an edit war. Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On it. GiantSnowman 17:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't tend to do it much, so I could be wrong, but couldn't you just fully protect/salt it? Or do you see it as likely to be rightfully un-redirected someday? (I'm unfamiliar with whatever this subject is about...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a good close - nominated for deletion, supported by two other editors with no one making an argument to keep. I have deleted the old article, leaving nothing to revert to. That should squelch the problem. The objecting editor can still appeal to deletion review. bd2412 T 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Serge, I could've protected the redirect, but even though closing an AfD is technically a neutral thing (you're implementing the community's consensus and don't necessarily have an opinion yourself) and not a content dispute, I still consider it as involvement, and am uneasy protecting something I'm involved with to stop an edit war as that can easily be seen as protecting the right version (I can't find the essay/guideline that covers this topic right now). I know the close was good and my edit was right. I'm not sure deleting the previous revisions was the way to go (there's a reason the AfD result was to redirect, not delete & redirect), but I guess for now it's an appropriate solution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yeah, I've never done it myself, but I had thought that it was more of an extension, or enforcement, of closing the AFD, rather than a breach of INVOLVED. Your explanation makes sense too though. Anyone know which one is more commonly viewed as the way to handle it, for future reference? Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect. I think that's generally the best way to go about things when dealing with this kind of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 3 December 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.

Mass addition of unsourced content

50.74.57.218 (talk · contribs)

• To be precise, the user is adding information to dozens of biographies about artists' membership status in the National Academy of Design. This is useful information, but despite my raising concerns at the IP's talk page they have not attempted to add sources to their numerous edits. Mass delete, tag each edit, issue more warnings, or let the edits slide as uncontroversial? JNW (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It appears likely that the IP is using one source for all of these—some kind of list of membership of the NAD. It would be supremely useful if they could share what that reference is to allow editors to add a reference. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The list of all members of the National Academy of Design is here. You have to click on the appropriate letter to find each name. I randomly checked one of the IP's edits and Francis Chapin checks out [29]. I imagine all the rest do too. Voceditenore (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I think they'll all check out, and I've left a link to the Academy's listings at their talk page. It's immensely preferable that the account, who I presume is connected to the NAD, adds the cites, rather than leaving others to fill in dozens, and eventually hundreds of them. JNW (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Socking and inappropriate allegations

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.

---

• Stannyreed (talk · contribs)
• Sfosterreed (talk · contribs)

are obvious socks/meat puppet pushing seriously inappropriate allegations in the article Stanley Foster Reed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected, accounts blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 3 December 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 Zyzzzzzy

This user has been making vast amount of edits without any sort of discussion. He also does not appear to have grasp of Armenian language, which are in any case not common usage. Many of his edits are not align with WP:COMMONNAME, which is also used for foreign languages. He has made so many edits that its going to be hard to revert all of them. I suggest a block. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notify this user that their name has come up at ANI. Also, for reviewers: Zyzzzzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Proudbolsahye: Instead of a block, how about mass rollback? Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry; for editors with rollback enabled it would be easy to revert the edits. I have just rollbacked Zyzzzzzy's past 10 article space edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh my! Thanks so much! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Do you want any more of Zyzzzzzy's edits to be reverted? Additionally, consider applying for the rollback permission so that you can do this yourself next time it happens. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained previously, there are few exeptions in the Armenian language regarding some consonants following the letter Ր (R). Hence:

• Գ after Ր pronounced K and not G. (example: SARKIS/ՍԱՐԳԻՍ and not Sargis, GEVORK and not Gevorg)
• Դ after Ր pronounced T and not D. (example: VARTAN/ՎԱՐԴԱՆ and not Vardan)
• Բ after Ր pronounced P and not B. (example: SURP/ՍՈՒՐԲ and not Surb)

It is a matter of linguistics in the Eastern Armenian language (Հայերեն Լեզվի Հնչյունաբանություն). Please check ou this link Ուղղախոսություն և ուղղագրություն:

• 7.ա) Ր ձայնորդից հետո լսվող ք հնչյունը գրվում է գ տառով հետևյալ բառերում. երգ, թարգման, կարգ, մարգագետին, մարգարե, մարգարիտ, միրգ, պարգև, Մարգար, Սարգիս:

Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to also have issues with marking all edits as minor; I left them a note on their talk page but they haven't fixed it yet. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gryffindor

Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you.  Giano  09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again.  Giano  17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([30], [31]) and Giano ([32], [33]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling.  Giano  10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first.  Giano  10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look through both Giano's and Gryffindor's contribs for the last few days, and I can't find any smoking gun that points towards stalking or harassment. It does seem unlikely for Gryffindor to have been editing the same articles as Giano by chance, but then checking another user's contributions is not outlawed unless there is other inappropriate behaviour. From WP:HARASS: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't see anything particularly offensive here, and I haven't seen any evidence of repetition of this before this week. And Gryffindor has also been editing a lot of architectural articles, so there is nothing that unusual about seeing him editing in the general topic area. Giano: what makes you think that Gryffindor is "stalking [your] edits and trolling" rather than simply trying to improve the articles in question? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that he is suddenly editing architectural articles....now. Stalking me and wandering in off the street onto pages where he's never been seen before and adding infoboxes against consensus and then edit warring with them seems, to me, inappropriate behavior for an admin - especially when he has filled those infoboxes with erroneous facts. To me, the adding of erroneous facts is the worst possible behavior - he either does it deliberately to annoy or he just adds boxes without bothering to read the page - either way, it's pretty poor behavior for an admin. Furthermore, at the same time as he's arguing with me about infoboxes elsewhere, he suddenly makes four completely pointless edits here [34]. Anyhow don't bother too much, I always regard this page as a futile, but necessary stepping stone to taking the matter into one's own hands, which is always more effective.  Giano  08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions: first, is there a past history between you and Gryffindor? Some links to past discussions would help a lot in investigating whether this is a one-time thing or not. Second, could you point us to some of the claims that Gryffindor has inserted into articles that you think are erroneous? And third, are there any discussions where you have asked Gryffindor about any of these specific claims? I couldn't find any when I looked around, but it's possible I may have missed them. And finally, what do you mean by "taking matters into one's own hands"? That sounds vaguely threatening and has me worried, so I would appreciate some clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just tried searching the ANI archives for any past discussions involving both Giano and Gryffindor, but I drew a blank. If there is any past history here, it is not obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I suggest you address the questions to Gryffindor and ask him to explain his extraordinary behavior; he cannot be unaware that infoboxes are a controversial subject and that's when added without errors and with talk page consensus. I had previously never heard of him, and looking at his previous edits, there is no reason why I should have heard of him - I expect he was fulfilling some other person's agenda. Anyway, he seems to have learnt the error of his ways. Regarding "taking matters into one's own hands", well that is often the best method. Admins are hardly renowned for sorting each other out - are they?  Giano  12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• (Comment from uninvolved editor) @Mr. Stradivarius:, perhaps you should try wikistalk instead. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked your diff [35], snd I fail to see four pointless edits. I see some reduction in thumbnail sizes. His first entry seems to be an attempt to make the infobox shorter and more concise. The first edit also is removing an opinion (you can't really say for what reason motivated Shah of Persia to say that statement, you should only relay the statement itself). The second entry adds a description of what the picture is, an advert, and doesn't grossly change it. The third entry is slightly incorrect in that it states all those events occured in 1929 when actually they only finished in 1929 and had begun earlier. Sure you can dispute that. But why not limit that to the article's talk page? Seems an awful lot to be escalating and accusing of stalking. LilOwens (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• And where exactly did you spring from? This was your third edit since July... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's a well known Canadian sock - we all know who that is!  Giano  14:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm someone that just read the information he posted. Being somewhat of a lurker, who has read the rules back and forth, trying to get a handle on how things go here. I just thought someone without any attachments, to anyone or anything, could provide fresh eyes on the evidence presented. I'd like to know what Sock I am apparently supposed to be. I assure you I am someone who just wanted to become a contributor. Also, Luke I found this posted on your user page.Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. LilOwens (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How I wish I was such a fast learner.  Giano  08:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

69.14.97.53 learned nothing from his six months ban

User:69.14.97.53 came back, displaying the same behavior which got him a six months ban, see evidence of the ban at [36]. Objections to his behavior: he attacks other editors, calling them fascists for believing in historical criticism and does not understand the difference between subjective religious views and objective facts, as shown at [37] where he mentions that people will bow their knee to Jesus as if it were an objective fact and should therefore supersede Wikipedia's editorial standards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was ever intended for him to learn anything. If he were an account, he would be blocked indefinitely. Since his IP appears to be quite stable, I put a 2 year block on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of ban, merely a block. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Script Error in Templates

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121 § Script Error in Templates

Extended content

I was not sure where to post this, so I think the ANI is the best place. I noticed that Template:M1 year in topic suddenly has a script error. Judging by the templates it includes, the error seems, based on timing, to be the result of edits on Template:Navbar and Module:Navbar by Edokter (linked so she/he is aware, not because the report is about them). The Navbar pages are fully protected so I cannot edit them myself to see if they are indeed the source of the error. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) One of the greatest weaknesses of Lua modules, and something that Wikidata has to deal with all the time in its project namespace, is that if you have too many lua modules on one page, they stop loading after a while and you get that message. That might be what it is, but as I don't understand templates very well, it might be something else entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: This should be at WP:VPT. If you have scripting enabled in your browser (JavaScript, nothing to do with modules), when a "script error" occurs, you can click the red error message to see a popup box with details. You can select that text and copy it, to be pasted into a report at WP:VPT. @Sven Manguard: Ouch, I try to follow WP:VPT and have not seen any mention of a problem with modules (apart from the total runtime of 10 seconds per page, which is plenty). Is there a discussion about that somewhere? Has Anomie commented? Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) OK, I should have clicked the first link above (Template:M1 year in topic). I had assumed that it was the usage of that template somewhere that had a problem, but it is actually on the template page. The error text is: Lua error: Cannot pass circular reference to PHP. Backtrace: (none) A little digging shows the problem occurs when "{{#invoke:Year in other calendars|main}}" is previewed in a sandbox. Mr. Stradivarius may be able to throw some light on the matter, which is possibly in Module:Year in other calendars or one of the modules it calls. This section should be closed, with further discussion elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

94.189.150.5

User:94.189.150.5‎, previously User:94.189.148.237‎ and User:94.189.140.186‎ keeps adding incorrect information about cover versions of songs, for example here and here, but also on other pages. I warned the user once before, and again a couple of days ago, and I also noticed there are multiple warnings from other editors on the user's talk pages. --V111P (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinosceptic userboxes

Can someone deal with this please. Formerip (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I allowed myself one BOLD revert, on the grounds that this user is not being very community-minded by making a good portion of that page be about "sinoscepticism." Also, you should tell the user that their name has come up here, as is required. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I found two user boxes related to this: Template:HK Sinosceptic and Template:Hard-core Sinosceptic. I've marked the second one as WP:CSD#G10 because it mentioned annihilating a culture and a state. If I was incorrect in assuming it fits G10, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The image he was using has been zapped from Commons (by myself) because COM:PS (project scope) clearly states that "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are outside of out of Commons' scope. Fifteen templates and the uploader's userpage link to the (now missing) image. There was a 16th, but it got CSD G10'ed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether File:UpsideDown-China Flag.png should also be deleted as out of project scope, considering it's only being used for criticism of the PRC. But that's probably a bit more a border case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had second thoughts about creating that inflammatory and 'CSD G10-ed' template and I'm glad that it's been deleted before I've requested so. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

user Sopher99

Resolved

User Sopher99broke the rule 1RR here:Template: Syrian civil war detailed map

evidence broke the rule 1RR:

1. [38] (13:45, 4 December)
2. [39] (13:47, 4 December) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.193.238 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I only see one revert of each edit here. 1 revert of 2 different edits doesn't violate the 1RR --Mdann52talk to me! 15:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it does - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." 1RR just replaces "three reverts" with "one revert". —Darkwind (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of changes and you'll see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

1. 13:45, 4 December 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (164,690 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 584500129 by Ariskar (talk) I gave sources for both. Their failure to update the damascus offensive article is your problem)
2. 13:47, 4 December 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (164,690 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Undid revision 584446097 by HCPUNXKID

And this is a two revert. 95.134.193.238 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This has already been handled at WP:ANEW. —Darkwind (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by new user

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

Wikitout has been editing disruptively since he first started editing on 30 November. Attempts to engage this editor in discussion on his talk page or article talk pages have been fruitless. He first started editing at Stockton Beach, adding a considerable amount of original research, removing cited content in the process.[40]After I reverted that he restored the changes, adding even more OR in the process.[41] A second reversion had little effect. He made a series of edits adding even more OR.[42] As attempts to engage him in discussion proved pointless. I requested page protection but this was denied as the admin assumed it was edit-warring and discussion on the admin's talk page wasn't helpful. About the only suggestion to come out of that was to revert the user again,[43] which I was loathe to do.[44] I had been tagging the OR but eventually I did revert, explaining each change for the benefit of Wikitout,[45] and only after I had explained why I was going to revert.[46] During this time, Wikitout had made inappropriate edits at another article. This one, with the edit summary "Look out the window dopey" was clearly wrong. I drove past the 70 m (230 ft) high, 600kW wind turbine yesterday and it was still generating power. He has since made other inappropriate edits, such as this, but he seems insistent on removing content supported by citations at Stockton Beach. He seems to think of himself as a history expert of some sort,[47] and his excuse for not involving himself in discussion is that he doesn't know how to,[48] but he clearly knows how to edit and post edit summaries, so I have more than a little trouble believing this. Based on his summaries and the content he is removing he seems unable to follow citations, or doesn't want to, even though I have explained this to him.[49] As a result of the numerous warnings that I've had to place on his talk page, his persistent disruptive edits and unwillingness to engage in talk page discussions I reported him to AIV but the report was rejected with the reason "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:AN/I".[50] I resisted but the four edits that Wikitout has made since then makes it clear that some action is needed. Wikitout simply doesn't seem to want to learn how to edit, or to abide by our policies and guidelines and he's just going to persistently be disruptive at Stockton Beach until some action is taken. Wikitout has now started editing as an IP, making the same edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And the edit summaries have devolved into outright trolling. Perhaps the user will want to learn more about hitting the "edit" button on his talk page if that's the only page he can access ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've given him the choice between discussion or a block. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether to revert this or not. The edit summary is more than ironic "The answer is obvious madmaxmovies.com. Are going to disagree with mad max fans from around the world". Madmaxmovies.com is a fan owned site and therefore non-RS. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

no matter, somebody else did. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite Dougweller's warning, he seems to have no interest in discussing anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And blocked with a clear statement of the conditions required for being unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics

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.

---

HiLo48 is engaged in an incivil behavior at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics#The most expensive games in history. They may have a point, but instead of discussing it in a civil manner they resorted to personal attacks, talking about my and other editor's English skills and making up some phantasies about my political views. Whereas I am prepared to discuss the issue, I am not prepared to discuss it in this manner. Note also edit summaries like WTF. I vaguely remember having some problems with the civility of this user in the past, but frankly not a single detail. I posted yesterday morning ate the Editor Assistance requests, this unfortunately did not attract any interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have two comments to make. Firstly, I draw everyone's attention to my use of the word "almost" right at the end of this post. I do this because Ymblanter then posted as if I hadn't used the word (after extensively refactoring my comments), and ignored my pointing out that I had used it, and has continued to post attacks on me as if I hadn't used the word, right up to this very time. Secondly, I have been and am still confused by several of the posts made by some editors in that thread. As I politely suggested, this may be at least partly because they are being made by editors who are not expert at using English. I explicitly said "That's not a criticism on its own", but [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter}} described it as a personal attack. I'm sorry, but at this point I give up. Am to be condemned for being ignored and confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks by Hilo, and Ymblanter brought up Putin first anyway. I also had trouble following some of the conversation due to the broken English. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you are way out of line here. HiLo has not done or said anything in the discussion on the nominated talk page that warrants any sort of administrative sanction. I very strongly recommend you review your own words on that page, which have been far from flawless. Your post immediately above this is almost entirely non-sequitur to this AN/I thread - it is full of self praise, but says little gremain to the point. With all due respect, if you have difficulty understanding and using everyday English as seems to be the case here, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you really do want to edit the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was closed by me up to this point, I now reopened it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that HiLo's behaviour in the thread was appropriate and am posting some remarks on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo made some comments that were unnecessary, but nothing blockable. For Ymb, it is unfortunate that what seems to be a minor language barrier led to this. Both these editors could've handled this better, and ANI should not have been needed. But the result is ludicrous... instead finding a resolution, all ESL and Nick Thorne seemed to have accomplished is to chase away a valuable editor - an admin with 0 block history and ≈32,000 edits in 2 years, 85% of which are article. This should've gone thru some of the other WP:DR resources available here. I certainly hope that Ymblanter does not leave the project. - ^theWOLFchild 20:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not planning at the moment, but I unwatched the page. For the record, I did not request a block, and I am pretty fine with what Diannaa did (assuming this is going to be learned).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is calling me a "fool" also fine? Or may be my English skills are so bad that I misunderstand the meaning? Or may be this is not about me, and I am unable to comprehend?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well.... What part of "No further edits should be made to this discussion." do you people not understand. (I apologise for failing to follow that instruction just this once myself, but surely it means something?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo." - @Calton:

- And this comment is helpful... how? - ^theWOLFchild 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole notice is "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." It refers to the hatted discussion above. It may (and sometimes does) continue below the hatted block. Nobody has as yet modified the above discussion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree HiLo has been out of order. I'm surprised no one has taken it seriously. His comments have been rude and unconstructive. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would you be surprised that certain people in the community are all too willing to give a pass on certain behaviour to a certain class of user?I'd say it's par for the course here. The comments were entirely out of line, and his reaction to furthering discussion here illustrates that even further.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This might provide some interesting, but likely to be ignored context:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#HiLo48_civility
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal_Attacks_by_HiLo48_against_Collingwood26 with a great quote 'HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it.'
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Trayvon_Martin_Poll
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48 which has a really detailed list of past issues up to the point of filing that and seems to only have been closed because the user was blocked. Draw the conclusions that you will but it's pretty obvious what's going on here--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We address HiLo's rather minor comments as not serious because we presume that we're all adults here who can handle vigorous debate. This whole attempt to grab some isolated edit and turn it into a federal case is just stupid. Maybe you should grow some fucking skin. And I think HiLo will be the first to point out that we don't see eye to eye... but I really hate this "got ya" mentality. This thread in particular is especially dumb... there's nothing a problem here. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"...because we presume that we're all adults here who can handle vigorous debate." - Unfortunately... No. - ^theWOLFchild 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how civility is a non-issue. Especially since HiLo has already demonstrated that their language problems are in fact stronger than my alleged problems - they clearly have difficulties understanding native English speakers.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, {{cn}}? That's not a cool thing to say, Ymblanter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

At their talk page, as a consequence of this thread, they run into difficulties with a number of editors in good standing who tried to ask them to remain civil. I am still waiting for the answer to my question whether it is a perfectly acceptable thing to call me a "fool". Writ Keeper, what is your answer to this question?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a question: do two wrongs make a right? Or another: as admins, isn't it our job to take the high road, even in the face of what we perceive to be abuse? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as you see from this thread, I shut up and did not make any statements on the issue since November 30. Even though I found unfounded speculations that I do not understand English highly offensive. However, today I got one more comment, now saying that I started a "dumb thread", and that we should forget about civility. Fine, I am unwatching ANI, frankly I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes calling anyone anything is not good, but the community has, again and again, shown itself unable or unwilling to deal with long-term editors who engage in un-civil behavior - for shame, I say. GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - @Ymblanter: - As you are the one that 'closed' this discussion, might I suggest you 'un-close' it, as it is clearly not finished yet. - ^theWOLFchild 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a discussion about me been (re-)opened at AN/I? Is anyone going to officially tell me about it? Exactly what is the issue? Does anyone here actually care about policy? And can we get consensus to fully define civility in a way that doesn't simply involve what some people think are naughty words? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And can someone close down this nonsense forever please? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here; may I ask what admin action is being requested since the thread has been reopened?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, as far as I can tell; I would re-close teh thread had I not contributed to it above (which I now regret, since I see that it was pointless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 4 December 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.

Impersonator account

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.

---

Jrpr1966 (talk · contribs) is an impersonator account of Jprg1966 (talk · contribs) and is causing mischief. MRSC (talk) 08:13, 5 December 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:Blackberry Sorbet

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.

---

Abusive language. Initial attacked as per this diff - [51] Followed up with deliberate emphasis - [52] - Bhtpbank (talk) 14:55, 5 December 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.

IP removing content with no consensus nor discussion

Diffs of the same content being removed by 205.131.188.5 multiple times in the last few days:

• [53], 29 Nov
• [54], 3 Dec
• [55], 3 Dec
• [56], 3 Dec
• [57], 3 Dec
• [58], 3 Dec
• [59], 4 Dec

On 3 Dec the IP violated 3RR. The IP was warned not to remove content anymore without consensus prior to their last removal. A discussion was opened by another editor to which they never contributed. A block would be appropriate at this point I believe. Gaba ^(talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Truss Bridge

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 want some feedback. I was looking over the article Truss Bridge and when I got to the revision history, I saw almost every edit was either vandalism or a undo of the vandalism. I think that we should semi-protect it so people can work on more important things other than taking their time to revert some stupid spam. What do you all think. Should it be semi-protected? Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that you report this to WP:RPP instead? Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 5 December 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:Associationfootballfan1

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.

---

Making hundreds of tiny changes to user page for no apparent reason; I have asked the user to explain the reasons for this and how it relates to Wikipedia but my requests have simply been removed from the talk page with no explanation. User:Manchesterunitedchampions1/sandbox was used for the same purpose and with the same response to my enquiries. . . Mean as custard

Stop Press: I am now receiving threatening messages on my talk page from User:AdamleoHandsomeguy in relation to this. . . Mean as custard (talk)

Another sockpuppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Associationfootballfan1, User:Manchesterunitedchampions1, User:AdamleoHandsomeguy and User:Jamesbond088 blocked indef, User talk:Mean as custard semi'd for three hours (though less than that now). Though, before I saw this thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 6 December 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.

Regarding Country Club Plaza

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

---

See: [60] Recently someone listed people who "flipped the switch" at an annual televised event called the Plaza Lighting Ceremony. I came across the section and connected the contributions to related articles and made some fixes (removing unnecessary statements about the individuals for instance). Someone then reverted it twice without a consensus or proper dispute resolution. Then someone else came along and claims it looks spammy even though reliable sources are given and the same content is included in other articles. To avoid retyping everything, if someone could actually read the talk page, edit summaries and sources to see that the people mentioned in the article are not to promote them but to simply state their involvement in the event, i'd appreciate it. I have tried to concede and cooperate in improving it but two other editors (one claiming to have been following me and another falsely stating it's "coat racking"), keep removing it and giving 20-25 minutes to alter it in one case as if this site is my priority. The statement is about some attendees (not all celebrities) who were invited to turn on the lights over the years. It's being challenged with very weak arguments/reasons and I just need someone unrelated to the article, unbiased, without a conflict of interest or without having a clouded judgment, to assist with a proper resolution. It's not even about what is included so much, it's more about how two users have not treated two IP user's contributions with respect and not followed policy. If this type of thing is allowed then nothing will improve on Wikipedia. Consensus, dispute resolution and reverts must be properly handled, or you will continue to see good faith editors becoming "violators" when in reality the culprits are those being disruptive and vandalizing with poor excuses of policy (which is not the case here). Please take time to view the article, cites, edit summaries and talk page regarding the Plaza Lights. The content should be left until there's a resolution and consensus. This is very frustrating that users are getting away with reverting reliable/verifiable content. Thanks! P.s. I may be an IP user but I know what i'm doing, and even if I was a new user, which i'm not (nor have I had any issues until now), this does not give anyone the right to avoid/disregard policies. The quick fix is not to agree and remove it, it's to make people accountable for their poor actions, not enable them to continue this behavior. The disrespect is what is upsetting me the most, it's counterproductive. And the info on the article is fine, and with the images, were mistakenly removed. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Users involved: [61], [62] & [63] (same user), [64] and [65] (original editor) 74.62.92.20 (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Similar examples (without any conflicts) already mentioned on the talk page (I could provide many more): The Arsenio Hall Show (episodes) and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (performers) articles or game show articles that list winners/years. Intros of articles that list albums or movies with years in a "listed" sentence are allowed, as the Plaza Light attendees should be as well since the guests pertain to the topic/event and is brief. It's a televised event/production, like a show or film article that has guests or participants mentioned. Additional examples, including the parade which does the same thing (not to mention many articles that list "in pop culture" or "in media" with a sentence or list of individuals and years) are: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] It is NOT "spammy" nor a "coat rack" violation. 74.62.92.20 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed contribution (originally listed): Over the years, some notable guests/hosts/presenters who have been invited to switch on the lights at the televised event (many living in or originally from the Kansas City metropolitan area) have included: Rob Riggle (2013),[72] Matt Besler, Kei Kamara and Jimmy Nielsen of Sporting Kansas City (2012),[73] Eric Stonestreet (2011),[74] Thomas Jones and Jamaal Charles of the Kansas City Chiefs (2010), Jason Sudeikis (2009), David Cook (2008),[75] members of the armed forces (2007), Bobby Bell, Willie Lanier and Clark Hunt (2006), Dick Vermeil (2005), Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse (2004), Kate Spade (2003), Trent Green (2002), Tony Gonzalez (2001), Maurice Greene (2000), George Brett (in 1977 and 1999), Paul Rudd (1998), Marcus Allen (1997), Buck O’Neil (1996), Roy Williams (1995), Derrick Thomas (1994), Oleta Adams (1991), Lee Greenwood (1990), Dee Wallace (1989), Nicolette Larson (1983), Walter Cronkite, Tom Watson and William Christopher, among others.[76][77] 74.62.92.20 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little curious why are u attempting to resolve a Content dispute here rather then a request for comment or DR/n? -Hell in a Bucket 14.0.143.85 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm now back at my own pc, I'd like to address a statement that this editor has never had issues until now as a blatant lie. This user has indeed had problems with at least 2 ips to my knowledge, I'd suggest reviewing [[78]] and [[79]] the Ip's contribs along with [[80]] showing the [same locations] and edit style continuing conflicts. I have explained why here [[81]]including acknowledging that the edit was not problematic or his response but that I merely disagreed with the content. I keep any editor that has had problems socking/attacks/and otherwise disruptive behavior on my watchlist and in this case several articles. I want people to be able to see what kind of actions we are dealing with before making a jump to conclusions about the issue. That being said this issue does not need administrator attention, I self reverted via an IP and [him to fix the sourcing and formating] and his responses included

• Was about to make more adjustments but if 20 minutes isn't enough time for you then it's clear your motive is to behave as a juvenile.
• I could care less, you are what is wrong with Wikipedia. (afterwhich he came and wrote a wall of text here.) [[82]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just another example of the aggressive manner used by IP:74 to get the things the way he/she likes it. A yearly ceremony to "flip the switch" of the Christmas lighting is nothing more than a cute marketing and promo moment. Encyclopaedic value is zero. The Banner talk 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I can't completely agree with your view on that one, I think that the IP editor has a problem when dealing with frustration and a slight bit of a persecution complex but when absent anything that bothers them they can do decent work on the pedia, it's once they get bothered and the over-reactions start that the editing then becomes a problem. I think that the original IP added the information because they wanted to promote the event a little (nothing wrong with that as long as done appropriately) but the material isn't clear how these were notable events other then a celebrity turned on the lights. I think that the statement in the article that says celebrities are used often to do this is ok, but unless the event itself was notable we don't need a random listing of who attended. It strikes me as spammy, and trivia-ish. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 6 December 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:Charleseddy@gmail.com

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 welcomed this new user, but judging the username it is an Email address. Email addresses were screened out beginning late 2006. I'd assume that the block on using the "@" character is now lifted. The user wrote a good article, so I don't think forcing a name change is necessary. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 11:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not a new user. They may not have edited much but the account was created on 19 March 2006 and their first edit 23 May 2006, hence they're grandfathered in and this user name is allowable. Dpmuk (talk) 12:22, 6 December 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 Eric Corbett

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.

---

Re: [83]. Is it time to retire either WP:CIVIL or Eric Corbett, because there just doesn't seem space for both of them on WP.

In particular, are other editors in general now permitted to use similar "non-parliamentary language" when referring to other editors in disputes? Or when referring reciprocally to Eric? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Either WP:CIVIL or Eric Corbett -- a false dichotomy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like more baiting of Eric again, this thread. At least that's how it's probably going to get spun. Doc talk 09:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Baiting or not, most editors would be admonished or blocked for using such terms (and rightly so, that's how we're constituted). Why does Eric get a free pass?

As a separate, although related, issue if anyone is baiting Eric (I haven't read the details, but I know how common this is) then that deserves a response too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an ill-judged drama switch. That language is but a symptom and in isolation represents a flea bite compared with the wider problems associated with the behaviour of various editors who are drawn to Eric's talk page as soon as certain trigger words appear in the edit summary. No Admin. is going to deal with this matter and all this serves to do is create a bigger audience to draw up their seats and munch on their popcorn Leaky Caldron 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC).

You can still get anaemia from enough fleas. WP:CIVIL is what keeps this place from turning into Usenet and I resent Eric's erosion of that. Not because I care about him using such terms towards me, and I have little enough to deal with him anyway, but because WP:CIVIL is worth keeping (see Usenet). If we establish that referring to other editors in such a way is acceptable, then we move closer to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You and I have had some strong disagreements in the past, Andy, but I fully agree with you on this. — Scott • talk 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you are failing to deal with the matter honestly. This has nothing to do with Eric referring to some group of un-named people as stupid cunts. Leaky Caldron 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"How many of you stupid cunts are there?" The "un-named" part, along with the "you"? Heh! Perhaps you are not seeing it in an "honest" manner, and rather making excuses. But this really, really is a waste of time. Doc talk 10:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this is about Eric's use of language, nothing more. That is an issue that has gone on for longer than today, involving many more editors. If you would like a thread about Eric being baited (I haven't read that background, but I can easily credit that it has been happening), then I would suggest starting a separate thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is naïve to believe that any action will be taken on the narrow subject of Eric's use of particular words. Leaky Caldron 10:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer "hopelessly optimistic", but I wouldn't disagree with your overall point. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"I think it's naïve to believe that anyone would think that anything you have to say is worth a shite." It's a pretty good imitation, you gotta admit... ;> Doc talk 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My closing of an unblock request with "no unblock" from Eric last July caused a serious backlash from many of his supporters. Having observed the issue for several months, it is my belief that the community is unwilling to resolve this issue. One other example, a few days back, Eric speculated that an administrator was getting "aroused" from using the block button [84], he reverted the arbitrator who redacted that statement [85], and called the second arbitrator who redacted it "a complete arse" [86]. The diff in the OP is a clear personal attack. Yet lots of editors here, including several well-respected administrators, think all this behavior is perfectly appropriate reaction to "baiting"; they are acting with the best of intentions because they rightly value the encyclopedic contributions of Eric, but in truth I think they are enabling rather than helping. It is clear that the community is unable to resolve this, and the hostile environment is costing us. We just lost Khazar2 who grew fed up with it. I strongly suggest taking this back to ArbCom, Eric was previously admonished for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct", and if that has any meaning, ArbCom should review if Eric has heeded that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Eric speculated that an administrator was getting "aroused" from using the block button " As with so many issues, I find myself in total agreement with Eric (I'm just surprised Commons doesn't yet have galleries of such). However I remember that I'm not allowed to write that here, so I don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These are invalid arguments. First about "aroused". My American Heritage Dictionary says: "1. To awaken from as if from sleep. 2. To stir up; excite; aroused her curiosity." And that's it. (Are you implying a sexual connotation? I don't see it in my dictionary. On the otherhand, a notorious troll told me once that he expected I was "giving [myself] a hard-on right now [...]" and when I complained to an ADMINISTRATOR about the sex-laden insult, I was told that the comment needn't be interpreted in a sexual context, yada yada yada. [Are you shocked if I see some measure of inconsistency and special application in all of this??]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do remember the discussion I had with you on my talkpage some time back regarding use of the word "anal" (it may or may not be the one you are referring to). I think this is in a different league, mostly because the sheer amount and frequency of invective is much greater in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The "hard-on" comment didn't involve you. (It occurred on Talk:List of Internet chess servers.) Back to American Heritage Dictionary: "Anus: 1. Of or near the anus. 2. Relating to the second state of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory." (However are either of those defs not a personal attack against Toccata quarta??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is some logic in bringing this back to the ArbCom again since he’s previously been admonished for incivility and there have been multiple blocks/ANI reports against EC related to incivility complaints since then . It might be helpful for the community to see ArbCom’s evaluation of what has happened and their thinking about a way forward. I am not sure if it’s within in mandate of the ArbCom, but a possible solution might be a kind of civility restriction on Eric Corbett with all complaints going directly to the Arbitratration Enforcements board. People who filed frivolous complaints would in such cases risk a boomerang. ANI doesn’t seem to be able to handle this; neither do administrators, since they themselves are hugely divided over the issue. Regards,Iselilja (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, but with the ongoing election, this might not be the best time to start a massive ArbCom case. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block. This is not just about the use of certain words, this is about the use of these words directed at particular editors. Eric Corbett has used this language repeatedly, and it constitutes a clear and unrepentant breach of WP:CIVIL. StAnselm (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block Call me naïve then, Leaky, but while I have a sneaking admiration for some of the stuff this guy says, I also agree with Andy that the insult goes over the line, in my view as gratuitously and distastefully sexist. Women especially find this term used as a pejorative highly offensive. We are trying to make Wikipedia female-friendly, and as Andy points out, we cannot allow this to be established as OK terminology. Additionally, I just looked at the block log, shaking my head. WP:CIVIL is a tricky policy, but given the history on the current and the previous account, this is pretty clear cut. Indef him to prevent further damage. Admins are elected to make tough calls... anyone home? Jusdafax 10:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Eric's been warned in the past not to use this specific term, and lame excuses were made that the "c" word means something different in his culture. Clearly it is a hugely offensive term, and he continues to toss it around whenever he wants to. It's actually quite embarrassing to the project that an editor of his stature cannot be more restrained with his potty mouth. Doc talk 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Clearly it is a hugely offensive term. Wrong. (*Terms* are in themselves neither offensive or defensive. [Let alone "hugely".] All depends on the intent behind the term usage. [Sorry, but to me this is basic education.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  If you claim to not understand that addressing another editor as a "cunt" is extremely offensive, then you are demonstrating some serious naïvety. Doc talk 11:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What's seriously naïve is thinking you're doing something regarding incivility by a blind enforcement of an arbitrary list of "bad words". (The tech guys can write a BOT for that, and you can supply the lookup table of "forbidden words" -- how's that!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't doubt that it is offensive to many. I was pointing out that the OP bringing a narrow case based on offensive language is unlikely to provoke anything more than further drama (which it already has). If an Admin. acted upon it, knowing the background, it would be swiftly reversed. A recommendation to take action via RFC/U is likely all that will come from Arbcom. Leaky Caldron 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You saw my first post in the thread, right? We agree with each other in the futility of another AN/I block/unblock show. If he keeps calling editors the "c" word, shit's gonna take care of it for him, trust me. Politics... Doc talk 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The time is now: enough is enough. Indef block and start a ban discussion with strict instructions not to unblock. This cannot and will not go on. Jusdafax 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It can, and it will, go on. This thread will achieve nothing, as countless threads before have achieved nothing. Again, it's politics. Doc talk 11:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Is it technically feasible to make Eric Corbett's user and associated talk page unwatchable? Other than that, resolution of this interminable issue requires the creation of an actual structure of governance in WP. This focus on one individual, rather than underlying structural deficiencies, offers no workable solutions and is, in fact, a major part of the problem. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not feasible to do that. The structure of governance is already in place, yet not in place. Now fuck off ;> Doc talk 12:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh, what happened to Eric retiring? GiantSnowman 12:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block. This is pretty straightforward, considering the block log of this editor, and the fact that incivility seems to be the preferred form of communication for them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Aren't blocks meant to be preventative? Has anybody ever been forced to come to my talk page and insult me, or forced to put my talk page on their watch list? Eric Corbett 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The argument that you are baited into incivility on your talk page is tired, unfounded, and actually a bit sad . You call people "cunts" in other venues besides your talk page, now don't you? Or is it only there, and only after people come there to harass you? What a crock. Clean up your mouth and you'll avoid these problems. Doc talk 13:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  There is ample evidence that Eric's page is frequented by baiters and trolls. There is also ample evidence that his page is frequented by, as Eric would put it, sycophants. I'm sure Eric would like to be rid of them too. So as a first step, fully protect his talk page. Leaky Caldron 13:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What's "tired, unfounded, and actually a bit sad" is this notion that WP:CIV is anything other than a weapon to beat others over the head with, and that it never applies to you. Eric Corbett 14:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It applies to everyone, everywhere. You'll whine on about the legendary "sycophant" block and yet feel justified in dismissing others in far worse terms. Why? Stop being a name-caller when you get angry. You're better than that, don't you know? If you think you're going to get free license to call other editors the "c" word, I suggest you re-think it. Doc talk 14:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The historical evidence does not support your assertion and I don't see any Admins (them what can actually take action rather than just talking about it) rushing to do as you and several others suggest. Alternatives need to be found. Start with preventing access to Eric's page and then, as he says, he'll not have to contend with people coming to his talk page and insulting him. Leaky Caldron 14:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? He doesn't want his talk page protected, Leaky. And: we don't protect talk pages from only those that disagree with us. It's really not feasible. Anyway, the vast majority of his talk page frequenters are not those that disagree with him, but rather the opposite. I've never said I wanted him blocked at all. I want him to stop acting like a name-calling jerk. Doc talk 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't give a toss what he wants. It solves the problem that Eric has identified - trolls abusing him on his talk page. It will also prevent the numerous sycophants who are attracted there like a magnet, thus reinforcing the cycle. You don't seriously think that because you want him to stop acting in a particular way that he's going to do as you say do you? Leaky Caldron 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is not trolls abusing Eric on his talk page. Were that the case, this probably wouldn't be here for the ten gazillionth time. Doc talk 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• While wish I understood why Eric thinks it's a good idea to call people cunts and/or stupid regardless of whether or not they are, and while I frankly furiously wish that he'd stop doing it (while I don't want to rule out the possibility, the likelyhood that once I understand why he thinks it is a good idea, I will at that point agree with it is slim to none) I don't think it's a good idea to block over it either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me directness, as you are the first Admin. to turn up here, but that just sounds like you're covering all possible bases while intent on doing nothing. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

He needs to choose his terminology a lot more carefully. He's better off sticking with "idiot" - or really not using any name at all. This isn't about antiquated Victorian-era sensibilities. It's a serious "no-no" term in our politically correct world, and if you and he don't believe me, just keep throwing it about. Doc talk 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That analysis is pretty much correct. I don't support a block. By just stating that I could have given the impression that I think the behviour is ok. I don't think it is, so I added that in. You say it like you think that's a bad thing which I don't really agree with. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on the content, not the editor, I think it is an incomplete analysis, one designed to provide presence in the discussion but in an utterly non-committal fashion. As such it is vacuous and disappointing for an Admin. selected by the community to turn up at significant discussions and say, in effect, there is no way of addressing whatever the issue is. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of us realize the truth of the matter. Eric is categorically incapable of behaving like a mature adult, but his editing record is such that enough people are willing to make any excuse under the sun to justify his continued presence here. The community is hamstrung by his enablers while Arbcom prefers to bury its collective head in the sand so there really is nothing that can be done. Simply put, he goes out of his way to be as offensive as possible because he knows anybody willing to toss him out on his ass will get overrun by his cadre of hangers-on. Resolute 15:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn. Maybe you should be de-sysopped for such a statement. For going against the grain, of course. Doc talk 15:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - This is AWESOME. Thanks to all, especially Eric. Really, this is a wonderful dose of perspective. - ^theWOLFchild 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are we really at ANI again over Eric using the phrase "stupid cunts" on his own talk page? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do? Someone should close this topic as nothing will be accomplished.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• The reason this has become a constant problem is because so many people have chosen to ignore it. Now that Eric is driving off a heavily active contributor in Khazar2, don't you think maybe it's time to acknowledge the problem? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block There's no excuse of this. Block can be lifted if EC agrees to abide by WP:CIVIL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Deal with it. The point of our incivility policy is not to protect everyone's feelings, nor is it to protect users from being sworn at. The incivility policy exists to prevent incivil behavior from having a chilling effect on participation in a dispute. It's not to be used as a weapon to escalate a dispute, even an intractably stalled dispute, to forcibly silence an opposing party. The chilling effect that would result from such application, especially in light of the fact that the conduct that led to the action under the incivility policy itself had no chilling effect to be curtailed, is unacceptable. This is not an endorsement of EC's conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's the "civility" policy, not the "incivility" policy. At least that's what it's called for now. I've thought about falling on my sword and calling editors names to see what would happen, but then I realize it's just not necessary. But I do reserve the right to call any of you a cunt in the future, and I will link this discussion as my justification should I be blocked for it. Doc talk 15:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Not responsive to my point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Eric's approach to someone who disagrees with him is often to attack that person's intelligence, call them nasty names and accuse them of being dishonest. How is that not creating a chilling effect? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Referring to this specific incident, his use of swearing caused an escalation to ANI. That's almost by definition the absence of a chilling effect on the other party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  This specific incident is not the only problem. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Start a RfC/U or take it to arbitration. ANI is an inappropriate venue for something that complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Yep. So we'll continue to use the incivility policy as a weapon to escalate disputes in order to forcibly silence opposing parties. Sounds great. Doc talk 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Frankly, I see that behavior itself as violative of WP:CIVIL, and far more meriting of administrator intervention than swearing at another editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Alrighty then. Perhaps an immediate block of me to prevent... dissenting viewpoints in the discussion? I'm not going to call you any names, though. Doc talk 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  As it is a policy that has to do with civility decorum (it is rather emphatic in its instruction: eg. 'comment on this, not this') in line with WP:Terms of use, it is rationally going to have an element of "don't breach decorum," even, "don't regularly breach decorum." Every breach of policy (it matters little which one) carries a potential role out of consequences, sometimes those consequences are realized, sometimes they are not but when they are, it's not like it can honestly surprise anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block This clear personal attack is an obvious example of how Eric lashes out against anyone trying to criticize him, then hastily retreats under the guise of "baiting". It's time for Eric to face the music, the community is tired of his constant disruption, blatant disregard of our pillars and abuse of policy. No excuses. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You're living in dream land. You have never seen me hastily retreating under any guise, and you never will. Eric Corbett 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You hide behind "baiting" claims when your crew levies them, and you call for the head of every admin that blocks you. I think you don't even understand how many people are familiar with your behavior. Doc talk 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Why do you persist with such easily disprovable lies? As for what I do or doin't understand, it would be wiser of you to forgo speculation and stick to what you know. Eric Corbett 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So, I'm not just mistaken: I'm plain outright lying? Just kind of making it up as I go along, yes? Cool. Doc talk 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  That's about the size of it, yes. Eric Corbett 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So you will deny that your crew levies baiting claims (see below) and that you call for the head of every admin that blocks you? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  From memory I think the last admin who blocked me was user:Worm That Turned. Where did you see me calling for his or her head? Eric Corbett 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, so you didn't do it once. That doesn't excuse all the other times. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So basically what you said was a lie, based on your prejudices. Eric Corbett 18:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think something needs to be done here. Letting issues like this carry on for years has the effect of making editors disillusioned with our community processes, something which I see plenty of evidence of above. If we want our community to function effectively we need disputes to be resolved, rather than perpetuated. Ideally we would resolve this particular dispute by helping Khazar2 and Eric see eye-to-eye, and also by helping them both to follow our behavioural policies. Unfortunately, Eric's history makes me worried that this won't be effective. If I have been following this correctly (and Eric, please correct me if I am wrong), Eric has ruled out the possibility that he will change his behaviour if similar things happen in the future. If Eric isn't willing to change his behaviour, then the only way I can think of to resolve the long-term issues here is by a block or a ban. Although if anyone can think of a way to avoid this situation being perpetuated that doesn't involve a block or a ban, then I'm all ears. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This recent ANI discussion [87] was closed when a sitting Arbitrator User:Worm That Turned said they would work on an RFC/U with Admin User:Fram. Result - No action. Leaky Caldron 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Can those supporting an indef block (that will probably last ca. 24 hours) please sort out a subpage or something defining the words/phrases that they consider must never be written (except when quoting a source). Would someone be blocked, for example, for calling another a cupid stunt? If not, why not? - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Most people, besides Eric, would probably be blocked for the remark that led to this thread. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Your attempt at moving the goalposts is cute. We're really not talking about the use of a bad word in isolation. We are talking about a lenghty, multi-year history of disruptive behaviour. Resolute 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, I could consider your assumption that I am attempting to move the goalposts to be incivil. It is a genuine request based on evidence of some clearly different standards. For example, I've called things "bollocks" before now and I left the odd "wtf" and I think even once a "fuck off". Where is the line? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is not the profanity, it's the (repeated) personal attacks. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block the situation is not improving and we are just going to keep coming back here over and over and over. In spite of the fact that Eric's friends like to portray him as the victim, it's not acceptable for him to feel so comfortable lashing out at anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. This remark to Khazar2 illustrates the arrogant attitude he likes to dish out. Does Eric really think he is above all the measly peons who dare to criticize his conduct? It would certainly appear that he does. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• I doubt Eric is going to be indef blocked (or Heaven help the admin who does it), and I've generally been a supporter of his throughout the years, but I guess I just don't get understand he feels the need to push the envelop day-in and day-out on this project. It was once novel—now he just comes across as vile without reason. I'm not sure whether he thinks he has something to prove to the internet, but that would certainly appear to be the case. There's simply no reason to be so vile and obnoxious, either in-person or online. While I think we'd all hate to lose such a proficient writer as Eric, his entire presence behind-the-scenes is built on a foundation of hatred and the desperate need to have the last word. It's not cute. I'm of the impression that Mr. Corbett is a highly intelligent individual, so I have no idea why he seems to thrive on contention; more often than not, that's the mark of a child. As I said, I support the editor in question, though he's making it extremely difficult to hold that position with continued legitimacy. I'll note that it makes me feel hypocritical to defend Eric now, when later today I may very well go block somebody for the same things Eric has done for years. It's an awkward position Eric has put us in. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be hypocritical, if you were defending him. To me, your statement, like Martin above, is yet another example of wishing to be seen but not wishing to be seen committing to any action of any sort - whether it favours Eric or not. Typical of many of our current Admins. I would say. Leaky Caldron 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I favor reasonable discussion over knee-jerk reactions. If that's typical of our current admins, then I'd say we're doing a pretty good job. That said, I'm first and foremost a writer here on WP, and I've deferred to Eric several times on copyediting/reviewing advice. I don't see your name anywhere on WP:WBFAN, so I guess it makes sense that you have no experience working with our content contributors. Wikipedia is about the readers, and 98% of visitors are never going to know who wrote the article they're reading, much less that he used some bad words last week. Eric has made an enormous impact on improving the quality of prose, in particular at GAN. There's no excuse for his ridiculous behavior, I agree, but I don't think you fully understand the situation as it stands. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your personalised, impertinent drivel to yourself. I know everything I need to know and my contribution to WP is not under discussion here. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are some big words. Needless to say, I'm impressed. Thanks for your thoughts. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Juliancolton, please read your big para again, in it you admit to being confused and not understanding several things. Yet you turn around and accuse Leaky "I don't think you fully unddrstand the situation as it stands". That's hypocritical. Eric has done nothing to "put [you] in an awkward position". (If you're confused about your own actions and feelings about them, then that s/ be an indication to you that you simply haven't thought them out through resolution. And don't blame Eric for that, that's your failing, not his.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What all did I admit to being confused about? I also don't believe I spelled understand that way, but I digress. I stand by everything I've said in this thread. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. God help me, I'm posting on ANI, and even I should know better. I'm not so new to this community that I haven't read an awful lot about Eric and what a terrible scourge he is on the project. But in my interactions with him (admittedly fewer than some others have had, I suppose), he has been nothing but well-reasoned and professional, and is easily twice as skilled a copy-editor as I could aspire to be. If there are people who consistently find him otherwise, surely there's some means to simply separate the parties, whether voluntary or otherwise? For my part, I have ambitious editing goals for 2014, and I hope that I can still find counsel in Eric's insights and editorial eye. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any block - if you don't want to be bitten by a bear, don't go bear-baiting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Awesome. I see three main options. 1: Make Eric agree to abide by the civility policy. 2: Block Eric until he does agree to do it. 3: Eliminate the civility policy altogether, for everyone. If the case were the third, I'd theoretically call you a freaking clueless idiot for suggesting that he's been baited to begin with. Since we have the civility policy, I'll not make such a comment. Doc talk 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  How exactly would you propose to make me do anything? And you forgot option 4: apply the civility policy equally to everyone, not just those you've taken a dislike to. Eric Corbett 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't have to make you do anything. No one is above the law, Eric. No editor is exempt from the civility policy, no matter how big they may be. We can't have editors running around willy-nilly, calling each other "cunts", and you are absolutely no exception. You will either figure that out, or you will eventually be gone, because you will have irritated more people than are in your corner. It's simple. Doc talk 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  We'll all eventually be gone Doc, even you. Eric Corbett 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Saying "I'd theoretically call you a freaking clueless idiot for suggesting that he's been baited to begin with. Since we have the civility policy, I'll not make such a comment" is no less uncivil than directly calling me a freaking clueless idiot (and at least you'd be more honest in doing the latter). So that's a nice bit of hypocrisy there Doc, demanding that Eric adhere to civility policy while not doing so yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Boing, Eric has a habit of making very similar remarks (as you know). If you don't like what Doc said to you by way of example, why do you defend Eric's behavior? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Where did I say I don't like what Doc says? I'm merely pointing out his hypocrisy in criticizing others for what he does himself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Quite weak. I'm not the admin, Boing, you are. My theoretical insult being less "honest" than directly calling someone a "cunt". Start blocking for the implied insults! Then, Eric's insults will seem that much more tame in comparison. Doc talk 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  No Doc, I'm not an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: So become one. Sorry, that sounded mean. Epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  He doesn't want to be one. Can't say that I blame him. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Oh. Explains why he was desysopped. Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - History shows that an Indef block will be overturned by a sympathetic admin, only resulting in more drama. Mr. Corbett is a lightning rod for disruption, but it's not entirely his fault, or even mostly his fault. I propose that there should be a provision, memorialized with a banner at the top of his talk page, that anyone who comments on his talk page may experience foul language, insults, pain, nausea, cramps, etc. From that point forward, no user is allowed to complain about anything that occurs on his talk page, under threat of a block for disruption. Also, no one is allowed to respond to to complaints resulting from interactions on Corbett's talk page with the same consequences. 2nd Rule of Fight Club: You do not talk about fight club! - MrX 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Concrete measures, then: Eric gets blocked for 1 month (escalating from the previous one). Khazar2 and Automatic Strikeout get 10 days for baiting him. Anyone who breached WP:CIVIL in this very thread gets at least 5 days, or the appropriate next escalation if they had prior blocks. Surely that will satisfy everyone. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  And there you have it, the bogus claim that Eric was baited. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What would blocking me for one month be designed to prevent? Eric Corbett 17:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Pretty much the same as blocking the roughly dozen (and rising) people here who are also in breach of WP:CIVIL, I'd say. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So long as you include Admins. in that number, where appropriate. Leaky Caldron 17:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  But this, along with RfA and ArbCom pages, is a civility-free zone. The truth also seems to be a stranger here. Eric Corbett 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  We've read enough vague statements from you implying that you are honest and everyone who opposes you is a liar. What, exactly, is the truth, in this case? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, you could start by reading the explanation Khazar gives on his user page for his retirement. Eric Corbett 17:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, I'm not going to go looking for the examples myself. You post your examples here, stating very clearly what the alleged 'dishonesty' is, or quit talking about it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Then carry on making stuff up to suit your case. Eric Corbett 17:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What am I making up? Eric, you are supposed to be one of our finest writers. Can't you do better than this vague hyperbole? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I suggested that you read Khazar's user page, but you're apparently too lazy even to do that, so why should I waste my time? Eric Corbett 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, I just went and read his user page (assuming you meant this one). Where is the dishonesty? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Great latitudes should be permitted by users on their talkpages, but this is not limited to his userspace.--MONGO 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You forgot to cast your vote for my indefinite block. Eric Corbett 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block: I was told on Wikipedia that I was "twee" the other day (which was a novel first), so I will tweely state that I don't like the 'C' word and I wish Eric would not use it. However, if a friend's much loved and very protective dog is known to bark and bare its teeth, sensible people do not go out of their way to provoke it. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it - they do not shoot it. Similarly, anyone who has ever experienced a university common room of academics will know that there is always one grumpy, miserable old professor who is tolerated because his work for the university is outstanding. I'll leave you to decide which of these two analogies is most suited to Eric Corbett, but the result is the same - use some common sense and put up and shut up for the sake of the project and by doing so, show how grown up, broad minded, tolerant and cosmopolitan you are.  Giano  17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I especially endorse the "grumpy professor" analogy. That Wikipedia is not a democracy should be treated as an endorsement of the concept that productive contributors may be afforded leeway that might not be afforded to newer, unknown editors. We should always strive to act holistically with full consideration of the editor's record of contributions. The very issue of inflexibility, coupled with our steep learning curve, has far too often served to drive away experienced academics and strong contributors. This is not an endorsement of the idea that having a long editing record should exempt you from the rules (presuming there are any bright-line rules rather than amorphous standards). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose – although this user has been abusive before, Eric should only get blocks of definite time, at all. Probably one or two months for each violation. Also put him on editing restrictions (no more than a certain amount of edits on talk pages, and block him if he uses inappropriate language. Or even better, block him from editing certain talk and user talk pages). Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When did this degenerate into a vote? Eric Corbett 17:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Whenever this was first posted, that's when. An admin should seriously consider taking away one or more of your user rights, probably the ones that you use most abusively. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Which ones and on what basis? Eric Corbett 17:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Rollback, maybe? You don't use it often. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't use it ever, those were all done with Twinkle. But there are some things that don't work unless you have that user right. Anyway, you were suggesting that I'd been abusing one or more user rights, so which are they? Eric Corbett 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to state (or imply) that Eric is abusing any user rights. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any block. Eric's haters should man up and get a grip. It's who he is and he should not have to change for anyone. People should learn that we don't live in a sugar coated land of pink marshmallows with liquorice made friendly folk who whistle lovely tunes and give a cheery nod to all persons all of the time. This is Wikipedia and 2013; some persons need to be told that they are a twat if they are being a twat, simples! It will be a sad day if he gets blocked, not just for WP but for the people who learn so much from him. Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

So, Eric doesn't need to adapt for the sake of the project, but the project needs to adapt for Eric instead? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't speak for me and I am part of that project. Let me remind you that this "project" is made up of people from all walks of life and I for one am glad that there are people like Eric around who sticks up for what they believe in and who is not afraid to speak his mind. Have you ever pissed someone off and then had to "adapt" for the next time when that person let it be known that you had pissed them off? If Eric and I had come to blows, I would assume AGF and learn for the next time that I engage with him. I wouldn't come running along here like a petulant child waving the bullying card! Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You act as if it is important for Eric to be able to lash out at others. It's not. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is ok IMO, especially if those "others" you speak of come to bear bait. Cassianto^Talk 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's on its last legs, according to Eric.[88]. Typically inspiring words from a fearless leader, ready to take Wikipedia into the next (possibly more ornery) age. Huzzah!!! You have my bow as well!!! Doc talk 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to situations like this it is yeah! Cassianto^Talk 18:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody swans along, out of the blue to an editor's talk page, makes a claim, gets short shrift and goes and retires. Various page stalkers have their say, none of it invited, editor reacts. Somebody else swans along and just has to run to mummy and suddenly mass righteous indignation. Nobody died, nobody, unless they wished to be included in editor's remarks, was insulted, and nobody vandalized the encyclopedia. I just don't get it, if you want to write articles, write them, if you don't like somebody unwatch their page and this one, the drama will evaporate. The most uncivil here can only see incivility in others. If everyone was treated equally without recourse to these kangaroo courts, there wouldn't be so much drama. It takes all sorts, only the very petty try to force their values on the rest of us. Get over yourselves. J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And here come all of Eric's enablers, right on cue. And SOP until Arbcom finally stops shirking its duty. Resolute 17:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In(de)finite ban - Given that it seems we can have a free pass on absolute incivility, I feel safe in stating that Eric Corbett is an attention whore. After so many years of this ridicolous spoiled brat behaviour, there's nothing left to justify him. He's not stupid. He's just trolling all of us -I'm convinced he is uncivil on purpose to see how much drama he can stir and recognize his fans and foes. Enough. WP:DENY states: True vandals (as distinguished from users who engage in harassment and edit warring or dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement - This is the case here. --cyclopia^speak! 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any block. I have never interacted to my knowledge with Eric Corbet. WP:CIVIL is critical for Wikipedia to work, but its interpretation, as with any policy here or in the larger world, depends on context and background. The context of Eric's user page and

discussion matters. If this behavior had occurred on and article talk page or edit summary of an article, I would support an indef block, but not in this context. I am One of Many (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sarcastic support for indef ban, per this conversation: [89] Wikipedia user space is censored, and we should keep from huring peoples feelings on talk pages. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Some people seem to be far too sensitive, this is the Internet, not real life, with a mix of people of all nationalities and all backgrounds. Meaning that we'll have to accept more than we might do in real life. So cut down on the drama, ignore the four-letter words, or whatever, and get back to what we're here for, creating an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (Seems like I clicked "save" a few seconds too late, but I'll leave my comment here anyway...)

User Eric Corbett continuing discussion

• Comment - While the sentiments expressed are probably accurate, it is procedurally inappropriate to close this thread the way that it has been closed. There is an ongoing debate about a proposed indef. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know, I know. Call it IAR if you like, or SNOW: there's currently no consensus either way as I read it, and I think we all know that this thread will never lead to one, so I decided to skip the vitriolic, two-minutes-hate-filled middleman, which can only harm and not heal. Revert the close if you (or anyone else, for that matter) like; you certainly wouldn't be wrong to do so. I still think keeping it closed is for the best, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think expecting that this be left open for 24 hours before someone makes a call is unreasonable. One thing of which we all should be aware is that bending the rules to reduce drama often has the opposite effect. It'd be best if you self-reverted. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do understand your point, but I disagree. I won't take umbrage if someone else makes a different call, and certainly if someone else makes a different one, theirs can override mine. But following the rules to reduce drama can also have the opposite effect, and given the history here, I think it will, so I'm going to stand by my close. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You made the right call here, Writ Keeper. Nothing was going to happen. An issue with this history and the number of highly opinionated contributors requires a more structured discussion than ANI can ever provide. If it helps others to swallow it, think of this as a forum non conveniens close. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion? I didn't see any discussion. Eric Corbett 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

All the more reason to close it (and keep it closed). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with the closure above. A discussion was in progress and was 24 hours old at termination. Regardless of ones views on the topic, this is a breathtaking abuse of process. Jusdafax 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with others above - this thread should not have been closed. We can't just assume no resolution will be found and close it, nor should this issue be foisted onto another page/board. This discussion should play out some more, and therefore should remain open. Writ Keeper, it should be you that re-opens (un-closes?) this. - ^theWOLFchild 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Writ's closure was sound since it was already obvious that this is not the day the indef happens. no sense prolonging the drama that Eric sought. Resolute 23:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone who wants it re-opened should do it themselves (and accept responsibility for the consequences). I still don't see any way that anyone would benefit more from a re-opening than from letting it stay closed, so it won't be me that reopens it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose indefblock I wish Eric would stop using four-letter words, mainly because it sets off reams of discussion like this. I also with more editors would write content rather than seemingly waiting for some dispute to pile in on and offer opinions. I also wish we had more medical doctors writing and consensus was easier to achieve here. Unfortunately we have to be a bit pragmatic. Look around folks and have a think - we're trying to write, maintain and improve an online encyclopedia and we're at a crossroads and need all hands on deck. Ultimately, if someone is a great copyeditor and extremely helpful 80-90% of the time then I see that as a net positive. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic at times. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

need all hands on deck. Including the likes of Khazar2. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What has Khazar2 got to do with it? Eric Corbett 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@DeCausa, I haven't interacted much with Khazar2 but have found him friendly and helpful when I have, so I can't speak for his benefit as much - his talk page indicates folks will miss him, and I think that's sad too. As far as I am aware, this is the first editor who has cited eric as part of a reason for leaving. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Similar cumulative collateral damage isn't known or knowable. One can only guess.DeCausa (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Or make it up. Eric Corbett 00:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have used Khazar2 for several GA reviews, and have found him competent, friendly, and quick. There are not many editors who will go through an article with a fine-toothed comb, and really be able to do it well. As well as having lost a friend, with whom I was planning to do Jimmy Carter, there is one person less to whom I can turn to evaluate my work. I'm probably not interested enough in Carter to do it on my own, so that's a FA that won't get done, at least by me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

But what's that got to do with me? Eric Corbett 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

He left because of your long-term incivility. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No he didn't, that's yet another lie. Have you read his leaving statement? Eric Corbett 04:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting this all in perspective for a moment: debate team A thinks saying goodbye this guy would be horrible because he's a content contributor, and presumably those are hard to come by these days because the environment has become too toxic to attract more of those. Debate team B wants to say goodbye because they don't like people who don't seem to be able to be "civil" while telling someone to fuck off. Then there's the peanut gallery (team C) who just likes watching team A and team B make one another and themselves look silly.

The only question worth asking here is: which team are you on? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a team D, that actually wants to reduce drama god? Sign me up for that one, although I guess I'm not its MVP. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, there's team D. As a member of team D I try not to mention it's existence, out of fear of causing dramatic outbursts from the members of teams A, B, and C. So, shhhhh!!!--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia created a highly secretive Tier-one 'anti-drama-ism' unit known only as 'Team E'. Only for the elite, the few, the proud... and those who don't give a rat's ass. - ^theWOLFchild 23:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not so secret now, bigmouth ;-)!--SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And then there's Team F, which the vast majority of Wikipedians are in. They don't really give a crap either way. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only did you completely miss what Thewolfchild said, but then you started a new subthread talking about bringing this to arbcom. Nothing wrong with that, but presumably groups F through Z are going to have a hard time getting people to take them seriously thanks to you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And possibly groups Œ, ∑, ´, ®, †, ¥, and all these other symbolic groups. Anyway, something has to be done about this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

We all know that arguing over Eric Corbett is going to get nowhere, and that he isn't exactly breaking the rules. But then again, Eric is uncivil and sometimes harasses people. Could someone file a request for arbitration? Talking here isn't working. Epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, but I take issue that the claim that he 'isn't exactly breaking the rules". He most certainly is - Wikipedia:Civility says "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect". It explicitly "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia" and defines incivility as "one or more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it your view that accusing me of harassment without even a single shred of evidence is an example of being treated with "consideration and respect"? Why hasn't Epicgenius been blocked for his personal attack? Eric Corbett 02:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

People only look at the faults of the top dog. The underdog never gets punished. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never harassed anyone. Why are you making stuff up Epicgenius? Eric Corbett 00:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You want me to provide some examples? Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's generally how it works, yes. I was surprised to see the word harass link to WP:HARASS and not a diff in your post above. Nick (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: Look at this edit to Talk:Malkin Tower. In that edit, Corbett sarcastically asks me if I have "anything better to do". I think that was harassment. Then this edit summary to Hanged, drawn and quartered. Very rude. This is just two examples of incivility by this user. Epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to provide evidence of harassment, and unsurprisingly you evidently can't. Eric Corbett 01:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to provide good evidence of dishonesty, an accusation that you throw around regularly. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unsurprisingly you evidently can't See? That's harassment right there. Next time, don't contradict your own argument in the same sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you're a youngster, still in school, so I'll spare you the hairdryer. Eric Corbett 03:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some of your supporters are in fact still in school. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, ad hominems attacks don't help anyone. Epicgenius (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a basic lesson in logic. There is no such thing as an ad hominem attack except here on WP. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not an attack. Eric Corbett 04:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're bad at teaching, so why bother? Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What would you call allegations of harassment that remain, in this instance, unproven. Would that qualify as dishonest or is there some other word you would choose to describe that sort of behaviour. Nick (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, based on my experience and observations related to Eric, "harassment" is probably not the right term. However, the greater concern is not the negative terms which don't apply to Eric's behavior, but rather the negative terms that do apply. However, it really doesn't matter because Eric and his friends are so intimidating that it is unlikely that anyone would sanction him for behavior that spits in the face of our civility policy. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout, I take serious offense at this "Eric and his friends" bit. I see stuff about some coterie, about enabling administrators, about "friends" coming to the rescue to prevent such threads from going anywhere, and I find it revolting. Whatever you can say about "friends" applies likewise to his "enemies", with the difference, of course, that I am not aware of any of Eric's "friends" having blocked anyone for a matter pertaining to Eric, whereas Eric's block log provides some indication that the opposite of what you suggest may be true. If you can stop painting all of Eric's "friends" with one brush, you'll get a lot farther.

Now, I don't know who reopened this ridiculous thread which again will go nowhere (and not because of Eric's "friends", methinks), and I don't know who all didn't file an RfC/U for him--wait, I do know: everyone didn't file one. There is obviously more interest to provoke yet another flamefest at ANI than there is an attempt to resolve this through the proper means. Again, supposed longterm patterns of disruptive editing-->RfC/U. Is that so hard for you and your fellow travellers? Oops, see where this leads to? Categorizing. Are you aware of the now-deleted user category that underwrites your remark on your user talk page, "This is (part of) why I don't consider myself a Wikipedian"? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe one comment in response to one edit "harassment", especially as it relates to an article Eric had extensively edited, upto FA status if I remember correctly. I'd be looking for a long line of diffs showing Eric following you around the project, making snide remarks, reporting you for vandalism, generally making your editing difficult. I'm not seeing that. If you're labeling that one edit "harassment" I'd be very careful the actual edit isn't similarly considered "harassment" towards Eric. It certainly could be considered antagonistic when someone comes along and changes the layout of a Featured Article without speaking to one of those responsible for its promotion.

I'm completely lost with your second diff, where it looks for all the tea in China someone has set up a SPA to cause trouble, trolling Eric and the project. It's telling they made one edit to WP, argued, shouted and swore at us, then buggered off, never to be seen again. Nick (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What Epicgenius has failed to mention is that he was edit warring over the deletion of the table of contents, and I certainly regard his continued involvement here as harassment. Eric Corbett 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And you weren't edit-warring? I find that ironic that you call my contributions harassment, when obviously it's the other way around. Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am characterising your contributions here, in this report, as harassment, nothing to do with the Malkin Tower article, which you seem oh so reluctant to give me credit for having taken to FA. Where did you discuss or propose the removal of the table of contents with the article's three main contributors? Eric Corbett 02:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist; therefore I can track this page. Is there a problem with that? Epicgenius (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be consistent with your comment below: "I am leaving this discussion again because it is still going nowhere." Eric Corbett 04:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a great idea, pointing out that inconsistency with his statement. Because do you know how many times you've sworn to have retired... only to come back? A comical number of times, actually. I really don't want to dig up the diffs, but if you say I'm lying about it... Doc talk 04:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What I know is that you are clearly only here to stir up as much trouble as you can, for whatever reason. If you have anything constructive to say I'm all ears, it would make a nice change to hear it. Eric Corbett 04:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While it may very well be true that Corbett brought Malkin Tower up to FA status, he is trying to WP:OWN the article, and that is where is very wrong. And a glance through the page's edit history shows that he was actively engaging in an edit war (without even engaging in WP:BRD), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs) had to fully protect the page in order to stop it. Epicgenius (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what your qualms are, if you feel a case should be submitted to Arbcom, then do it yourself, rather than asking "someone" to "file a request" while throwing in accusations of harassment which haven't been substantiated by diffs to anyone's satisfaction here (including my own). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am leaving this discussion again because it is still going nowhere. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There's always a difficulty in determining what's ownership and what's good housekeeping of articles, and naturally, different people will have different ideas about where that boundary lies. I've written with Eric and I personally have no complaints about the way he has poked and prodded my text into something altogether more eloquent. Nick (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nick:, would you care to comment on some of the things Eric has said (well, written actually) on his talk page? ie: calling people "stupid cunts", etc. I'd really like to see a response from you on this. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who takes an unprejudiced look at the history of the Malkin Tower article will see that at about the same time as Epicgenius was edit warring over the removal of the table of contents there was an altogether more productive discussion about the actual date of Good Friday in 1612. So I think the accusation of ownership, just like the accusation of harassment, is very wide of the mark. Eric Corbett 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Good Friday, 1612 was on April 10^th. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 02:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is what the article says. Eric Corbett 02:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you knew... but did they know? - ^theWOLFchild 02:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

They've been dead for more than 400 years now, so we'll never know what they did or didn't know. Eric Corbett 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Naw, I meant everybody else here. - ^theWOLFchild 04:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins like Nick, who turn a blind eye to Eric's nastiness because they are loyal supporters who will not only unblock him but also attack those that are fed up with his bullshit, are a major hindrance to getting this solved once and for all. Admins that would block other editors for calling another editor a "cunt", yet make endless excuses for Eric. Turning the tables on the complainants is all smoke and mirrors. No one editor is just going to do whatever he wants here, y'all. It will be handled eventually. The project and its rules are far bigger than this guy. This isn't some fiefdom with Eric as our foul-mouthed lord. Meanwhile, Eric's alienated yet another admin whom I personally consider to be one of the best at hammering out compromises with people like him.[90] A shame, but completely unsurprising, as that admin is not a suck-up. I hope every one of you admin supporters do realize that Eric will drop you like a hot potato once you cease to support him 100%. Just questioning his behavior instead of slapping him on the back is enough to get you on the "outs" with him. Doc talk 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What a strange comment, which clearly reveals your true intentions here. Eric Corbett 02:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Strange to you perhaps. What are my true intentions here, Eric? To ruin your day? Nope. It is not your show to begin with, and I will happily remind you of that. Doc talk 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any block While I neither support nor condemn Eric's use of foul language, he is in fact, an excellent content editor. It should fairly obvious that Eric has far more substantial contributions to the project than Epicgenius, Khazar or any other complainer has to offer. We need good content editors in order to keep the project alive, much more than we need witch-burners willing to block at any second. I'm not saying the Eric should be able to curse out anyone he likes without impunity, i'm simply stating that his case should be treated with more discretion than other users. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh... here we go. The 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Those on the inside, and the rest looking in. What a load of shit poop. - ^theWOLFchild 02:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) oops. didn't mean to use a bad word.

Trust me, I know how you feel. I was quite optimistic about making Wikipedia a nicer, more civil place (I believe I even had a blog about it). But after months of school getting in the way, depression and near-suicide (not really), watching these things happens from the sidelines the whole way, i'm a grizzled old man now who knows that Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. If i'm walking down the street and someone comes up to me and says "fuck you" (or if I witness this happen to an innocent bystander), I don't run screaming to the nearest police officer calling for their immediate arrest and execution. The same applies to Wikipedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Sanctions against incivility

Seeing as Eric's opponents insist on keeping this thread alive, I propose a compromise in order to try and bring something out of this discussion: Eric shall have sanctions (broadly construed) against incivil comments including but not limited to: foul-language, insults, personal attacks, etc, resulting in a block of no less than two weeks per incident. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a compromise?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not in my book. Eric Corbett 03:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose should be the sanction against those such as Epicgenius and Khazar2 who insult me? Eric Corbett 03:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that they be hanged, drawn and quartered. Doc talk 04:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Even I think that would be a little extreme, but at least you didn't write hung, drawn and quartered. Eric Corbett 04:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3: Motion to close

(edit conflict)

I tried to close this thread, and was reverted, and so I'll repeat what I said during the closing here.

It's clear that the discussion itself has devolved into an ugly mess of name calling and petty jibes that does nothing to further the writing or maintaining of an encyclopedia. Numerically, at least, the only reasonable close to the question of blocking Eric would be "no consensus", and why anyone thought that it would end up any differently considering how many times we've been through this is beyond me. So everyone, please stop this and go edit an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I second the motion to close this thread.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Screw "numerically". If this gets closed by his die-hard supporters as "no consensus" and Eric is free to call anyone anything he wants whenever he wants, we all lose. The blind support over this editor vs. the goals of the project (which he utterly rejects) is just baffling. Eric really does not give a flying fuck about you. Do you honestly not get that? If you're not on board with his particular WP vision, you are garbage. This is not his wiki, however. Doc talk 03:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And neither is it yours. Eric Corbett 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. It's "ours". This is a community whether you like it or not, and it does have its rules. It's not a complete anarchy; and you are not unbound by the civility policy that everyone else is bound to. You're certainly not some "freedom fighter" against civility to be emulated by the next generation of editors. Believe it or not, you are replaceable. We all are. The site is not going to abandon the civility policy to accommodate you, nor will it perpetually allow you to run amok forever. Doc talk 04:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ours includes me, and I don't agree with your childish civility policy. And I'm by no means the only one. Live with it. Eric Corbett 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well...I am not adding diffs just to show when I was railing against Eric.....K. Get over it. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't agree with Doc is a blind supporter, but of what I'm not quite sure. Eric Corbett 04:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Eric really does not give a flying fuck about you". Alright.......and your point is? This isn't...oh, how was that just recently put? Oh yeah, "A great social experiment". How does your continued discussion of an editor in this manner help civility?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not intended to help civility. It's intended to get his own back for some perceived slight to him or one of his friends, as so many ANI reports are. Eric Corbett 05:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment As is inevitably pointed out here at least once every time EC comes up, AN/I is ill equipped to deal with this problem. Whether he is to be blocked or banned, or his editor in good standing status reaffirmed, it will be done at ARBCOM. Civility is a big topic in this year's ARBCOM elections, with some candidates professing the need to more strictly enforce civility policy and others wishing to maintain the status quo. So if you haven't voted yet, go read the candidates answers and, if this issue is important enough, vote for candidates who mirror your perspective on the matter. Just a friendly reminder. N^oformation ^Talk 05:03, 6 December 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.

Bata, Equatorial Guinea

On 15 October 2012 an anonymous user inserted in the article Bata, Equatorial Guinea a statement that the full name of that city is "City of Božić Bata" (dif). This was completely unsourced, and is an obvious joke, since "Božić Bata" is Serbo-Croatian name for Santa Claus. This was later changet to "Ville de Bozhich Bata" in the article, and it stood like that for more than a year until I noticed it and removed it as vandalism (dif). Now, an anonymous IP editor User:2A00:C440:20:27E:4EB:C0E:6939:58BD is constantly reverting my edit. He reverted my edit today (dif) and wrote in the edit summary that the removed text abot Božić Bata "was approved and justified". I wrote him on his talk page to explain me where and when it was "approved and justified" since I don't see any discussion about that. I also reverted his edit, as it is obvious joke. Than, he reverted my edit again (dif). I aks administrators to do something, as this "Božić Bata" thing is really pure nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You protected the page after it was vandalized again, so I reverted the vandalism. It was different IP now, but probably the same person as before. Maybe those IPs should be blocked? There is a lot of vandalism from the User:129.240.83.175 (see:[91], [92], [93], [94], and so on, all his contributions are exclusively vandalism). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If an editor is dedicated to vandalism and hoaxes, is there any good reason not to block? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave a final warning, no edits since then from that IP but there's one from 2A00:C440:20:27E:4C08:27ED:4934:2F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - most edits from IPs starting with 2A00:C440:20:27E appear to be the same vandal. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

After you gave the final warning to 129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), he made a vandalism at the Franjo Tuđman article (dif). After that, he wrote a comment at Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea#Bozhich (dif). This comment is in Serbian, my native language. In the comment, he calls me "semi-literate shepherd" (polupismeni čobane). Please, stop this user from further insulting me. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Franjo Tuđman article was again vandalized (dif), this time by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is probably all the same person with different IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CambridgeBayWeather removed the insulting commentary against myself from Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif), but his edit was reverted by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). This vandal really needs to be stooped. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the last IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman article vandalized again by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalized Franjo Tuđman article again (dif). He also removed my comment form that article's talk page (dif). Please, block this IP. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insulted me again at Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif). He calls me "garbage" (djubre). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted my comment from Talk:Franjo Tuđman again (dif). He wrote an edit summary "Added a New entry" to mask his vandalism. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A rangeblock might be the only solution. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman vandalized again (dif). My comment removed from the talk page again (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandal is still active. 2a00:c440:20:27e:ec83:57e1:2434:e64a (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalized Moja domovina article ([95] and [96]) and also removed comments from Talk:Franjo Tuđman (dif) and Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Clavdia chauchat

This user is incapable of civil behaviour. Accusing other users of being "drones", "we need far fewer of you guys" and showing "overt bigotry". Earlier in the same "discussion", the accusation was that WP:FOOTY is a circle jerk. The insults wash off a duck's back, but I will not stand for being accused of being an "overt bigot". That is unacceptable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, that was not the first "circle jerk" accusation - another one was made here. When asked not to make such offensive comments, her response was that it wasn't a personal attack because WikiProject members are not a single person (clearly not in line with WP:NPA#WHATIS) and that the requests to be more civil from myself and another editor were "hectoring bilge" and "creepy". Can someone please have a word, as whilst she's a productive editor, there do appear to be problems with playing nicely with others. Number 57 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

She seems to have a serious issue with that particular WikiProject (which all three of us who have commented so far, including myself, are active members of) and her constant yet unfounded accusations of anti-female bias within the Project hinder co-operative and collaborative editing. GiantSnowman 13:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Circle jerk (sexual practice) says in the lead:

“ In the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people. ”

I'm happy to confirm that it is this sense which I applied to the stuffy gentlemen's club at WP:FOOTY. Huge apologies to anyone genuinely offended by any sexual connotation, although I think it's curious that such delicate sensibilities were not equally outraged by much worse flak coming in the other direction. Hmm. Let's remember too that User:Jmorrison230582 started what became a bad-tempered discussion as an attack thread against User:LauraHale.

The more audiences that see this the better because a small gang of homogeneous editors derailing a simple correction to an article title is not on. I'm not the only editor to point out this worldview is sexist and backward: because it is! Seriously guys, it's you versus everyone else now, you are now embarrassing yourselves and the whole encyclopedia.

In a wider sense, exclusively-male Wikiproject Football needs serious root and branch reform which sadly will only come from outside that project. In my opinion they (or rather their self-appointed leaders, above) have been allowed to write their own notability rules and flood Wikipedia with biased and/or non-notable content for too long. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know when and how I appointed myself a "leader" of the WP:FOOTY project. I also see no justification whatsoever of accusing users of "overt bigotry". The insults / name-calling I couldn't care less about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject is not "exclusively-male" - though there is a male majority, which is merely reflective of the sport in real life. Basically, CC is just annoyed that community consensus from a recent RM has gone against her view and she is taking it out on others. Pathetic. GiantSnowman 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Where are your female members then? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

List of members here, some I know to be female, so I know to be male, most I have no clue - but I'm not going to lower myself to naming names. We also have an entire taskforce dedicated to women's football, as you fully know. But please, tell me more about how we are "exclusively-male"... GiantSnowman 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting edit. What makes you uniquely qualified to edit this site and not me? This is disgusting, almost fascistic in nature. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, tales of imaginary female members and I'm a pathetic, disgusting fascist. I came here to respond to concerns in good faith but things are not going well so I'll bow out now I think. Happy jerking. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

CC, I have no idea what you're playing at - you know there are female members, you interact with at least two of them on a daily basis!

Jmorrison - don't rise to her bait. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• What really confuses me is that Clavdia proclaims at the top of her userpage that "This user is a member of the Women's Football Taskforce." - and yet seems to forget that said taskforce falls under the Football WikiProject. Which makes her a member of the WikiProject that she is constantly attacking, and also immediately proves her "male-only" claims to be completely false. To say this behaviour is bizarre would be fairly accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated page history

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 closet thing I could find to this was a histmerge, but it is more of a selective deletion, so I figured ANI was kind of a catch-all for this request. The page Christine Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was originally about a local radio DJ who failed WP:N in 2006 so the article was redirect to a radio station. A different Christine Fox now has notability as the acting Deputy Secretary of Defense and inspiration for a character in a movie. Her article was created over the redirect, so the article contains history of a different (non-notable) person in 2006. I am requesting an admin delete the non-sequitur history from 2006. Rgrds. --64.85.214.140 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point of hiding those edits. It's interesting to note in the history that the article was created from a redirect, and indeed why that redirect was created in the first place. Graham87 08:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:HISTSPLIT. We could take the old history and move it to Christine Fox (radio) and redirect it to WFHN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:56, 5 December 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:No such user reported by Cognoscerapo.

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.

---

Once again I have to bring this user here for a blatant abuse but this time I want to see action, a block from editing. He has misued rollback and this isn't his first time[97]. And here. He needs to learn that it is for blatant vandalism ony and not for edits you don't approve of, even if they are NPOV. I lived out a block but now it is his turn. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If he has abused rollback, the proper thing is for an admin to consider whether to remove his rollbacker userright. Have you approached an uninvolved admin?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant threads are Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Sock_of_just-blocked_editor and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#No_Such_User, particularly the latter. In sum, either Cognoscerapo is just trolling us (which is far more likely, since they seem quite intelligent: knows about WP:RS in his 10th edit, using citation template in his 12th, and is familiar with policies about proxying for banned users and rollback in ~30th), or is completely unable to grasp that his edits are blatant pov-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, therefore practically indistinguishable from plain vandalism. In either case, he was given an ARBMAC warning, then blocked for 7 days, and still continues to restore pretty blatant pro-Albanian POV like this [98]. Certainly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Leave Cognoscerapo alone, he's only new and he'd doing a grand job. I really like him. Please stop reverting his fantastic edits. Borbayner (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another day, another stalker in the Balkans. Evlekis, I presume? bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I knew there was something fishy about a couple of the posts I saw here - was just about to remove it when I saw this. Sigh. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cognoscerapo needs to tread very lightly in this area: they were blocked for a week once already, and their language and behavior is tendentious, to say the least. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with Drmies, Cognoscerapo edits are highly disruptive to say the least. 23 editor (talk) 21:41, 5 December 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.

FkpCascais

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.

---

Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [99] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That diff is unremarkable as it does seem to properly remove peacock words. Is there something further?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting bobrayner en masse is a good tip-off that it's (on behalf of) Evlekis.  Looks like a duck to me --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The point of this editors is to insert their POV in all this articles. Exemple. As everyone can see by looking to article history, they do it either by using the sock-revert excuse, or using bad excuses directly, as in the diff I showed. The problem here is that most are obscure Kosovo-related articles with not much editors working on them, so their disruption passes unnteced, however Evlekis (or his socks or whoever) edits are actually correct and far more in accordance to the Wiki rules than the version this users are edit-warring for. FkpCascais (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure, FkPCascais: My accusation should probably be taken with a grain of salt since I'm being stalked by Evlekis. Nothing personal against you. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that, don´t warry. It´s just that this entire sock-war-reverting is causing more disruption to the wikipedia articles than the socking itself. I reverted the sock-reverts which are not correct and which go against wikipedia rules, and I reverted them because I agree with the edit, and not because of socking/anti-socking or whatever. Once I edited some article that edit is mine, and I am fed up of seing editors reverting me with the socking excuse, and reinserting their POV edits (peacock weasel wording, pipped links, wrong countries, profund pro-Albanian nationalism in Kosovo-related articles, constant edit-warring, etc.). I´ll be reporting this from now on. FkpCascais (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't stick to what Albanian language sources say, don't edit this Wikipedia because we neither want truth nor neutrality, just something pushing pro-Kosovar viewpoints. Borbayner (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do want neutrality, and no, we don´t want "pro Kosovar" or "pro-anyone´s" viewpoint. FkpCascais (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore the above user, that was an impersonator account run by Evlekis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that FkpCascais has gone back to proxying for Evlekis. (I'm surprised that Cognoscerapo chose a relatively weak diff). Alas! Neither proxying for permablocked editors, not systematic pov-pushing, nor deliberate insertion of factual errors, nor accusing other editors of lying, seem to be punishable offences these days. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Its unfortunate that you use and abuse the sock-reverting-excuse to add absolut rubbish against all wiki norms in Kosovo-related articles. As far as I noteced, you seem to be a productive editor in some other subjects, but your extreme (emotional I guess) link to Kosovo-related subjects make you be absolutelly unbearable editor to work with in that area. You can complain about me as long as you want, but I am policy-follower editor, and all you can complain is that I am a barrier in your POV-pushing in those articles, and you try to imply everyone opposes you is either a Evlekis sock, or his proxy. Prepare yourself for boomerang in nea future if you don´t change your edditing pattern. FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Please, y'all, try to settle down, and don't let Cognoscerapo dictate the agenda. Bobrayner (did I type the correct name correctly?), I agree with the principle of restoring (or not undoing) good edits. I can't judge, from where I'm sitting, whether they were good edits or not--but why don't you (plural) take this up on a talk page, discuss it as a content issue, and come to an agreement before you let someone else turn it into a discussion on POV and behavior? And FkpCascais, don't you think you're going a bit overboard in your original research into Bobrayner's supposed emotional background? All of you, drop that language and discuss content. Cognoscerapo, I suggest you take it easy before you get blocked again, this time for inciting animosity by preventatively destroying collegiality. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Reverting nationalistic edits such as those of Cognoscerapo (especially in cases where they are clearly geo-historically wrong, see: this , this , and this ) has nothing to do with Bobrayner or sockpuppets. It has to do with the fact that Cognoscerapo is pushing Albanian nationalist POV down the throat of every single article s/he edits, siding with Bobrayner and his reverts of the good faith edits made by others (see this .) Just my 2 cents. 23 editor (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for your input. Yes, discussing the edits would definitelly be a proper thing to do, however, having in mind past experiences, without some admin help it would just be another painfull waste of time, as these editors don´t respect consensus when it is archived. For instance, bobrainer and cognoscerapo don´t respect a consensus which was reached about using a note for Kosovo whenever it is used as a country, or they don´t respect the consensus of not using present day entities but historically correct ones as birthplaces in biographies, or they insist in piping Albanian names for Kosovo places despite the article titles of those city-articles being different and for a reason, etc. So whenever they see consensus reached against them, they use the sock-revert excuse to distract from the issue itself and reinsert their version. I am fed up of socking/anti-socking/reverting (they edit-wared again in all the articles despite even at the top of this thread Wehwalt clearly expressed that the edit they defend goes against WP:WEASEL. So its really impossible to reach anything without some admin help. The matter is not at all complicated, it´s simple, it´s a few edits, all of them the same, which are being spread into a number of articles by this users. FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this guy just made a new thread against me down here... and he edit-warred all over the place. Can someone please see his edit-history? FkpCascais (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Cognoscerapo who appears WP:NOTHERE. bobrayner, you need to stop reverting Evlekis' less controversial edits, esp. those where merely style matters are involved, because it's obviously being taken as taunting. It's meaningless and counterproductive. The rest of you lot also need to take a step back and think about whether a handful of adjectives are something worth reverting and sullying your own reputation with (by associating yourself with Evlekis). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Joy for your input and advice. FkpCascais (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Good advice here for everybody, myself included. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:54, 6 December 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.

Next matchday scenario

There has been a discussion on WT:FOOTY which can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios (will soon be archived). The issue is about next day scenarios (what will happen if team A beat team B and team C do not defeat tem D...?) on sports article and wheter or not it should be included. There has been a lot of discussing if we should include this future predictions (is it WP:CRYSTAL?) on wikipedia or not and also the complexity of the calculations if they are routine calculations or not and if it is original research. In the discussions votes were casted (even if consensus is not result of voting) and I calculated thirteen editors oppose inclusion of the material, four suppport and two support if very good sourcing. This is to me consensus to not include the material with so many opposing.

The issue has also been at WP:DRN (read at this link) earlier were the decision was do not include this material after 3 independent uninvolved editors all opposed.

Now User:Ivan Volodin (the editor starting the discussion when they were removed) has resumed inserting these edits against consensus (he does not agree there are a consensus and tried to form his own consensus) and added the scenarios with a blog as a source (which is hardly a reliable source), the same blog he used when he was reverted before the discussions started. You can see it at diff, diff, diff, diff.

In the disussion a INVOLVED admin, User:GiantSnowman said on WT:FOOTY that "Sigh, if I wasn't INVOLVED I would block seeing as he is editing against consensus. I suggest taking this to AIV/ANI" seen on the link i provided.

Can any admin not involved please take a look at this issue, would be much appreciated. Maybe an admin can stop this edits and tell him to stop. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but did participate in that discussion. Unless the conversation changed significantly since I was there, then yeah, the consensus is against them being added. As someone that likes them, I have to say that it's not my favorite result, but the consensus is very clear. Ivan Volodin's attempted close is classic 'I didn't hear that' behavior, and his subsequent edits are adding content that the community has decided it doesn't want on those pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Any admin out there or should an ANI-discussion die and be archieved? I dont mean to "push" or anything but i think this soon will be archieved? QED237 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and don't really have the time to check out the discussion properly but it does look to me like there is consensus so have urged the editor to refrain from further such editing. [100] Since they haven't edited since reverted by Sven Manguard, I would suggest it's fine for this thread to die. I don't see it likely they're goimg to be blocked from those 4 edits alone so I don't see that there's anything more to discuss here. In the unfortunate event they continue with their disputed edits, feel free to bring it back. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais supported by User:23 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.

---

Acting as proxies for banned user Evlekis. I admit that last time I failed to provide enough evidence but this time I have heaps of proof of their nationalistic and pro-Serb reverting. My point of concern is not so much that these two editors are making these edits, it is that they were done by a permabanned vandal and therefore amount to vandalism just by themselves. With each example will come a description as to why it is a bad edit and that will also throw light on why the banned user became blocked in the first place.

• Bosnian Institute. FkpCascais takes out the fact that Noel Malcolm is a prominent historian just because he doesn't bow to Serb propaganda, and removes details of other Balna specialists to make it look like the Bosnian Institute is run by a bunch of nobodies. No Such User misuse of rollback again, and then 23 editor turns it into a three-man tagb team. All because of one banned user.
• Ferus Mustafov. Nationalistic editing again just to add a defunct country of birth [101]. 23 editor tag teams.
• Princ Dobroshi. Same old story, it's always got to be the Serbian name Pec instead of the official name Peja which happens to be Albanian, proxing here by Fkp and here from 23 editor.
• Lendita Zeqiraj. Same story again, chaging official and Albanian Prishtina to Serb name (no h). Fkp, 23 editor goes on a crusade to Serbianize the names of the Kosovar towns.
• Nita Bahtiri. Fkp puts in Serbian name in place of Prishtina as banned user does, even the source says Prishtinë. 23 editor helps him out.
• Gjakova. FkpCascais inserts Serbian name on infobox, there is no Cyrillic in Kosovo so why is it on the article? And what is all that irrelevant nonsense abiout the old names for the Kosovan Albanian city which was added by the banned user and put back by Fkp.

I've got tonnes more but this should earn 23 editor and FkpCascais a topic ban for now. Cognoscerapo (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am such a vandal indeed for not allowing you to use peacock words, and removing your Albanian names of places and putting the ones found in the article titles, and putting the historically correct places of birth in biographies. You just complained about me and No such user a few threads earlier. If you don´t get blocked this time there is something really wrong about wiki, because you not being familiarised with wiki-rules is one thing, but constantly edit-warring and reporting policy-following established users for no reason is very disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Is it just me imagining it, or is it the sound of a boomerang in flight that I'm hearing? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(It obviously was the sound of a boomerang I heard since Cognoscerapo has just been blocked for disruptive editing...) Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Cognoscerapo, when you add things like: "Susequently, Serbia eneded up with it's tail between it's legs" (more than once) it's awfully hard to take your accusations of "nationalistic and pro-Serb reverting" seriously. TDL (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at this one paragraph and set of diffs for now:

• "takes out the fact that Noel Malcolm is a prominent historian just because he doesn't bow to Serb propaganda"
  • The edit summaries make clear that the changes were made to remove unsourced information per WP:PEACOCK.
  • You are edit warring over these reverts. Please stop.
• "just because he doesn't bow to Serb propaganda". See above, and assume good faith, please. The edit summaries tell a different story
• "make it look like the Bosnian Institute is run by a bunch of nobodies" - That would seem to be in your head - I don't see it in the text.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:59, 6 December 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.

IP user edit warring on Intelligent design article

An IP user is edit warring on the Intelligent design article (history). The IP appears to have been recorded both as an IPv4 and IPv6 address, though I can't be certain that the IPv6 address is the same user. I'm requesting a block of the IPv4 address (92.232.108.69), and possibly the IPv6 address (2602:306:bc2b:d3b0:544d:2418:fd76:a6dd). Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also reported at AN3 and ARV, fyi.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

92.232... blocked for 31 hours by User:Kralizec!. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller on COI Noticeboard

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 editor called User:Billbird2111 is making what appear to be COI edits on an article about Bob Huff.

Please review this thread about it, including my comments. I'm horrified at the behavior User:Mark Miller announces he's engaged in, off-wiki.

Here are the diffs he's redacted from the discussion. He blames User:Billbird2111 for WP:OUTING him. But he freely acknowledges, in these diffs, what he did.

• (redacted Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC))

An admin has already dealt with User:Billbird2111's WP:COI-editing. But I really think an admin needs to deal with what I view as User:Mark Miller's acknowledged, and much more damaging, behavior. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to side with Mark on this one. Mentioning on Wikipedia the things Mark has done off Wikipedia information that Mark has not posted himself absolutely constitutes outing. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 21:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a poor argument to make given that we have IRC channels and the like off Wiki, and that some can be publicly logged to serve as evidence in ArbCom cases. KonveyorBelt 21:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Comment emended. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 21:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of things happened in the heat of the moment and I have found it best to just step away and let matters cool a bit. I admit, I have gone through a steep learning curve in learning about Wikipedia. But I do respect this medium and the people who dedicate themselves to making it a better place. I may not always agree with their judgement on certain matters. That's a right I reserve. But I don't think any additional steps need to be taken.--Billbird2111 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Read our policy on privacy. I have every reason and expectation of my right to privacy. I have redacted those discussions after researching how to handle the situation. Dragging them back out after the editor has redacted them is harassment by David in DC. I ask that my private off Wiki accounts not be linked here. If this cannot be respected I have no reason to respect such request by other COI editors who have since requested their names and private information no longer be discussed after discovery of the on wiki disclosure. People may disapprove all they want, but I am requesting that this thread have all the information I have redacted removed. If it is not clear, I shall make it abundantly clear. I do not want my personal off Wiki accounts discussed in any manner on Wiki. I have point black told David in DC this and he has ignored it. A sanction for harassment may be in order for David in DC. I have also contacted an admin in oversight.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If Mark has expressed the desire to keep his off-wiki presence private, it must be respected. Mark, please post back here if the issue continues. John Reaves 02:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Reaves. It is continuing right here after I have point blank told David in DC to use my e-mail if he wishes to discuss my off Wiki activity and I see the above links are still present. I have requested further ovcer sight by Jimbo Wales as an Oversight member but any admin may scrub the info now to save time.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 7 December 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:Michael Reed 1975

User:Michael Reed 1975 has continued to cite his own work on the Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. He edit warred to keep his content in while a discussion took place on the talk page at Talk:Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Michael Reed book. He was ultimately blocked for edit warring here. However, shortly after the block expired, he again added his work here. So far the consensus has been that the citation violates WP:COI. My main concern is that he is adding in his preferred version, even after being blocked for it, before a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Bahooka (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message to Michael Reed 1975 on his talk page about WP:LISTEN and his need to work for consensus at the talk page. I've also reverted his latest addition of the text to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor behavior at Talk:Thomas Jefferson

Resolved

 – Typical ANI scuffle. Nothing to see; move along. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of editors are accusing me of POV editing because I insist that The statement "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely" should have in-text attribution and because I have stated that my personal view is that "humane treatment of slaves" is an oxymoron. One editor even stated that my someone with my POV should not be allowed to edit the article. I encourage administrators to scrutinize my arguments and edits to the article. If administrators here find that I have violated WP:NPOV I will be happy not to edit the article again. If not I request some admins to please tell the users User:Gwillhickers and User:Yopienso to comment on the content not the editor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a non-admin firstly. Secondly, believe me when I say I sympathize with your concerns, truly, especially given that I've been in your shoes. Regrettably, if my experiences here are any indication then the likely outcome is that this will be considered a content dispute and you will be asked to follow the dispute resolution process. If you feel anyone has gone so far as to violate WP:NPA and can provide a diff, I may be willing to stick my neck out and give them a warning, but I can't promise that. Best of luck to you. DonIago (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The content dispute is being taken care of at the RFC, I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to stop trying to accuse me of POV pushing without some solid evidence other than the fact that I have admitted that I have POV (as every one does). The editor insists on repeating the accusation in each and every post he makes. Which is frustrating to say the least. The point here is that I want it to be absolutely clear that having a POV is not a crime and that asking for in-text attribution of controverisla views is not POV pushing, and that it is uncivil to accuse others of pov pushing without evidence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Maunus fully admitted that he had a pov and all that was done was to remind him of that, and that it wasn't right to try to push a pov into the article by trying to advance one editing policy that concerned itself with one selected statement. He then said to apply this policy to other statements was "absurd" and then finally 'asked' me to "shut up" for mentioning this pov. Before this posting he attempted to conduct a survey, which is fine, but only allowed one other editor to respond before he abandoned that approach and came here. -- Gwillhickers 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not abandoned the approach, the RfC will run its course and consensus will decide on the wording. I also have not tried to forced my POV in to the article. You are also misrepresenting my statements which is uncivil. Please stop being incivil or I will have to start using stronger words than "shut up" (which I said after asking you plitely at least twice to stop trying to paint me as a POV warrior).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but when your argument is based on "my personal view", you're definitely engaging in POV editing. It's one thing to say "you're not welcome here because you engage in [insert evil behavior here]". It's completely different to say "you're not welcome here because you're trying to silence something you don't like". Such a statement can be out of bounds, but when you've admitted the facts on which the argument is based, it's spot on, and you should not be advocating for your view on this article. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My argument is not based on my personal view but on wikipedia policy, which says that controversial statements should be attributed, the relevance of my POV was only that it made me notice that this statement is controversial (which I have then shown with sources). Are you seriously saying that someone who admits to finding slavery inherently inhumane should not be editing articles about slavery? Are there other articles I shouldnt be editing then when I have this controversial pov? Please give me a list. I also am a pacificst? Should I stop editing articles on war?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No one said you shouldn't be editing, only that you be consistent with the policy you were trying to advance. According to many historians, slaves under Jefferson were treated humanely. Yes, there were isolated cases where some where whipped for running away, fighting, stealing, but overall this was rare and slaves were indeed treated humanely. Apparently Maunus feels slaves, prisoners, pow's can't be treated humanly at the same time. Regardless of his view, numerous RS's support the fact that Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, didn't over work them and provided for them exceptionally well. -- Gwillhickers 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Yopienso said that my POV was unacceptable at this article. I have made no statements about slaves or prisoners so please stop attributing me views that I do not hold. Not a single source that I have reviewed suggests that Jefferson treated his slaves exceptionally in any way. All the sources I have reviewed (which seems to be a lot more than you since you only use the Jefferson foundaiton as a source) show that his treatment may have been humane relatively to the time, but that it would not be considered human by todays standards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, I don't really see this as an issue worth making a fuss about. You've started an RfC with very specific goals and a couple of editors have said that you have a POV a few times. Nothing very excessive here. My suggestion is "forget about it and let the RfC play out". Not every slight is worth worrying about. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but it is a matter of principle that editors are allowed to have POVs regarding the topics they edit and that it is the content of their edits relative to policy that should be evaluated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

First you complain that we mention your admitted POV -- now here you are saying you should be free to push it, and the heck with consensus and what reliable sources say. -- Gwillhickers 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are really adept at lying about my statements. Here you quote me as saying the exact opposite of what I am in fact saying in the preceding post. And yes, I do consider it lying because I have already made my view clear several times, and you have shown your general disagreeableness enough to no longer extend you the privilege of the assumption of good faith. Lying is of course as you know, uncivil, as is attributing views to others which they do not hold. I have not said that I should be free to push any POV, and I have not pushed any POV. You have however broken the civility policy in almost every post you have made in our interaction. So here I will finally take the bait and say "fuck you too". Now this ritual being done, I shall cease to respond to you, and instead let the RfC run its course. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Akubiky

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 reverted this user multiple times for introducing unsourced content into the article List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes, on the most recent revert I asked the user to voice their opinion on the talkpage in my edit summary and on the user's talkpage. I thought I would get a response but the editor just did the same edit and more here: [102] which hwas reverted by another editor for being unconstructive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay I don't know what to do, I have explained my edits in the edit summaries, have offered to talk about it on the PPG talkpage, have left a message and warnings on the user's talkpage. I could use some help here or at very least a second opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. Really the only sensible option here. John Reaves 23:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just did not want to say I didn't try to reach out though, I have been trying that approach more rather than three warnings and you are reported. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean you did try to reach out? In which case, that's the way to do it. Templates are often impersonal and rather useless. John Reaves 01:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad wording, yes that is what I meant, I did try to reach out and yeah I agree, the templates while useful are not really telling and feel rather cold and automated. Anyways thanks again for the assistance feel free to close this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 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.

New editors edit-warring at Peter R. Orszag

A few hours ago I reverted a deletion of a sourced personal life section [103] and explained why on the talk page [104]. Since then, an edit war has broken out amongst "new" editors and I have been accused of having an agenda (again). So 1) Is semi or full protection the way to go and 2) Is there enough for a sockpuppet investigation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

J.delanoy has handled the issue. Thanks J. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations by an offsite party

When reviewing an external link to an article I was working on earlier this week, I discovered that the link in question contained text that I had written for the article earlier this year verbatim. When I posed my problem earlier in the week on the #wp-en IRC channel I was advised to send something off to Wikimedia Legal but the WMF's attorney informed me that they did not protect projects' copyrights. This is the second time I've had content that I've worked on to some extent taken wholesale by another website (I've done my best to contact the first one) but I am more wary about this second instance because it isn't some shitty fansite stealing text word-for-word but a multi-million dollar corporation. I am at a loss as to what to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Start with the process outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process, and use the Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to initiate contact with the website. Unfortunately I think I'm right in saying that you're responsible for defending your own copyright (which kinda sucks, but there you go), so you're rather on your own - as the copyright holder, only you can give them the telling-off they deserve. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find the contact information for the website in question. They only have a support queue. I will attempt to send a message to support@their domain name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing the link in question? Maybe others can find the relevant contact details. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.funimation.com —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Address, phone and email: [105]. You're right, support@... does seem to be their only registered email.Yunshui 雲‍水 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It'd be more helpful if you could post exactly what is alleged to have been taken. For those who know nothing of this, it'd like MGM or Pixar or Disney taking your work for their own purposes. Without more information to go on, I cannot really comment further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Funimation blatantly copied the summary I had written in April for the first Ghost in the Shell: Arise installment which more or less exists in the exact same state as of the last time I checked the article. The only difference is that Funimation's version does not include the word "Set" before the phrase "In the year".—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You should tag the talk page with {{Backwardscopy}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were so worried about this, but there does appear to be merit to the argument. I used an old version from June after the announcement that they had acquired the rights.[106] Specifically this version.[107] As no previous cache is available at Archive.org, I did a duplication detector result.[108] With that being said, I'd contact Jackie Smith (Public relations manager) or possibly Joseph Nicholson (Marketing and Communications Executive). At the very least they might be able to direct you to the right person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a postal address. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have completely changed their description of the show now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved (well technically you could still pursue them for the earlier violation, but while I understand how you must feel, I don't think there's much point trying that) but for future reference you could try gpl-violations.org if you need to take it further. It's possible they will refuse since the site violated one of the GFDL or CC* rather than the GPL but they might be willing to offer help as it's still a free content and copyleft issue. You can also list them at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. * = I presume you wrote the material by yourself or with the assistance of other editors rather than taking it from a CC source, so it's completely dual licenced. In which case the site had to comply with at least one of those licences. Of course even if you partially took the content from a CC only source, you couldn't sue them for violating that licence. The CC only holder would need to do that. So even in that case it's still really a GFDL or CC issue from your POV. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Jezebel1349

Reluctantly I must inform admins of the case of the fairly new account of Jezebel1349 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently in the middle of a 24 hour block. Shortly after being blocked, she put blatantly racial and sexual invective in reply to me on her talkpage, including thinly veiled threatening language ("I have "surprises" for you looser, just wait..."), although she did then remove that part ([109]). So obviously I am a little concerned. This is after she repeatedly blanked references based only on IDONTLIKEIT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Currently she is scheduled to come off her block some time tomorrow. I'm not sure I want to find out what "surprises" she has in store for me at that time, what can I do? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week with no talk page privs. If disruption continues after block release, please alert me or bring it back here to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the sudden rash of trouble did not die down at the same article Madai and there is currently an SPI for the above Jezebel1349 and User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin that needs attention. Iranzamin-Iranzamin has a nearly identical habit of making false claims about my race on Talk:Madai which she perceives as "Indic-Pakistani-gypsy" for whatever bizarre reason: [110] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks

In just the past two weeks, MilesMoney has been repeatedly warned about their behavior in what appears to be at least five different incidents: [111][112][113][114][115]

MilesMoney responded to the the most recent warning with the request "Go away and don't come back", so I'll respect that and ask for others to alert the user to the existence of this discussion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified MilesMoney of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of those warnings are over the top. The first one involves one revert in a 24 hour period. The second one involves, at most, two reverts in a 24 hour period, something the OP is culpable of as well. The third one involves two reverts, the same number made by Roccodrift who did not respect WP:BRD. The fourth was legitimate, but happened 25 days ago. The fifth, may breach our WP:NPA policy slightly, but I've seen far worse from Sitush on MilesMoney's talk page, for example "Given that I am not the first that you have banished of late, and given your obvious incompetence, it does rather beg a question concerning your righteousness.". - MrX 14:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you are going to link to a diff involving me then I'd appreciate it if you could try to put it into context. For this one, you need to read the collapsed section here and probably also this on Bbb23's talk page. One difficulty that keeps raising its head is that MM routinely bans people from their talk page & often does so early in a discussion, making it difficult to resolve issues without escalating them to drama boards such as this - there is a chilling effect. I'll try to compile a list. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's his prerogative to ban people from his talk page, especially if they harangue him, as seems to be the case in the past few days. You're responsible for your own words, regardless of context. You don't hold the highground when you accuse others of the same type of behavior that you engage in. - MrX 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of context would like to sugar coat this in? "Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up." - MrX 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Sitush's conduct. Saying a user can ban other users from their talk pages is superficially accurate, but if a user develops a pattern of such bans, it may be reasonable to infer that they are not collaborative. MM provokes and others push back. Understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If that's the standard that were using, then there's nothing wrong with MilesMoney's conduct either. Others provoke and MilesMoney pushes back. - MrX 15:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Comment from uninvolved editor) After looking at WP:EDR, I have found that there is no formal interaction ban between MM and Sitush, so MM is just being a big you-know-what. However, it would be appreciated if these two opened a case at WP:DR instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:DRN, and that board is not for conduct disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that, and I have corrected it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair comment and I wish MilesMoney would refrain from banning editors from his talk page (including myself, BTW). My point is, there's enough trout to go around, and nothing here is actionable by an admin. - MrX 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I personally would appreciate it if MilesMoney didn't make comments like this ("what you say literally makes no sense. It's not even clear enough to be wrong."). I have a thick skin so I don't know if it's a personal attack or not, but I do think it is not helpful to furthering discussion and might make many feel their contributions on the talk page are useless so they might as well stop editing there. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That diff isn't a personal attack ... it doesn't even border on uncivil - kinda like Mexico and Belgium. ES&L 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The correct country is Austria, and in that little world on Wikipedia, everything is uncivil, nothing makes any sense, and all the participants snipe at each other incessantly. We should topic-ban all of them; either that, or get very large, resilient ear plugs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is this a fishing expedition? The diff showing a warning from me is because of a series of reverts at BLP Joss Whedon concerning an uncited section. MilesMoney brought references and eventually got talk page consensus for including the material. This diff is part of a larger pattern showing that MilesMoney likes a scrap—he likes to revert, bully and argue—but the result in this case was better for the article and reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfair to call this a "fishing expedition". Hector was concerned about what he perceived to be a pattern of behavior. He brought his concerns to MM and was told to go away, which only tends to confirm the pattern. Whether there's sufficient evidence to sanction MM is more complex, but I don't see this as a baseless report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note I haven't called for any particular form of action, I'm just 'reporting it up the chain of command'. MM seems to be having some trouble-- in just my own encounter, at one point, I think we had 6 different editors rejecting the controversial edit and MM was still warring on it. I tried to issue a very nice and sincere warning and got an extremely hostile response. My warning going unheeded, I thought I should drop a note here and let the experts sort it out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "chain of command". Edit-warring goes to WP:AN/EW, long-term behaviour goes to WP:RFC/U, and content disputes go to WP:DRN. You only come to ANI if you're requesting a specific action: a block or topic ban ES&L 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess part of my job here is to defend Hector. Your procedural statement is a bit constrained and hypertechnical. Editors may come here if they want to report a problem that hasn't yet risen to the level of starting an RfC/U. An editor may come here if all they want is a warning to the reported user. An editor may come here because they think there's a problem meriting administrative attention but they're not sure what the appropriate sanction is, and maybe there is none. Now, if you want to say instead that you believe no administrative intervention is required, that's a different matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector reinserted a BLP violation then templated Miles for removing Hector's violation even after Miles had clearly explained the issue on talk and had taken it to BLP. Hector, you should withdraw this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A strong talk page consensus held it was not a BLP violation. MM can disagree with that consensus, and that consensus can change, but edit warring against consensus is unacceptable behavior, and attacking me for holding him to that level of competence is doubly unacceptable. Specifico, you do your friend (non-friend?) a disservice when you condone his behavior-- he may well belief in his opinion, but it is not acceptable for him to act as though his opinion outweighs or negates the opinion of the rest of community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I consider it a Personal Attack for you to call MilesMoney my friend and you should strike that remark. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, sorry (and confused!) that you found that offensive, but clearly, you deserve the right to characterize your relationship or lack thereof however you wish. My apologies for apparently implying something you didn't want implied.HectorMoffet (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hector, please state exactly what was it that you were implying and please explain why you are confused that I would find it offensive? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney's use of the policy BLPCRIME here as grounds for removing part of a section heading doesn't make any sense. Maybe the part about lobbying needed to go, but that has nothing to do with the BLP, much less the subsection on BLPCRIME in policy. I suggest MilesMoney cease using fraudulent rationales in their edit summaries.--MONGO 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the rationale makes no sense, but do you have to call it "fraudulent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did have to call that fraudulent...and I could do without the snippy remark.--MONGO 02:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, in case anyone is wondering, MONGO's rather belated response stems from this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was merely trying to save you some grief by not having that party drag you into a miserable time sapping waste of your time, but thats up to you, which as you put it yourself there, was complex. Most of your responses here at these noticeboards consist of critiquing other's comments rather than dealing with the issue at hand, which obfuscates solving the real problems, and undermines the purposes of the noticeboards...all it does is make others exasperated. I have yet to see you offer any solid remedy on the issue of MilesMoney, perhaps because you have none, when all one really need to is a little groundwork and the truth will be known if you know how to do it, and it doesn't need a checkuser.--MONGO 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@MONGO:, pray, don't keep us all in suspense ;) There have been various sock accusations levelled at MilesMoney at various times (as recently as this weekend). They've come to nothing at SPI. If you've done some groundwork that enlightens that situation or any other regarding MM - whether favourable to MM or not - then please do share it. Perhaps just say here that you've emailed admin X about it if you think that whatever you have is sensitive. I'd rather not waste more of my time preparing for a RfC/U if it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has gone on long enough & so I've started User:Sitush/summary. I hope to complete the talk page resume in the next few hours. I realise that some people may consider it to be an attack page & I'll accept it if the thing is deleted for that reason. It should certainly be deleted when the community has reached some sort of decision about the behavioural issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:ATTACK, it could be deleted ("keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate"). However, pursuant to WP:UP#POLEMIC (which is not policy but is more specific), it is okay based on your purpose ("The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."). As an aside, although I have not reviewed the list, based on its length, I wonder if an RfC/U would be more appropriate. Entirely up to you (and any other editors), of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect RfC/U is where this mess is going to end up because I'm not convinced that ANI will deal with it. Either way, it is not my intention to retain the thing for any longer than is strictly necessary and I am including favourable stuff (barnstars issued etc). That said, I'm not going to work on it exclusively - there'll soon be a huge backlog of poor stuff on the caste etc articles unless I do some maintenance there also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to assemble diffs in ones userspace regarding another editor's behavior so long as it is soon thereafter placed in a RfcU or with arbcom, afterwhich it can be deleted.--MONGO 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to amplify something from Binksternet's earlier comment: "... he likes to revert, bully and argue". This is a concise and well-stated encapsulation of the problem and moreover, when even Miles' supporters are saying this I think there is a consensus that his behavior is combative. Roccodrift (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is but we need diffs, not encapsulations. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be another witch hunt. In all the diffs thus far presented (e.g., User:Carolmooredc's complaint about Miles' drawing attention to her inscrutable writing style -- a genuine problem, which makes it hard to collaborate with her on WP), no credible case has been made for any disciplinary action. So Sitush -- a guy who says "grow up", calls out people's "incompetence", and then has the gall to complain about other users making "personal" comments -- is now trying to rehash totally off-topic stuff from July, because he sees the ANI as an opportunity to punish Miles. Absolutely contemptible conduct. Close this thread and leave Miles alone. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't you find it odd that there should be so many of these so-called witch hunt against the same person? Something must be wrong, surely, either with their actions or those of their accusers? And don't worry if you feel left out: your own actions will likely be raised in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What I infer when I see a ton of witch-hunts against one editors is that there may be a bunch of people out to get him, whether it be that they disagree with him or otherwise. KonveyorBelt 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I said that there seems to be something wrong somewhere, not necessarily wrt one person. On the other hand, assuming that the "bunch of people" are not meatpuppets, consensus has its part to play in this. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the phenomenon not "odd", but it's easily understood. There's a significant number of relatively long-time users who feel that, due to their seniority, they are entitled to bait excitable newcomers into behavior which can be used to denigrate and impugn the newbies. These elders, as would be expected, are those who have devoted and continue to devote a significant amount of time and attention to WP. Over time, they form relationships with other elders and with various Admins. Those who become Admins tend to be even-tempered and are in general disinclined to take strong action. Their role is largely confined to facilitation in uncontroversial matters and identifying and vetting consensus on talk and noticeboard threads. Because the WP elders are the only ones with enough site knowledge, time and interest to challenge or depose an Admin, the Admins have an understandable bias in favor of giving free rein to the elders. To a social scientist and libertarian such as myself this is easily understood. It's likely a stable situation, because the relatively junior editors who actually come here to work on content are unlikely to be willing to devote the time required to compile dossiers of diffs and recruit allies and navigate the political processes of this community. The result is that WP, which is commonly understood to be dedicated to and thrive on openness, actually operates as a rather closed and reactionary community. I'm not expressing any personal opinion or evaluation about this state of affairs, just observing one aspect of why it is neither "odd" nor "wrong". SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Some generalized and, yes, personalized criticism of a large number of editors and admins doesn't seem to be a very appropriate response to a discussion of one editor's behavior. And being a libertarian means you have some respect for the contract/agreement you make when you join wikipedia, including rules on how to change policies you don't like. Criticizing alleged elites who actually have learned the rules and attempt to live by them because you have some problem with attempted enforcement of voluntary agreed upon rules, while giving no constructive suggestions, isn't particularly libertarian. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is that the 'elites' are violating the 'voluntary contract' of the community, by prioritizing relationships and politics over sober enforcement of the rules. Your insinuation that he is not a good libertarian is a personal attack that should be removed from the article. (How would you like it if someone told you you're not a good feminist or anti-war activist?) Steeletrap (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think here by "personal attack" we're talking about the one defined and forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and such certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of MilesMoney's interaction. Special:Contributions/65.102.177.223 had made 3 edits to Liberty University and posted 2 notices to MM's talk page, all on December 2. Next, starting on December 4, the IP edited 3 other articles (with 4 edits). On December 6, I posted an IP welcome message (not referencing any particular contribution.) MM's follow-up, 81 minutes later, lacks a certain amount of AGF and civility, but does not surprise me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Legionarius

Legionarius and IP 130.88.164.18 are acting like they own the article Arena Corinthians , and they are simply preventing me from editing, reverting all my edits. The article seemed a great advertisement when I started inserting "bad" data about the stadium, on the involvement of mafias, corruption and other notorious problems involving this stadium. Then this user and this IP, one of them reportedly Corinhtians supporter (as evidenced by this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211, where he says in Portuguese "MY world championship"), and a great chance that Legionarius also be supporter of Corinthians, started making total reversals of my issues, under the most absurd arguments possible : that my sources were not reliable (ridiculous, as they are excellent sources and very reliable) that it has nothing to do with the article (yes, it has!) while they are trying to block me in all possible ways. Not achieving success, departed to an unnecessary "Dispute resolution noticeboard", to try to intimidate me. Now both reverted again my editions and soon after, gone : Legionarius does not edit by the last the two days and the IP, 3 days. That is, they simply want to keep the article as if it were a gigantic unreal propaganda pro team they support, hiding important facts concerning the subject. I ask that both should be blocked from Wikipedia, or at least prevented from editing this article , since both been acting in the same format that single-purpose accounts: Legionatius only edit this article, specifically, since June 2013, and the IP (which seems to be the same person, or known, because he acts together Legionarius, and was blocked by block evasion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:130.88.164.18&diff=584602079&oldid=584550024) basically just edited this article also . I'm sick of this bias . Rauzaruku (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you're fresh off and WP:EW block on this article and just repeated the edit that you were blocked for, continuing the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Administrators. This is an unfortunate situation. First, I am not 130.88.164.18. [116]

When I rewrote the article and put it to GA this gentleman gave me a warning the article would never be stable and comparing the club to a murderer.[117] After some months he showed up adding several libelous additions from biased sources. Discussions have been underway. There are too many diffs to list. I will try to put a timeline here:

1. Article rewritten and put up to GA. Message from user:[118] . Highlights: demonstrably buying titles, connects with the Brazilian media mafia, it's like trying to highlight an article about a thief or a murderer.

2.Somebody put a rebuttal and he deleted it. [119] Summary: Corinthians fans opinions aren't relevant.

3. He makes changes to reflect his POV[120], followed by about 10 others. I say that it is not a good source, because it is biased. [121] He got into an edit war with user 130.88.164.18.

3. Other rebuttals:My "accusations" are not accusations, they are proven , documented and referenced facts . Try removing anything, and I call the administrators to block and ban you, You better stop lying about the source, and I do not invention texts. In the report, there are documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If you don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts to the articles, then you are a partial editor, and this article is not afford to be GA. And, in fact, you've been acting like a "single-purpose account" for a long time here. 5 years out of Wikipedia and you returned into account single-purpose format - an entire semester just editing this article. Impressively partial.

3. I contact him on his talk page. Not being successful, I put up a RfC[122], using the GA version as a base. As he ignores the RfC, I reverted it and asked repeatedly to put his comments on the RfC. That got me blocked.

4. His offer of consensus is If you want a consensus from me, do a section with "the offical Globo-CBF-Federal Government-Russian Mafia" version.[123]. I really cannot go there,as just there is no indication that this is true.

Rauzaruku has some problems with his English, what makes the conversation more difficult. i.e., he mistook disgusted for disgusting. Not criticizing; just saying that he may be taking statements the wrong way.

He historically has been showing this POV pushing behavior on other articles, like on Portuguese Language[124][125], Partido da Imprensa Golpista [126], discussing medal orders on articles, Rodrigo Constantino, Instituto Millenium(the last two with User: Al Lemos).

On the Portuguese Wikipedia, he was banned when using other nicks:

Dariusvista

CoalaBR and his puppets, more puppets, other puppets and Some more puppets.

As Rauzaruku he was blocked once for POV pushing and uncivility and now he is up again for blocking.

You can find plenty of uncivil comments and POV pushing on his history. His main pet peeves are Corinthians and Politics.

Is there and admin that is bot and admin here and on PT:wiki?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

Legionarius (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This guy is a comedy. He is not discussing the article, just the people. His only goal is to block who edit his "sacred" article... I'm doing a hard work here in the swimming section for months, but it's so good to ignore all my contributions (more than 400 articles created, and more than 90% of my time evolving articles) and focus only in the moments there I'm fighting against vandals here.... extremely partial. I would like to know why you stopped 5 years to edit here, and suddenly, started to edit only in Arena Corinthians for 6 months, someone is paying you and stuff? Or you have more accounts? This is very strange. I'm waiting you discuss the article (you didn't nothing yet), and don't try to ban me all the time, trying to protect your giant Corinthians propaganda. Al Lemos is another partial editor, just like you, who wants to use Wikipedia to do political propaganda. This coward run from here to vandalize another wikis. You could follow this example. I want to see an administrator saying that my sources are not acceptable, not a wiki-lawyer trying to ban me. Oh, and I'm waiting you to do something more useful in your life, than to be 6 months using Wikipedia as your personal blog. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. To keep things short, I am the opposite of all the accusations you put. Regarding the content discussion, please read the talk page as it is very detailed there, a long text. Once an admin get a chance to look at this incident you raised and advises on the next steps, I will resume editing and communicating. Legionarius (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this dispute except for the fact that I closed the unsuccessful case that was filed at WP:DRN. However, I wanted to make involved parties aware that, unlike WP:DRN which is a forum designed exclusively for content disputes, this forum is designed to address behavioral problems in editors. So it is appropriate for editors here to discuss behavioral problems in a civil way, using diffs to support their allegations. Also, editors should be aware that if they come to this forum with unclean hands there is the possibility of the WP:Boomerang effect. Good luck to both of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku also defaced the article on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You are so cool, man. Don't have nothing to do in your HUE HUE BR life, except to edit Wikipedia and your beloved team article, and watch my edits. Wow, amazing. Want a trophy by your life inutility? I'm still waiting you discuss the sources and the text, not myself. As well as you don't have arguments to do against the extreme notability and reliability of my sources, you keep trying to block me. Pathetic. You're hitting the water. When you stop to act as a single-purpose account, a fanatical supporter of Corinthians and a wiki-lawyer, call me. Why do not you try to edit other articles? Oh yeah, six months ago, someone must have paid you to use Wikipedia as pro-Corinthians propaganda blog and since then you just edit this article, I forgot it. Well, I don't need to do nothing, except to wait Legionarius grow up and write a section with the official version of the history, but he don't want to do it, so, I can't do nothing. If he try to erase it all again, I will revert this vandal again. And that's it to me, good night. Now I'll edit swimming articles again, I'll not lose more time with this. I suggest to filter Legionarius from editing this article, this will finish our problem. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to block Rauzaruku for the above rants alone already (they are littered with personal attacks), but I threw in continued edit warring on the article--their preferred version contains at least one clear-cut BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. If they don't learn from this, given their long history of disruption across numerous articles and numerous Wikis, and a few socks being thrown in as well, I'd support an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Rauzaruku is back reverting the articles on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bookspam

User:Dutchy85 has added "bookspam" to the lead paragraphs of dozens of articles. The book appears to be self-published. It's been out for four years, but has no reviews on Amazon. I haven't established a link between the account and the author, but I haven't much time this morning. There's a lot to revert, an I figured I'd run it by the group first in any case since this is the first time I've encountered "book spamming" to this degree. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Rklawton - the book is not self published it's from McFarland who are a very legitimate publishing house. It the book is a resource on AIP films and I am going through it. http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-3309-4. I am not the author of the book I just have a copy of it. I am just a fan of AIP films and trying to increase the reference sources for AIP films on wikipedia.Dutchy85 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've already determined that McFarland is not "a very legitimate publishing house" in the way you're suggesting. It's barely a step away from POD. ES&L 14:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves, please tell me where we've determined that, to satisfy my Wikipedian and professional curiosity. I have some questions about McFarland, but I wouldn't put it as you just did, at least not yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Rklawton, I really think you should have discussed this with the user first; I'm not sure this as yet adds up to an incident that should be listed here. Now, a discussion on this topic is very welcome, of course, though this may not be the best venue. Anyway, I've looked at a couple of McFarland books and they're kind of hit and miss. I got one on my desk that I've cited here (in No Such Thing (film)) because I have faith in the particular book.

  Now, Dutchy's edits could be entirely valid; if there is no other reason in their edit history to think this might be spam we have to accept it. I've done this too, though not to this extent: you run into a useful book and start citing it all over the place. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I've not scrolled through Dutchy85's edits, but I have seen his or her additions of gross figures to numerous film article infoboxes, so this is not a single-purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Two other points: I cannot locate any discussion on WP:RSN about McFarland, specifically that they are "barely a step away from POD", so it would be good to have a pointer to such a discussion. Second, I note that Rklawton has nominated the article McFarland & Company, about the company, for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that link, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The book is held in over 200 libraries according to worldcat. I have not seen it, but I consider it porobably acceptable as a usable source, at least for factual material, The place for this discussion is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If 200 libraries actually bought the book, I'd be impressed. The fact is, McFarland is an independent publisher. They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published. Now if we can find some indication of reliability, that would be different, but I'm not seeing any. Here on Wikipedia, if someone wants to claim a source is reliable, then the burden is on them to demonstrate it's reliable rather than the other way around. At any rate, given the volume of editing, I'm looking for several things - a general feeling for whether or not these edits should be revered, and a general idea of whether or not the account's editing privileges should be revoked. We've had enough Wiki-PR type nonsense already, and I'm not all that keen on seeing it continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a gulf of difference between an academic, specialty press and a vanity press! Coming out with statements such as "They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published" is plain wrong. You question the "reliability" of their works; try the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Their 2012 awards for Outstanding Reference Sources includes McFarland's The Polish American Encyclopedia[127]; in 2011 Off Broadway Musicals, 1910 – 2007: Casts, Credits, Songs, Critical Reception and Performance Data of More Than 1,800 Shows[128]; 2010 Broadway Plays and Musicals: Descriptions and Essential Facts[129]. Also in 2010, McFarland were picked for RUSA's Best Historical materials with The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography[130]. In 2006 McFarland's The Titanic in Print and on Screen: An Annotated Guide to Books, Films, Television Shows, and Other Media was picked by RUSA for Best Bibliographies in History[131]. Sure, they publish niche works, but you are way off mark with this unwarranted criticism of McFarland's practices and credentials. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Their website is quire explicit that they do not accept payment for publication. The idea that Dutchy's editing privileges should be revoked because you have a bug up your butt about McFarland is absurd and, if done, likely an abuse of your responsibilities as an admin. Take a look at the AfD you started, which is pretty much a snow keep at this point, for the community's take on your view of McFarland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than take action myself in this case, I put it up for discussion here. And that's fully appropriate. Your language and your tone, however, are not appropriate, and if it persists, you will find your own account posted here as the subject of a new discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My tone is completely appropriate, especially considering what very much looks like a retaliatory WP:BATTLEGROUND AfD nomination, and especially considering you brought this issue here without doing the least bit of investigation into Dutchy's editing history. Instead you're making strong charges against an entirely innocent editor without evidence and throwing around threats of "revoking editing privilgees" and filing unwarranted AN/I reports because someone spoke frankly to you. I'm sure you enjoy shooting from the hip, but your administrative responsibilities call for more than that, which you have not fulfilled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Another user re-editing my talk page comments

User:Drmargi has repeatedly re-edited my comments in a talk page discussion. I pointed out that this is not allowed per talk page guidelines and that he/she does not have my permission to do this. She nonetheless continued.

• [132]
• [133]
• [134]

ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personal attacks should be removed, but Template:RPA is better than the text Drmagi used. Welcome to the world of WP:BOOMERANG. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't know about the template. Thank you! Corrected, and my edits stand. CK was asked several times to address the issue, not the editor, but refuses, with responses peppered with personal attacks. Consequently, I redacted them, per WP:NPOV which is within policy. --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV is not relevant to redacting talk page comments.

2. The first two diffs show that Drmagi removed the comment "The article's self-appointed caretaker", claiming that this represented a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. See WP:NPA#WHATIS.

3. The third diff shows that Drmagi removed the comment "Grow up". The comment was uncivil. However, before we criticise ChakaKong for this, we should read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, which says that one form of incivility is "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Drmargi's repeated unwarranted accusations that ChakaKong was making personal attacks, and deleting parts of ChakaKong's talk page posts are a good example of baiting as described in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.

Please could we consider a 6 hour block for Drmargi to give him/her time to reflect. If he/she continues his/her uncivil behaviour, the blocks should escalate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: Looking at the provided diffs there is another way to interpret this. Drmargi being called a "self-proclaimed caretaker" can also be seen as an accusation of him having ownership issues, which could itself be seen as a personal attack. 90.193.35.112 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — 90.193.35.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If CK discusses the issue and behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner, CK doesn't have a problem. End of story. This had gone dormant two days ago, and it wasn't me who stirred it up again. He's been nothing but belligerent from the start, and I'm not prepared to tolerate his name calling and false accusations. They are personal attacks designed to bully me into the outcome he desires. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent genre warring by Alcatrazzrapper

I'm not sure exactly where I should go for this. It seems Alcatrazzrapper is a WP:GWAR and WP:SPA which has done nothing but change genres on hip hop album articles without any discussion at all. I gave him a final warning on the 3rd, but he has not stopped. Perhaps a block is in order, but I will leave that decision up to an admin. Jinkinson talk to me 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• This and this are properly verified, so it seems to me they're following guidelines in at least those two edits. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. Both of those sources have "political rap" listed as a "style". Alcatrazzrapper put in "political hip-hop" which is surely not synonymous, and a genre is not the same as a style. Allmusic is a mediocre source at the best of times, and it's really only useful for a baseline listing of genres if no other meaningful journalism is available about the album. No one knows where they get their "genre" and "style" attributes—it could be some data entry monkey who's just copying metadata from the publisher. You can't tell any of this to your typical genre warrior, though, because they don't communicate or listen to arguments. They're just here to change genres on every album they can find. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Front Page Image

Currently File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png is on the "Today's Featured Article", but it might be a good idea to switch images. Reds and blues close together in images appear to "flash" (for lack of a better term) and might cause a seizure in someone who is sensitive to those colors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CENSORED... or perhaps time to repeal that extremely problematic policy. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User: 78.156.109.166

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 IP address is being exclusively to troll at the WP:Help Desk and the various sections of the WP:Reference Desk.

Some of the Help Desk diffs follow: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

IP address has been blocked once. I did not look up the block entry. A longer block is needed for this troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original block was for randomly adding the words "Michael Jackson" to articles (eg). I am not sure if the editor is a troll, but has had some difficulty understanding how to work on Wikipedia (to put it mildly). I support a longer block until the editor can understand complex text necessary to edit on the project. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor's current focus of asking strange questions at the Help Desk and the Reference Desk and then restating the question so that the original answer was not an answer seems to be characteristic of a troll. At least one other editor at the Help Desk has said that we (the Help Desk regulars) are being trolled. Even if the editor is not a troll, he or she is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do the links not work for me? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy.[135] Doc talk 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Obvious trolling, see e.g. Wikipedia:Help desk#Opinion questions in the Reference Desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from the bible related diffs alone, the user has a habit of making rude demands demand for yes or no answer, refactored after he was criticisd, giving bizarre excuses for his behavior I don't have Google, "Uh... Did I mention memory?" > "Can't even read your text just above, because my drug..." asking back-to-back opinion questions "Are we in hell? Serious question", and editing his remarks after the fact without leaving any trace like a crossout or brackets. He is obviously aware of his behavior, given he assures us his answers are serious, and sliently edits his comments when subject to criticism. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 8 December 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 Bhutto gee

• Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin)and Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles for example [136], [137] and [138].--Jockzain (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sock and corresponding sleeper blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

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.

---

Could an admin possibly assist with a speedier speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela to allow for the current article Death of Nelson Mandela to be moved to that title. I have updated the article to include information pertaining to the funeral with the aim of following the structure of other similar articles, e.g. Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. I only make a request here due to the large amount of traffic this page is and will receive as it gets closer to the funeral in addition to the fact that the redirect is no longer automatic due the the speedy deletion template I placed there. Thanks - Reallynca (talk) 23:12, 8 December 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.

Tell me

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

---

Why can I not have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Lewis (talk • contribs) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Because you do not yet meet our guidelines for notability. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 8 December 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.

Persistent creation of inappropriate articles

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

---

• XavierTG (talk · contribs)

Not blatant vandalism, but this blast of articles detailing game rules isn't encyclopedic. User has not gotten the hint after numerous warnings and a block. And I suspect the most recent set of articles has been copied from elsewhere, but can't find the source(s). JNW (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted their contributions. I don't know if they should be blocked indefinitely or not. The kids ate their dinner and shared their chocolate letter with me (Sinterklaas shipped them from the Netherlands), so I'm not really in a foul enough mood, maybe. But a block for incompetence, I wouldn't oppose. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies. I confess I am in a foul mood--the parents are ailing far away and I missed work to tend to my gal, who's quite ill just now. JNW (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You got me in a really foul mood also, I felt like blocking someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia and I found one here ;). Blocked indefinitely, clearly warned and blocked before and didn't listen. No need in keeping him around making inappropriate game guides and blanking pages. Secret ^account 04:55, 9 December 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.

Suspected Attempt at Outing [139]

Hello. Could someone please look into and/or advise on procedure/action concerning an incident of a suspected attempt at Outing [140] a user via a possibly Uncivil comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question;

"Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

N.B. A previous comment by Socialmedium in the same Article began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', "

Both comments can be found here [141] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do suggest that an admin with a little time and some patience take a look at the article Institute for Learning and its talk page because it looks very much like some things are going on there. Specifically, User:Socialmedium appears to be an SPA, possibly with a COI, but almost certainly with a fixed POV, who is attempting ownership of the article. On the other side, I'd suggest the possibility of socking, both via IPs and throw-away accounts. The "outing" comment above also raises the possibility that this editing conflict is a real-world dispute that's moved on-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a dispute and some edit warring involving two named editors and some anonymous IP editors, none of whom seem to have other interests within Wikipedia. There's a long section on the "2011 membership fees dispute". I'm not sure what the dispute was about, or that anybody outside the organization cares about it. I'd suggest that if the parties involved don't stop fighting over it, someone should cut out most of that material and trim the article down. John Nagle (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am also sure that Socialmedium is not being WP:CIVIL. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

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

---

Hello all. I would like to make an ANI report against Kafziel even though he has only responded to one warning message (so I presume he has only read one), because (1) it seems quite serious and may even constitute enough reason for a permanent desysopping and (2) reversion of his edits needs administrative attention anyway.

Kafziel has been making edits against consensus with articles at WP:AfC, the main issue being he deletes articles that he does not accept. The proper course of action based on wide consensus is to simply decline the article and allow the reviewee to read the comments on why the article was declined and allow them to improve the article and resubmit it. As I am not an administrator, I do not have access to the specific content in each article, but a list of articles that he has deleted can be found at Special:Log/Kafziel. Huon has also brought up four especially troublesome deletions at his talk page, namely first, A7 deletion outside of mainspace, second, inappropriate G13 deletion as it has been actively worked on in October, so that's only one or two months, not six, third, CSD of article he moved into mainspace just minutes before, and fourth, which Huon did not explain.

Kafziel then responded, citing that AfC is not policy and also IAR. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what consensus and WP:IAR mean. After that, User:Hasteur, User:SilkTork and I confronted him about his edits. User:Hasteur has also emailed ArbCom about this. This is his rationale behind doing his actions, but of course that is, again, against consensus and is detrimental to the AfC project, whose aims is to help a user create an article through feedback and guidance. If we need to resort to such measures to clear the backlog, we might as well not have AfC altogether. I also suspect that he has resorted to accepting every article to clear out the backlog before, but this post is getting lengthy and it's late at night for me so I'll probably add another post tomorrow if I can find evidence of that.

Ok, now for the administrative part: I request the recovery of all the articles that User:Kafziel has deleted inappropriately, possibly with an apology note to the writer's talk page.

Thanks and goodnight, I'll come back tomorrow. Darylgolden^(talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• AFC again, eh? Don't see much "feedback" whether the article is deleted or not. That being said, this is going a bit further beyond bounds than I've seen before. Is there a list of AFC entries which need to be undeleted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• While there is some degree of good intention in Kafziel's efforts in the AfC namespace, and Crisco makes a fair point, these actions are totally out of processes and ultimately make it harder for the limited number of Wikiproject AFC members who try to offer feedback and answer help requests. I would request Kafziel to stop unilaterally deleting AfC submissions (whether he moves them mainspace first or not...). If he does so, then I see no need for this AN/I thread to go any further. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's just figure this out for a second - outright promotion and BLP violations would be subject to immediate speedy deletion when rejected, and sensibly, so would AFC's of articles that already exist. If I look at User:Kafziel's most recent deletions in the AFC space:

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia (A10 - identical article already exists) ... appears to be a valid deletion
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opsonin Pharma Limited (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... valid CSD reasoning
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ras Al Khaimah Tourism Development Authority (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... again, a valid CSD reasoning
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi (WP:CSD#A7) ... hmmm, perhaps no proper reason to delete
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9 (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13) ... again, valid deletion reason.

So, from those 5 ... can someone tell me what the problem is (other than #4)? ES&L 16:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit unsettling that Kafziel would unilaterally interpret his role in a way that put him at loggerheads with editors at AfC. There is no way for regular editors to review speedy deletions. It's admirable that he would try to clear out the large backlog, but not by any means necessary. I don't blame users for being suspicious at an admin moving pages to the article space simply so he can speedy delete them under a rationale that applies only to the main space. If an ordinary user were to start moving pages and then request speedy deletion, I assume this would be considered disruptive editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kafziel's conduct is cavalier and out of process. The A category of speedy delete shouldn't be used on AFC articles. The G category, of course, can be used, although normally the creator should be given an opportunity to correct the problem, except perhaps in egregious circumstances. In any event, if he wants an AFC article deleted based on a valid criterion, he should tag it rather than delete it directly. His reliance on IAR appears to me to be a self-serving justification to do what he wants. He should take Silk Tork's advice and go work somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

4 is a copyright violation of this, right action, wrong reason. AfCs are not immune to speedy deletion on blatant spam/copyright/BLP grounds, but it seems to me that the main issue here is whether it's correct to move to main space just to SD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves With respect, there's actually consensus approved ways to deal with your examples

1. Decline as Exists, wait for G13 to become eligible, and then delete. A10 is not valid in the AfC project space.
2. AfC pages are given a little more leeway in terms of the Advertising rationalle and as such this would have been beter served by an eventual G13 nomination
3. Again, Advertising is given a more leeway.
4. A7 is for article space, not the AfC project space.
5. G13 perhaps, but there's already a systematic process going through and notifying creators and nominating for G13 so that there is an opportunity for review.

For these reasons, ES&L, the defense is shaky at best and outright wrong when considered by a normal editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd say that using an "A" CSD criterion for something not in article space is a problem, no matter what else is going on. And that's ignoring that AfC is designed to be a place where failure and re-shaping of articles is allowed, which means that "nope this doesn't pass now, deleting" completely short-circuits the workflow. I'm very much sympathetic to the sense that AfC is filled with deletable crap, and to wondering why leave it all there instead of dealing with it, and I might even support a proposal that we start giving people less leash at AfC as far as things like advertisement articles, but the current process is set up to deliberately not be the "one chance and done" situation a user would be put in when creating an article in mainspace. That means not insta-deleting if an article isn't up to snuff.

  I'm also sympathetic to "Wikiprojects can't tell us what to do", and Kafziel's claim that since he's not a member of AfC, he's not bound by how its members do things, but in this case I would venture to say that "don't delete declined stuff unless it meets G10, G12 or G13" is not a wikiproject guideline; it's pretty much a universal one followed by any user who touches AfC from the reviewing end. I'm not a member of Wikiproject AfC (in fact, I tend to forget it exists), but I handle AfCs and I do it by accepting or declining submissions, not deleting them. Consensus among everyone I know of other than Kafziel who handles AfCs is that AfCs are deleted upon review only in circumstances where they contain BLP violations or copyvio. "I know what consensus is, and I know that people object to what I'm doing, but I don't feel like doing it according to consensus" isn't ignoring the rules, it's flouting them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jimfbleak Even if it was a copyright violation the standard practice for AfC is to decline, mark as a copyright violation Template:AFC_submission/comments and if it's a bulk violation, then to blank the page. Deleting is straight up out of process especially when deleting for the wrong rationale. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard practice is therefore completely wrong. It is illegal to infringe copyright, and I don't think copyright owners would see AfC as a refuge from US law. FWIW, I just deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Sisters for copyright infringement and blatant spamming. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation is not "illegal", it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights, and therefore a civil matter, which is a very different thing. Let's not get all hyperbolic here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement is, of course, a G category and can be used outside of article name space. However, it's not that big a deal if the page is blanked. We remove copyright infringment from existing articles without deleting them. We only use G12 when it's a new article and the entire article infringes. If it's done at AfC, the problem is still fixable, and, in any event, whether deleted or not copyright infringement still took place; you don't eliminate the original infringement by deleting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't agree with applying any of the A criterion to AfC but not only is it absolutely wrong to not mark a blatant copyright violation (or attack page) for immediate deletion, but those are in the instructions for reviewers at AfC (though I should qualify that I was the one who edited the project to change the former wrong process of just blanking these, when I found that that was in the instructions [142]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an attack page should be deleted. There's no reasonable basis to think it's correctable. I still disagree with the copyright infringement issue as a lot of users don't understand the problem but could correct it if given a chance, but, at the same time, it doesn't bother me all that much if it is deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations and attack pages can and should be deleted in AfC space. That's not at issue here. I pointed out a couple of problematic deletions on Kafziel's talk page: The A7 deletion outside the mainspace mentioned above, a G13 deletion of a non-stale draft, another A7 Kafziel deleted minutes after moving it into the mainspace himself (he says moving it was a mistake and he reconsidered, but there are a bunch of others he treated in the same fashion: Brainz, Tyrolean Independent Film Festival, Lambloch. Several of those seem to be about notable topics and could be de-spamified with comparatively little effort, making Kafziel's G11 rationales dubious. I might accept A10 for AfC drafts if we already have a sufficiently similar article, but in many cases what would be needed is a histmerge, not deletion of a draft that actually predates the article (see for example [143] and The Osseointegration Group of Australia).

In summary, trying to clean up the AfC backlog is a laudable goal, but deleting everything not ready for the mainspace yet is not the way to do it. Huon (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been thousands of articles accepted in Afc which started out being very promotional or having no references at all. Crisco 1492 says there isn't much guidance given, but the help is spread over many talk pages, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, on the users' talk pages and on the talk pages of the reviewers (such as mine HERE. I do sometimes nominate duplicate articles for deletion, but only after checking that they don't hold a significant part of the mainspace article's history. The submissions are not in article space, and are all marked inside the submit template with NOINDEX, so the urgency to remove them is much lower (except in the case of attack pages or copyvios of course). If Afc submissions are to be treated the same as regular mainspace articles, then Afc might as well be shut down. I proposed this on a temporary basis recently as a measure to deal with the backlog, and the response was far from positive. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted some AfC submissions as G11, and deleted some as duplicates (though I use G6 rather than A10). I know quite a few other admins who do so also, and I would not say there is a consensus never to use these criteria at AfC. (FWIW, I point out that one of the multiple defects of the AfC process is the lack of a good way of handling duplicates) However, the standards for both of these are much more liberal than for articles in mainspace, because they can be improved and are at AfC for improvement. I will delete an AfC that is an outright advertisement, or an so promotional that despite multiple submissions it appears it will never get fixed, but the criterion for articles in mainspace is merely not fixable by normal editing but requiring extensive rewriting. AfC is the place for such rewriting. With respect to the articles about, the tourism development G11 could conceivably be edited into acceptability, but the Opsonin one is something I might have deleted also. I will delete an afc that is an exact copy as A6, but not one which is merely substantially a duplicate, because it might be possible to merge some of the material. Of course the deletion as A7 is improper, and I would have considered it improper even as an article, because it makes a plausible claim to significance as CEO of a significant company.

I consider it acceptable to delete an occasional G13 out of the normal sequence, and many admins have done so, but only if it has been there considerably more than the minimal 6 months (the point which the routine backlog clearance process has reached is at about 14 months at the moment) . I will sometimes do this for something altogether hopeless. The article mentioned above was 7 months old, and is not utterly hopeless, though unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

1. @Fluffernutter I don't agree with "I'm not part of the WikiProject, therefore I don't follow their rules." It's like saying you're not part of Wikipedia, therefore you can do whatever you want with Wikipedia articles - this is not a valid excuse because even if you claim that you are not part of Wikipedia, you are editing its articles and therefore must still follow rules when doing so. Similarly, Kafziel may not be part of the AfC wikiproject, but he is editing pages under the AfC project, and since there is an established consensus with how to deal with such articles, he must follow consensus. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Can we discuss about the articles that should be recovered? At present, I feel that this is the most urgent issue, as his actions have probably hurt a lot of newbies who may be worried about their articles being deleted and they may not know what to do. I would say recover every article deleted under the 'A' criteria, including pages which have been moved to mainspace before being deleted. Articles deleted under G11 that are promotional in tone but still contain substantial information should also be recovered. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are you sure you're replying to the right person, Darylgolden? I didn't say anything resembling the words you're saying I said; my point was in fact that "I'm not a member of Wikiproject:AfC" is not an excuse to not abide by community guidelines and consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for misreading your comment, Fluffernutter. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To start with, since G13s are restored in response to a good-faith request if there is no other problem preventing it, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9/ I am prepared to restore the others except Opsonin, but I have no objection if another admin wants to restore that one also, because if we disagree, it's not a valid speedy G11. For non-obvious cases, the procedure for deletion is to list the article for a discussion at MfD. We may work out something better when we have the drafts namespace implemented.Perhaps the admin who works most with these ( User:Kudpung ) will comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm the admin who works most on these; perhaps one who has done the largest nubers of dG13 eletions but there are dozens of admins whose names we hardly ever come across who gnome away occasionally at the CSD cat doing perhaps there or four at a time, but it still happens very often that while I am reviewing one G13, by the time I reach for the delete button - or rescue it - someone else has already deleted it. My main concern is that it appears to me that if there are too many G13 in the the queue, some admins who know how to do it may simply be doing batch deletions without looking at any of them; creating a new backlog from an old one is counter productive. Due to the huge backlog, the vast majority of G13 are over a year old, so theoretically there should be no more qualms about deleting them than an expired PROD, after all, the creators have had long enough - and many of the creations have not even actually been submitted. I've rescued a tiny few but generally the vast majority of G13 would never be let into mainspace under any circumstances. When rejecting, we should never be bitey, but the myth that was put about by the Foundation in Haifa that most content creators began their Wiki careers as vandals was obviously wrong.

When the backlog is cleared, and all new creations in the backlog of articles the creators have never returned to are a maximum of only 6 months old, it will be time to pay even more attention to the drafts, but I will not be an editor who will dedicate time to repairing many of them for their lazy creators. Providing helpful friendly feedback so they can do it themselves, certainly, but otherwise my time is taken up with the repair of hundreds of new school articles that are far more worth saving than autobios of nn rappers or mixtape DJs, or blatant spam masquerading as articles.

What we do need are some coherent guidelines that ensure that all reviewers and deleting admins are singing from the same page, and in that respect, with the creation of a set of criteria of experience for reviewers, a draft namaspace, and some new ideas how it can be used, such as perhaps cloning a copy of the New Pages Feed/Curation Toolbare for use at AfC, everyones' lives, creators, reviewers, and admins, will be made much easier. It doesn't help however when some editors who work at AfC, whether they consider themselves part of the project or not, drive others away from the AfC project or even ultimately from Wikipedia. All they are doing is throwing the babies out with the bathwater. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kafziel has not responded to this thread yet, but I would like to state that I really will have no problem if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again. The main point of me opening this thread was actually to bring attention to the edits that needs reversion but since it involves some degree of acting against consensus and admin abuse, I posted it here instead of at WP:AN. So my ideal conclusion is with User:Kafziel agreeing not to edit AfC articles and the reversion of his deletions. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"...if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again"...Seriously? AFC is one of the most backlogged areas of the project, and it's blatantly obvious that Kafziel is trying to move things forward with the best interests of the project at heart, but you want him 100% topic-banned from AFC? You could have suggested that perhaps he not personally delete anything, but NO...you want to kick him in the head instead? Way to undermine your argument. ES&L 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, I'd be inclined to support a topic-ban of Kafziel from AFC. But then again, there is a really large backlog at AfC (which some admins and other editors have mentioned above), and there would be no problem if he left non-involved admins to delete the articles, rather than himself. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The bottom line is, admins shouldn't use their administrative rights in disputes in which they are involved. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Was there a dispute in progress when the pages were deleted? I thought that the dispute started afterwards. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no prior disputes. As I say below, I've just been working my way through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. I'm fairly sure I've never had any interactions with any of the article creators or prior edits to the pages themselves. I'm as uninvolved and unbiased as anyone else. I've moved far more articles into the article space than I've deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Kafziel

I think some editors here should take a moment to re-read WP:IAR. It’s very, very short, and very, very clear. It doesn't say, "…unless you risk angering a Wikiproject." I see some people saying IAR doesn't apply because I’m not improving the encyclopedia. Says you. I've added dozens (maybe hundreds) of decent pages to the encyclopedia in the span of just a couple of days. That’s a damn sight more than most of the tin-pot dictators running around over there, rejecting articles for not having in-line citations or proper wiki formatting. It has become apparent (and this report would seem to confirm it) that AfC has gotten much too big for its britches. So let me be very clear: I don’t care how AfC likes to do things, and I don’t have to care. I don’t need anyone’s permission to move an article from AfC into the article namespace, or do any other damn thing I want. The same goes for any other editor. I also don’t have to consult with the Military History Wikiproject before I create a military article, or with the India Wikiproject before I create an article about India. If you think you own these pages just because they are part of your Wikiproject, you are very much mistaken.

AfC does not own the pages they create. I was willing to leave well enough alone, but now their mismanaged and disorganized bureaucracy has spilled over into the real encyclopedia, in the form of a proposed draft namespace. Supporters argue that the appallingly gigantic AfC backlog requires a new bureaucracy under which second-class editors can write second-class articles, and a new set of gatekeepers can prevent users from editing Wikipedia as was originally intended. So now the backlog has become everyone’s problem, and I’m helping take care of it.

I’m not “involved” in any of the articles I've moved or deleted. I’m working my way down the list in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. In the interest of not simply transforming the AfC backlog into the AfD backlog, I have speedied a few (a very few) of the articles I've come across. If I've made a mistake deleting something, undelete it. There are a number of simple procedures for that. Any admin is free to restore anything I've deleted; I don’t think I've done anything to stop anyone, or even argue against it. If you don’t like a deletion I made, ask someone else about it; there’s probably no point in asking me, because I give each article careful consideration before deleting it and will only very rarely reverse myself. By the same token, if articles I move into the article namespace are nominated for AfD, that’s okay by me, too.

Blatant spam is blatant spam, and it isn't protected just because it’s created under the auspices of AfC. We are not required to work patiently with spammers to help them find creative ways to game the system. I will not do that. But, again, if I make a mistake, go ahead and fix it. That's the whole point of a wiki.

TL;DR – If you disagree with a deletion I’ve made, restore it. If you want me to start obeying AfC’s little rules, forget it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, it sounds like your position is that you dislike the idea that underlies AfC's current workflow, that one's first try at an article needn't be the only one they're allowed, and that you're taking actions to correct what you see as an inherently deficient process by holding editors to the same standard they'd experience in mainspace. Would that be an accurate characterization of where you're coming from? If so, my concern is that you're knowingly defying a standing consensus (not just a "little rule" made by "tin-pot dictators", but an actual "this is how this thing is practiced by the people who do it" descriptive consensus) to make a point about the AfC process. IAR isn't a license to do exactly as one pleases on "any [...] damn thing I want", and it concerns me to hear you say that you feel you don't need anyone's permission to do anything. I suppose that's accurate in that you don't need any one person's permission, but the community functions on consensus, and you're as responsible as any other editor for not knowingly editing in contradiction of consensus. You don't need one person's permission, but you do need the community's.

I think you could make a good argument that "if at first you don't succeed, keep trying ad infinitum, no matter how unlikely your article is" isn't the way we should be doing AfC, and quite probably convince at least some of its participants to adjust the way things are done there. But I don't think that calling people names while declining to either follow or try to change consensus is the way to go, and the fact that that's your option of choice strikes me as unbecoming of an administrator in an era where much of the community is aready concerned about administrators doing as they please too often. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I’m not disrupting Wikipedia, I’m just ignoring AfC. The two are not one and the same. And make no mistake – this is not something I think I’m allowed to do because I’m an administrator; it’s something every editor is allowed to do because this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I’m not moving articles out of AfC as soon as they’re created, like a crazy person; I’m moving articles that have been languishing there for weeks and weeks. AfC is rife with abuse, and the talk pages archives are full of users complaining that articles are being held back (or outright rejected) by self-appointed gate keepers who won’t pass articles until they’re practically ready for Featured status. Many editors aren't even aware that they are allowed to move their own articles out, or bypass the AfC process altogether, and I've had lots of “thank you” notes from people who had been waiting and waiting for someone to show up and do something. There’s a very simple solution for anyone who doesn't like how I do it: Stop posting here and start processing the backlog. Get it done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, it is not as simple for us to restore your deletions as you suggest. Non-admins don't have access to page histories and don't have a log of the pages you've deleted. You have an information and technical advantage over other users when deleting pages, and it's concerning to me that you're not attempting to bridge that gap by trying to make your decision-making more transparent. The admin tools are not designed to make life more difficult for other good-faith editors. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, if you had said that you made a lapse in judgement, and you wouldn't violate community consensus again; I, and I believe most of the community, would be able to forgive your actions. But this continued position of I'm right and the community consensus is wrong is at best juvenile, and at worst, worthy of a desysopping. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to give it a shot. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that a petition was made to ArbCom asking for an emergency Desysop for your blatand disregard of policy, guidelines, and established consensus. That you're willing to hack through the article nursery with a dull machete is indication enough that it is time to forcably take the keys away as you're so far in the deep end of the "Consensus of One" that it is preventative of future damage. SilkTork can we agree that the messages of 17:54 and 17:57 constitute a threat to continue to disrupt and damage the project? Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, man: I have plenty of experience at AN/I – on both sides – so I know it’s usually a matter of one editor/group of editors thinking another editor/group of editors should kowtow and beg forgiveness. I don’t do that. You can rage all you want, and it’s simply never going to happen. Not because I’m always right, but because this is a wiki so if I’m wrong, just fix it and move on. I’ve fixed countless mistakes made by others over the years, and I don’t demand reparations from them. If you think you’re going to have my adminship revoked for creating articles against your will, or for making the occasional deletion error (and not arguing about them or wheel warring over them) then you’ve got another think coming. And if you think I'm going to be blocked or desysopped for some "emergency" measure, when I haven't deleted a single article in more than two weeks, I think you are also very much mistaken. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, Kafziel. At your suggestion, I read the WP:IAR page. It refers to improving the encyclopedia - a goal we all share. I am puzzled, though, over how deleting articles that aren't in the encyclopedia, and won't be unless the policy problems are removed, causes any improvement to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, since most Afc submissions are made by new editors, if the pages are just deleted instead of the editors being given advice and the articles improved, those editors will likely give up and not edit again, and Wikipedia will be missing any contributions that they might have made. I have interacted with many of these new editors, and even some whose articles couldn't pass notability, and were eventually deleted, have gone on to create other acceptable articles because they were drawn into the community and came to espouse its values. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I guess the disconnect is that I see everything on Wikipedia as "in the encyclopedia" and you don't. I'm not sure what else it would be considered; free web hosting? I admit I don't know an awful lot about technical things like indexing or whatnot, but I know if you Google a company, its spammy AfC page will be among the results. So, yes, I do think not letting spammers squat at AfC improves the encyclopedia. As does deleting obvious word-for-word duplicates and nonsense. If we're worried about losing users because they're discouraged, then, again: Go process the backlog. Because I can tell you right now, just as many users are quitting Wikipedia because their articles are sitting in limbo for months on end. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• My concern would be that although pushing articles into article space without giving the submitter the opportunity to fully improve it before publication seems like a way to beat the backlog, it really is relying on a handful of users through the AfD process to do the required research to determine if a page is worth keeping or not, and this probably requires a lot more net effort than allowing the AfC process to coach submitters through improving their own articles to the point no one would reasonably consider nominating them for deletion. AfD isn't at all a zero effort process, and surely AfC was created to reduce the demand on that and page patrol in the first place - that doesn't seem like reducing backlog, only shifting it to somewhere else. To hastily push them into article space to 'sink or swim... out of limbo' is surely undermining the AfC efforts. --_nonsense ferret 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• A valid concern, except that the vast majority of the articles in the backlog need neither AfD nor AfC. Most are perfectly fine, and just being held back so reviewers can feel important. Wikipedia was created through open, worldwide collaboration. If we just move them out and let the community participate, instead of sweeping them under the rug, almost none of them need any procedural review at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To say that people review articles at AfC to 'feel important' seems not to particularly assume good faith, and fails to recognise the great benefits to the encyclopedia as a whole of the work done by the reviewers. I'm afraid my experience of looking at a large number of such submissions does not support your suggestion that the vast majority of them are ready for article space. On the contrary, very few new editors understand what a reliable source is, nor understand the importance of citations for BLPs. Also, as an additional point in not using the tools provided for accepting articles at AfC, you don't get the benefit of talkpages being automatically created and WP template being added for new articles etc which will surely reduce the effort for everyone. --_nonsense ferret 20:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC was created because IP users can’t create articles, and new users might not know how. That's all. Anything else – asking for in-line citations, improving leads, establishing notability, etc – can and should be handled in the article space. I've seen countless articles being held back for things like “this is a good start, but I’d like to see more detail about X”. That’s nonsense. That’s an editor who has spent too long on AfC and has an inflated sense of authority.

It's not up to anyone to decide when an article is "ready" for article space. If it’s a coherent sentence or two that is verifiable and makes some kind of claim of importance, then it’s ready to go. Send it. Wikipedia articles require neither in-line citations, nor proper formatting, nor proper categories, nor any particular amount of content. Aside from certain special cases such as BLP, they don’t even require sources at all to begin with. And they don’t have to have talk pages, and they certainly don’t have to have talk pages with wikiproject banners on them. None of those things are requirements. If you’re a member of AfC, I can see why you might think they are. But as a member of Wikipedia, I can assure you that they are not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This raises an important point: what should be the criteria for accepting articles. I agree with Kafziel that the criterion is not GA. But I also think it should not be as low as the ability to just pass speedy. I think the accepted standard is in the middle: the ability to have a reasonable chance of passing AfD. In particular, I think an article should establish notability before it passes, or at least have a reasonable try at it. I think an article should have key controversial matters properly referenced, though not necessarily in any particular format. I think an article should be readable--not optimal, but with enough organization that the immediate response won't be to find some way to delete it. It should have the key external links, but not so many that it will lead to a suspicion of promotionalism. Not to be certain of passing AfD --experience has shown that it is almost impossible to predict that anything will certainly pass AfD. an article coming out of AfC should be good enough to stay in WP, and be improved further. Looking at declined AfCs , a great many of them are declined for not following the details of WP style, or even the details of what the individual reviewer thinks is the sort of reference style they personally prefer. We do need to have someway of encouraging people to make better articles once they go about it, and it can be useful for an experienced reviewer to explain what to do further. But if we hold up articles for this, we will never get them at all. What's needed isa way to encourage beginners to keep going, and that has proven very difficult. I have no real positive suggestions here--just to eliminate the negative factors, and high among the negative factors is people giving discouragement to new editors.

the purpose of AfC ist ot just to let ip's make articles. It's to let people with a COI make articles= drafts, and it's also for anyone who is inesperienced enough that they feel they need guidance. What we must do in return, is provide the proper guidance. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth, I totally agree with these points DGG. I think in the past a minority of less experienced AfC reviewers have really gone too far placing silly requirements in the way of reasonable first draft articles, but this doesn't mean that establishing a basic case for notability isn't a very useful function. One of the difficulties in being a reviewer is that sometimes without some further research it is pretty difficult to make a call on whether there may or may not be a case for notability, this is often the case with NACADEMIC and similar technical guidelines. After an iteration or two of review you can end up with an article full of somewhat dubious references, where it is still difficult to see a prima facie case. It is these articles with a few references that often end up staying on the backlog for a while because people can see they are not 'easy' reviews. I think they are not easy for good reason, and throwing those all into article space is not really helping - a few of them are real gems which are a delight to find, but some are just COI ridden lumps of poop bundled up in blog coverage and press release. It is the wheat and the chaff. --_nonsense ferret 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But we seem to disagree on who should be relied upon to separate the two. The entire Wikipedia community (which is, by definition, the whole world) or a tiny subset of self-appointed AfC gatekeepers? I say the former. And every Wikipedia policy and guideline, from WP:BOLD to WP:OWN, agrees with me. These articles are not AfC's to administer. They belong to Wikipedia, for better or worse. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward

I don't see a need immediately to "topic-ban" Kafziel from AfC. As I said before, his desire to clear the AfC backlog can be of great use to the project. What concerns me is his total lack of interest in working with the ordinary editors who frequent this area to develop a common understanding of how he should do his work. IAR is a policy guideline, but consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Would it be so horrible, Kafziel, to work with WikiProject AfC editors to develop shared rules for speedy deletions? It's the only reasonable solution that springs to mind here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Any user can view all my logs (including deleted pages) here. It's all very transparent. I can understand that it's a bit more of a hassle for you to review or undelete an article, because you have to ask someone else do it for you. But that's the same as any editor who wanted to restore any other real article I've speedy deleted over the years; why would AfC get special consideration? There are several admins working on AfC. I'm sure they can help if need be. Since anyone can approve and move a page, the admin tools aren't needed for much besides deleting and restoring articles.

If little old me can empty out a category of past-due articles in just a day, why can’t an entire wikiproject do the same? This needn't even be an issue, if people were less concerned with nit-picking and more concerned with improving the encyclopedia. Many hands make light work. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The only way to clean out articles that fast is to do it by paying no attention to them. Except for a few special cases, the ordinary run of AfCs needs screening. The point of being an admin it to think about what one is doing, not to imitate a bot. Now, I do not think Kafziel is necessarily the worst in this respect of the people who are looking at old AfCs, and I have despaired at convincing some that 5% of 50,000 is a number work saving. However, everybody else who does it, when they do go slow enough to think about it, use correct criteria. The reason the AfCs have accumulated is that the A criteria do not apply; this is not just informal consensus, but a basic part of the deletion guideline that the A criteria are limited to articles. I would expect a affirmation from Kafziel that he intends to abide by this. That he offers to correct any mistakes people call to his attention is good, but only as a supplement to limiting oneself --as we all do-- to deleting only the ones that fall under the guidelines in the first place. This isn't a special restriction: any admin who does not follow the guidelines in a particular area should work elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I’d love to have the luxury of being more careful, but look where that has gotten us. Whatever the previous consensus may have been, it isn't working. And if process isn't working, then I ignore it. That's what IAR means.

My point is that if more than just one person were reviewing them, there would be plenty of time to look at them with all the care that AfC would like. It’s a question of man-hours, and with each extra set of hands and eyes, the work is divided up into smaller parts, and more time is freed up for careful scrutiny. One editor can process 130 articles in eight hours, or 130 editors can take eight hours to process one article each. Either way, it needs to get done. If AfC wants to handle it, I wouldn't have to. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So form a new consensus instead of writing your own rules and rejecting outside input. That's all people here want, I think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I already have consensus behind me. The editing policy says, "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect." I'm doing that. IAR, also policy, says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am. Those pages have consensus, and they trump whatever else may have been decided by some vote at a wikiproject. Besides, discussion is not the only way to build or change consensus; it can also be done through active editing. In this case, there's really nothing to discuss (and the people who started this report aren't actually interested in discussing anything anyway). If anyone has a problem with any deletions I make, they’re welcome to restore them. If you think an article I promoted wasn't ready for the article space, get to work improving it. But I outright reject the notion that I (or any other editors) have to follow the same reviewing procedures that have resulted in tens of thousands of backlogged articles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen people complain about the articles you move into the mainspace; it's the deletions that are problematic. Do you really want to claim you're "helping users avoid abuse at the hands of AfC" by deleting every imperfect draft you come about? I would agree the author of the OrderUp draft you deleted felt abused, but not by AfC. If you think the stale drafts are a backlog that requires work, why not work on that instead of deleting non-abandoned drafts? We have a valid speedy deletion criterion for old drafts, and you might even rescue some that had been declined in error; that would go some way towards proving your point about overly critical AfC reviewers (and yes, I'm sure some drafts were declined in error). However, I'd prefer not having to patrol your deletion log to undelete lots of dubious "G11" cases. Huon (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "deleting every imperfect draft" - that's absolute nonsense. I've moved tons of drafts into the article space, and none of them are perfect. That's the point. The entire Wikipedia community should be working on them. (But yeah, if I see blatant spam, I kill it. No apologies.) And no thanks, I'm not interested in slogging through the G13 crap - AfC made that bed, and now they can lie in it. But at least by working in the 4-week-old category, I can prevent more articles (whose creators may actually still be around and hoping to move forward) from being lost in that black hole of expired drafts. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On the admin side, this seems to boil down to a few questionable speedy-deletion calls then. Doesn't seem to warrant any sanctions in my opinion. Most of Kafziel's points are pretty valid criticisms of AfC. The policy consensus gap seems to be between "more than likely able to survive if challenged at AfD", which is most reviewer's criterion, and "able to survive speedy deletion" which seems to be what Kafziel is advocating. The adoption of the latter criterion would definitely reduce our backlog, both of pending and of rejected articles. A thread like this is probably not a good place to decide on a new general consensus criterion for AfC reviewing though. Gigs (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Kafziel is addressing a problem (a huge backlog) and editors who regularly work at AfC are upset by his approach and manner of getting work done. But he is solving a problem in a process that seems to be stuck. Is there any chance that the RfC regulars could refresh their attitude of what is required to move an article into mainspace and offer some decisive opinion to new editors so articles aren't languishing for months without being resolved? I mean at some point, if an article is unpromising, I'm sure the creator will get discouraged and give up rather than keep revising and some verdict can be rendered on these abandoned articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that deleting drafts that could easily be improved counts as "getting work done" or "solving a problem". If the community had wanted non-accepted drafts to be deleted immediately, it wouldn't have built the six-month delay into G13. Kafziel by now has stated that he actually isn't interested in working on the backlog of 40k abandoned drafts he complained about. He also is not interested in helping editors improve drafts, or even just giving them an opportunity to improve a draft - if it can't survive in the mainspace right now, it gets deleted. That makes his supposed concern for editors who "may actually still be around and hoping to move forward" ring hollow. Huon (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't know who built in that six-month delay. It just kind of appeared one day, as far as I can tell. It certainly wasn't voted on by the community. If there was some kind of consensus for it, I suppose it must be somewhere in the AfC archives. But trust me: You don't want me working on those 40,000 articles. Unless you want to come back next week and discuss my 40,000 recent deletions.

Instead, I'd rather work on the articles that do have some merit, and whose creators are still willing to work on them. Many of those editors have thanked me for bypassing the ridiculous roadblocks of AfC editors and moving their articles into the main namespace (which, of course, they could have done themselves - which is AfC's dirty little secret). Working on those articles does contribute to lessening the backlog, by not letting them get into it in the first place. Articles have four weeks to be brought up to speed; that is plenty sufficient. After that, you can get it done, or you can watch me do it. I don't much care which. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not play bureaucrat. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel, if you're going to work in a space, it's expected that you're going to know the procedures and policies that are in effect for that space. [144] [145] [146] [147]

[148] [149] are just a small sampling of fairly recent discussion about AfC speedies. If you want to write an encyclopedia you don't need admin bits for that. If you're going to continue to abuse newbie editors, abuse the good will of the community, and continue to be a "I'm right and the community consensus is wrong" iconoclast, your admin bits are in danger. Arbitrators (SilkTork—Newyorkbrad—AGK—Carcharoth—Courcelles—Risker) I reiterate my assertion that we have an admin off the reservation that is threatening further disruption in the face of requests for an explanation, furhter disruption against an established consensus, and a editor who believes that they know better over multiple editors and administrators in good standing. Hasteur (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm right and the community consensus is wrong. I'm saying I'm right, and whatever little consensus you all might have dreamed up at AfC is wrong. The community's consensus created things like WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, WP:EDIT, and WP:IAR. So while I might make mistakes from time to time, I am well within policy to work on any page I want. If it's an article, I will put it in the article space. If it's blatant spam, I will delete it. Just because AfC decided to set up their own little magical fairy-tale land where they host spam articles on talk pages, that doesn't mean none of the other kids can play with your toys. You do not own them. You do not have the right to tell people not to be bold. You do not have the right to tell others they're not allowed to work on something. So you can go ahead and call all the arbitrators you want, and rage and shake your fists, and I will never agree to do anything differently. Sorry to break it to you, but the ArbCom isn't your little pit bull. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your position has drifted from a "I will do necessary cleanups in AfC despite its normal policy" to what is now sounding to *this* uninvolved admin as somethink akin to "F U all, I'll delete what I want", and what appears to be a claim that you will now delete against multiple people giving you feedback that you're going too far and too fast; this is almost a textbook description of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

I understand this situation and criticism are not to your liking, but I was neutral to vaguely supportive of where you were when this started, and now am wondering about whether I should be starting a topic ban proposal here, and worrying if you're going to go off and do something that I or another uninvolved admin would have to warn, final warn, or block you over while that was going on.

TLDR: Turn back, dude... You're going the wrong way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to say. Most editors here would rather not drag this to ArbCom or anything like that. We're just trying to create a harmonious editing process that takes into account numerous valid concerns. Kafziel's attitude has been combative, dismissive, and uneager to see others' point of view. "I will never agree to do anything differently" almost dares us to try the sanctions route, which would be a regrettable course to have to go. I really don't think an off-thread attempt by interested editors (including Kafziel) to form some common understanding of deletion behavior is unreasonable at all. There is nothing so urgent about the AfC backlog and so uncontroversial about Kafziel's edits that we ought to chuck every conventional dispute resolution process out the window. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And what, exactly, would you block me for? I didn't say "F U all, I'll delete what I want" - you said that. What you think you hear is none of my concern. What I did say is much closer to "F some of U, I'll delete spam wherever I see it." And you're goddamn right I will. You guys seem to think this is my first time at AN/I. Or that I'm going to start quivering in fear over threats about the ArbCom. So you go ahead and do what you want as far as topic ban proposals - I'm 100% covered by policy. Not AfC guidelines that somebody made up... actual policy. The big ones. The pillars of Wikipedia. So maybe you should take a better look at what I've actually been doing, and not just what you think you see here, before you make a fool of yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy is not a shield under which you get to disrupt the encyclopedia project or community. The number of admins who hit burnout looking like this, threw a finger to the community and then were out, is substantial. This is not my first ANI either, by nearly a decade. I am not saying "I might have to block you" because that's desirable. You're sounding like you're about to go disrupt the encyclopedia, and saying you will. I am reminding you that any admin will block editors - or admins - who intentionally and loudly set out to disrupt.

This is not "their project can ignore wider policy and standards". But nobody can throw a finger to large sets of the community, Kafziel. It's entirely against the premise of working collaboratively and collegially with everyone else here who wants to build an encyclopedia. Is that that hard to understand?

Again: Turn back. The degree to which you're now claiming IAR covers you will get you warned, blocked, topic-banned, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I want to work with everyone on Wikipedia, not just the little clique at AfC. That's why I'm moving articles out of AfC and into the article space. I'm not required to collaborate with everyone, especially those who don't want to collaborate with me. But if a rule prevents me from improving the encyclopedia, like silly rules about posting wikiproject banners on talk pages, then I will ignore them. As Gigs and Liz point out above, this is basically a bunch of people completely losing their shit over a few mistakes from a couple of weeks ago. If I were you, I wouldn't be in quite such a rush to join the lynch mob. But if you want to start a request, you go right ahead. Stop talking about it and do it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

When it was a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago, I was not interested in commenting. It's your recent threats - and I use that word carefully and deliberately - which caused me to respond here.

What you are saying you are going to do now is very different in character and nature from a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago. You are more or less proudly saying you're going to disrupt things. I'm not going to preemptively do anything to you, but I really sincerely hope you're just using colorful language in frustration, and not serious about expanding your activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What's all this business about threats, and expanding my activity, and proudly disrupting things? I haven't said anything of the sort. I will continue doing exactly what I have been doing at AfC: Moving old articles without using the tool, approving articles without giving anyone feedback, and deleting articles that are spam or attack pages. As far as I can see, looking back over alllll this discussion, nobody has said anything that would make me think I've done anything wrong. AfC users are mad that I won't follow their little rules, but I'm not beholden to them. They don't own those articles. So I will continue to operate as I have been, and when you feel like it warrants action, you go ahead and do it. Until then, I think I'm done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• So, Kafziel, if you honestly have the best goals of the project at heart, you will continue your work at AFC except that if you find draft articles that you believe need to be deleted, you will blank them (using the review tool) and then tag them for speedy deletion by someone else. Pretty simple, and you get to keep merrily helping with the overworked AFC holding pen (I did about 20 yesterday myself). Everyone wins if you do that voluntarily (hint, hint) ES&L 12:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I will not do that. Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight, and I will continue to do so. I am not going to transfer the AfC backlog to the CSD backlog. I will continue operating just exactly as I have been. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase that last assertion. The way you have been operating is the cause of this thread in which regular editors, volunteers from the AfC project, Administrators, and Arbitrators have all told you that your actions are problematic. It would be best for you to refactor, otherwise your statement can only be taken as a threat to further damage and disrupt Wikipedia and would therefore be subject to the rules regarding blocking and desysopping. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight" ... "I will continue operating just exactly as I have been." ... and that is about the biggest way you could bite the newbies imaginable, especially if your opinion of "inappropriate" ends up being different to somebody else's. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why I don’t pay much attention to AN/I. As I said earlier, it’s all about people demanding that other people bow and scrape and beg for mercy. That’s not going to happen here. We’re not talking about a compromise – we’re talking about a few angry wikiproject members telling an administrator what he is or is not allowed to do. Telling me it will go so much easier for me if I’ll just submit to the will of the church. Well, I don’t. I’m working on the encyclopedia. I am allowed to delete spam when I see it. All admins should do the same. If I make an occasional mistake (or even if it’s not a mistake, and you just happen to disagree) then other admins can undelete the pages as they see fit. Or you can talk to me, and I might do it myself. That’s how this all works. But if you think you’re going to do sanction me, tell me where I can work and what tools I can use to work there, then it’s going to take a damn sight more than an AN/I report. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't paying much attention to AN/I, why are you making so many edits to it? The real way you don't pay much attention is to take it off your watchlist and edit articles! Our conversation is now done here, I believe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. I went to bed, slept the sleep of the just, and woke up to find that someone still thinks they can tell me what I can and cannot do. It wouldn't have been fair to ignore that, and give tacit approval of sanctions against an administrator without process. So again, I just said no. And I will continue to say no. ArbCom hasn't responded because they know I'm right. (No doubt they'd prefer I were more tactful, but just because I'm a self-righteous prick doesn't make me wrong.) So if you want to walk away, do so. If you want to rage some more, do that. But nobody is going to tell me I'm not allowed to delete spam or move articles. Not you, not Hasteur, nobody. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Kafziel

Since Kafziel has asserted loudly he will continue to do things that other longstanding editors view as disruptive, perhaps it is time for some stronger action to protect the encyclopedia. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Support (as if it was in question) As the user is also an admin, therefore it is appropriate to also add the desysop as I have no confidence in them respecting the block and using the admin bits to continue disruption. I have petitioned ArbCom to strip Kafziel of their admin bits for threats of clear disruption and harm to the project. Since no motion has been forthcoming, I consider it appropriate for a request on the Bueracrat's Noticeboard petitioning for an Emergency Desysop. Hasteur (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's going to happen. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Certainly Kafziel's bedside manner could be better, but stepping on the toes of people running their own little fiefdom warrants neither a block nor a desysop. I would suggest that Kafziel should avoid using the A criteria since in those cases there is no harm in waiting for G13, but I am also concerned that some AFC members seem to think that hosting copyvios is okay. In those cases, Kafziel is right. Unambiguous copyvios from the start = speedy delete. If you guys really want, change your process to delete, then recreate with a template explaining the problem. Resolute 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONLIMITED. Mojoworker (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose We have lost sight of what he actually did because of his obstinacy. Nevertheless, I don't see that he has done anything worthy of an indef, especially given Mojoworker's reference to WP:CONLIMITED. Sorry, but the project is not the encyclopedia. JodyB _talk 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose having been on the receiving end elsewhere of abusive Admins in a clique claiming wiki-project control and ignoring WP:CONLIMITED I support Kafziel's right to defend his position. Not impressed at all by the forum shopping 'Crat board and Arbcom approaches either. Way to soon for that. Leaky Caldron 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to give Kafziel a barnstar and block or desysop some random other editors

Well, not really the second part, but still... So far, the only use of his admin tools that has been reverted was a G13 deletion, which wasn't wrong but was undeleted as is the standard when people request it.

So, not a single one of his admin actions under scrutiny here has been overturned for being incorrect (never mind "abuse"). But people are asking for his (her, whatever) head because they have indicated that they will continue doing these apparently correct admin actions. This leaves us with his non-admin actions, which consist of moving AFC articles to the mainspace. Isn't that the purpose of AfC? Have any examples been given of articles that were moved prematurely (i.e. articles that should be deleted as spam, copyvio, attacks, whatever)? Is there a pattern of such moves?

What this seems to boil down to is "some of the AfC project members don't like my actions here". If he isn't doing anything against policy, isn't abusing the admin tools, isn't making loads of errors with his moves, and is adding viable articles to the mainspace, then a project that obstructs this, and asks for desysopping and/or blocking, should be swiftly abolished per WP:OWN. Fram (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but agree with Fram. Sometimes people become so enamoured of the process that they lose sight of what the process was supposed to help. It's a discussion I hear almost everyday.

A: You've done it wrong!

B: No, I skipped a few steps

A: But that doesn't follow the established process!

B: The end point is the same, no?

A: Yes, but you've violated established process!

B: Yes, but my way got there more efficiently and the end product is the same.

A: Yes, your way is more efficient but you violated the established process!

B: So change the process.

Process engineering 101, people. Blackmane (talk) 15:43, 10 December 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.

(FYI: this issue has now been brought to WP:ARB/R, see; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Kafziel.27s_AfC_actions - ^theWOLFchild 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) )

Another SPA POV-pushing and edit warring at Bukharan Jews, WP:NPA on article Talk page

Special:Contributions/Coolforschool
User_talk:Coolforschool

Maybe this user is a new SPA account of an IP recently edit warring on the same article, as he almost seems to lay claim to the latter's edits.

He has been attempting to restore the same material, after I went through the trouble of opening a thread here and then at RS/N Archive_160#Bukharan_Jews.2C_lost_tribes.2C_etc. here.

I've tried to accommodate the content related concerns of the SPA within the scope permissible by the RS here and here, but that didn't seem to appease them. Please refer to the recent edits and the article talk page, where his first edits appear to include personal attacks. I had thought to report him for edit warring, but brought this here in light of the comments on the article talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted all of the recent edits to the last stable version of the article. Including yours, Ubikwit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's see if the editor I filed this against responds. The two edits of mine that you ended up reverting were edits that I made after deciding to look more thoroughly at the NYT article to see if there was anything there that would support some of the points of concern being raised. I think that including the POV in the edit from the Background section is important insofar as it balances the other POV (inclusion of Ashkenazi in demographics related to Bukharan Jews). The edit in the cuisine section is relevant to the cultural distinction the SPAs arriving at the article have been vehement about asserting. The SPAs are violating policy by tendentiously pushing a unilateral POV over and against RS, but there is a balance to be achieved by incorporating the various POV insofar as there are reliably sourced statements supporting them.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Ubikwit was blocked by User:Toddst1 for one week for edit warring on Bukharan Jews. I feel that it is excessive: he involved the new user into discussions on the talk page and he was trying to get 3d opinion here. Maybe it would be more appropriate to protect the article for a while and give users chance to settle their arguments on the talk page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this make it abundantly clear that Ubikwit knew s/he was edit warring. That was the 4th time s/he reverted the same edit by Coolforschool. Ubikwit has been blocked 4 times for edit warring and knows the drill. That's the excessive part. Classic WP:BOOMERANG.

Note that CFS continued the edit war after I warned him/her and is now blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson has extended the block of Ubikwit and removed talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Anjooraan

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago, and found a couple of problematic articles by the same person. Normally I'd nominate such articles for WP:Speedy, and have a quick glance at the user talk page to see if they needed help. When I looked at User talk:Anjooraan, I found a mountain of deletion notifications, and no evidence at all they had even looked at their user talk page (certainly no edits there). I asked what to do in the Teahouse, and they advised me to come here - it's certainly over my head.

In an editing career that appears to date back no further than the 23rd of November they have listed on their talk page:

• 24 nominations listed under WP:SPEEDY (A7 and Copyright violation)
• 6 Nominations listed under WP:PROD
• 3 other deletion nominations
• At least one copyright violation

At least one of the speedies was for a page that had been deleted once under speedy deletion and recreated by Anjooraan. It's a pity because they seem enthusiastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonchameleon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. I see absolutley zero talk page edits during their short but rather busy time here on Wikipedia. I would suggest a short block to try and get their attention. If they decide to communicate after that, then the block can be lifted. Otherwise, if they continue the disruptive behavior after the block has expired, then an indef will likely be in order. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that there multiple copyvios involved (I count 6 G12 deletions), an immediate indefinite block would be more appropriate. They can be unblocked if they then demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy and the other concerns. MER-C 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is in order. This editor shows no signs of competence and discusses nothing with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with a block, but I noticed that the user was never warned, so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they were, although I wasn't as clear as I might be in my article title Neonchameleon (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. I've just nominated a page of his for Copyright Violation again. Worse yet he'd had SOMAN BABY deleted so he just recreated it at Soman Baby. I've also found plagiarism on an article of his that's up for deletion (but the rest are all clean according to google). Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, WP:IDHT is an understatement. S/he is clearly not here for the good of the project. (And NC, sorry about the warning mix-up earlier.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Given multiple instances of this nature and the precedents, a block is probably the best option. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why this thread dragged on so long before getting an admin's attention. Sorry about that. Blocked indef until they start communicating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Alansohn

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.

---

Well I hate to resort to this noticeboard for anything, but at this point I need some fellow admin/editor assistance before I blow a gasket. So in the interest of me not doing that, let me give those who haven't been following this issue a little back story:

Back in 2009 an editor (User:Levineps) was on a category creation/tagging rampage. This rampage was simply creating a ridiculous amount of work for others to cleanup after, and after it went on for a while it became very disruptive to the community. So, he was warned several times to stop it, and failed to listen time and time again until he was finally sanctioned by the community and formally banned by myself after this discussion. As you can see from Levineps' userpage, this still did not stop the over-categorization. Indeed, he had to be blocked several times for continuing to do so (despite his continuous straight faced lie that he thought they had expired). Then, it seems once he noticed the ban was always going to be enforced, he decided to use a sockpuppet to evade the ban (User:Oriole85). From this account he created ~1,750 categories, in a one month time span from 5 Nov to 5 Dec. He also proceeded to make thousands of rather quick edits (using HotCat) to tag several thousand pages into these categories, within this same time frame. This was noticed within a month's time (by User:Jrcla2, and then brought to my attention), and this sockpuppet was subsequently blocked by myself. I then reverted almost all of his edits, and proceeded to summarily delete all of his category creations (as noted here). Of course, during this damage control session there were several confused editors wondering why the reversions were happening, and they all (much to my obvious chagrin) came by my talk page to inquire as to the cause. Most of them seemed to understand the actions being taken, that they were done in accordance with policy, and that the reversions/deletions could be undone on a case-by-case basis if seen fit (even Purplebackpack89, an editor I've been known to not necessarily get along with, had the good graces of leaving edit summaries that pointed out why that particular category was appropriate and should be added back ['Twas appreciated pbp]). Most of them except User:Alansohn that is. Alansohn decided to go on a soapbox where he knew best, and where everything I was doing was somehow systematically destroying Wikipedia. We got into quite the back and forth on my talk page (still there) which ended in less than optimal terms considering his refusal to listen to my reasoning behind the actions, or perhaps the several previous ANI discussions that had taken place around the banned editor (including the disruptive micro-splitting of categories by the banned editor, which many an untrained eye can miss). He then took a few of the categories to WP:DRV where he was told by Spartaz (closing admin) that he was being disruptive. Well, sadly this was still not the end of Alansohn's behavior. Now Alansohn is reverting my reversions/deletions with simply wondrous edit summaries like "revert disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "undo another disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "Reverted needless edit by Coffee (talk) to last version by Oriole85", "recreate another needlessly deleted category", "recreate yet another category whose deletion has disrupted Wikipedia", or just using rollback against policy.

Now I think we can all agree that even a broken clock is right two times a day, and that likewise there are most likely some useful contributions in the heaping pile of over-categorization by Levineps (as there had been before). This is why I've stated (even at the DRV) that I was fine with my edits being undone, or pages being re-created for this purpose. But I think we can also agree that there's a difference between good faith edits bringing categories/tags back that were actually useful, and what's happening here. I will state again that I'm completely fine with cats being added back if seen fit, but I will also state that I don't appreciate being attacked on dozens of pages across the site. Anyways, that's all I have folks. Have I lost it, or am I somewhere on the right track? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that Alansohn using edit summaries on hundreds of different pages to scream about how awful and "disruptive" and "destructive" you are amounts to a personal attack on you. Reyk _YO! 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree this amounts to personal attacks, and not appropriate as edit summary. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This calls for a temporary block if these are personal attacks. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never dealt with an administrator who has not only been rude and nasty, but has worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia in his efforts to spite User:Oriole85. I don't know Oriole85 (or LevinePS) nor any of his associated sockpuppets. I saw Coffee's deletions while it was going on and pleaded with him to stop, becoming the sixth of about a dozen other users who approached him on his talk page and elsewhere. The from Rikster2 and this from Orangemike asking "Please help me understand what on Earth you thought you were doing" which earned this reply from Coffee saying "You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned" and the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response to me that "I think you're talking out of your ass." is a classic. Coffee repeatedly refused to respond to requests from multiple editors in multiple contexts to stop, take a break and listen to the community and he has repeatedly refused to help solve the problem, hiding out for a few days and failing to respond to repeated messages, but now he has time for ANI. Coffee's disruption has resulted in the deletion of hundreds of articles and left thousands of articles miscategorized. It's great that Coffee is willing to allow other editors to undo the damage he caused, but his damage is already done. I've tried to undo his edits, but the size and scope of the harm he has caused through his actions make the task of reverting thousands of edits nearly impossible to do manually. I fully support any effort to undo Coffee's damage and I am over and done with this effort on my part, and have been for hours; I can't be bothered to waste time beyond the reverts I've already made. I would have supported using ANI to deal with Coffee's abusive actions, but he has finally come to the table and if he acts in good faith to assist in the recovery from his We had to destroy the village to save it approach, the damage to Wikipedia may well be recoverable. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and I will say it again: after someone has removed a blocked editor's edits, it is completely inappropriate for another editor to come along after the removal and restore them. It's a form of proxying for the banned editor. The exemption in our proxying rules about having an "independent reason" are there to allow people to restore edits on articles that they normally work on without having to jump through hoops to avoid duplicating a good edit, not to enable people to chase down reversions of a banned editor and try to restore them.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I came across at least a dozen edits by Oriole85 and subsequent reverts by Coffee through my watchlist. It took me about 15 seconds to figure out Coffee was reverting the edits of a banned editor. I can't fathom how Coffee's behavior could be viewed as "worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia" by any stretch of the imagination or even disruptive at all. In stark contrast, it's pretty easy to see how Alansohn has been seriously disruptive and downright dickish. Not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

upon reading the recent discussion I agree with Toddst1. if Alansohn can't recognize that he is using personal attacks as an experienced editor, this should be considered for appropriate action. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't at all agree with Kww above. Frankly i find the idea of automaticlly reverting edits simply because they were made by a banned editor perverse and undesireable, and I equally dislike restoring them automatically. The test should be te quality of the edit, not the person who made it. But I no way does policy limit restoration to "regular editors" of a given page. Any editor who, in good faith, thinks that a given edit improves the project and is willing to take responsibility just as if s/he had made it originally is free to do so. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The above said, the edit summaries quoted above are really not acceptable, whatever the merits of the edits. I'm not that much into categorization, and I have no opinion on the merits or lack of merits of any of these category edits. But I think it is dubious to mass-revert them without individual consideration (which it sounds to me as if Coffee is doing, and even less desirable to make personal attacks in edit summaries when restoring them -- the summery should explain why the particular edit is a good idea, in the opinion of the editor making it. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, DES. I don't understand the reaction to revert thousands of edits by a blocked user without considering whether they were appropriate or not. It seems knee-jerk to me. I can see why editors posted alarmed messages. I can't condone the nasty comments and edit summaries though which apparently happened on both sides. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The original ban centered around Levineps making a huge amount of overly specific categories that had the effect of splitting useful, well-populated cats into a profusion of trivial, poorly-populated ones. This made navigation harder instead of easier. The ban evading sockpuppet was repeating the same behaviour. From looking at Coffee's edits, it is clear to me that the majority of the reverts improved the articles. I think we're at a strange place when we start defending ban evading sockpuppets who make a million unproductive, indiscriminate edits but condemn the administrator who reverts them. Reyk _YO! 01:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) @Liz/DES: I also agree that mass reversions of a banned editor are not the optimal solution and I completely agree with the philosophy behind that, but we're talking about literally thousands of edits and nearly 2,000 categories that were created to deliberately subvert a ban over a months time. It would be impossible to look at every individual edit/page and determine within a reasonable amount of time whether these were appropriate or not. So the only reasonable course of action here was to rollback everything, and wait for actually good contributors to this project to make the necessary edits. Yes this isn't optimal, but it was necessary as the community here had already told Levineps to stop doing this so actions like mine wouldn't have to be taken, hopefully ever. (Although keep in mind these edits only took place over a months time, so I find it hard to believe that returning things to the way they were a month ago is such a Bad Thing™.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The issues regarding mass reverts DES raises are exactly my concerns. User:Coffee could have mitigated the confusion and frustration by more clearly indicating the reason for his actions in his edit summary and by taking more time to evaluate the risks and benefits of these mass reverts. I thank DES and Liz for their insightful remarks regarding my actions and the trout (and advice) is accepted on my part. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the issues raised by DES don't align well with policy. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, and reverting is the only way to enforce that. It's not in anyone's interest for anyone to take the time to evaluate a banned editor's edits, and it serves to encourage ban evasion.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I neither justify nor defend Oriole85's sockpuppetry. But the community had seen his categories and his edits and the claim that none of them were productive (or Coffee's "even a broken clock is right two times a day") are way off base. There was no clear and present danger. There was no ticking time bomb. With Oriole85 blocked, there was ample time to evaluate the edits and have a clear-headed rational admin take action with community input, which may likely have resulted in keeping a significant portion of the edits. As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions, and he had ample opportunity to take his foot off the mass revert pedal. If a serial killer is convicted after performing a successful heart transplant on a patient, it might well make sense to give the serial killer the death penalty, but there's little benefit in removing the heart from the patient. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that by evaluating each edit, preserving the good ones and removing the bad ones, you are treating him as if he were not banned at all. While you may not intend to defend his sockpuppetry, every action in that sequence encourages and rewards it.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the policy Kww cites is poor and I would change it. But until/unless it is changed, it does not in any way prohibit any editor from reinstating such edits if the editor believes in good faith that they improve the project. There is no restriction to 'regular editors of the page" as Kww stated above. Perhaps Coffee was correct that the number of edits involved and the judgement that few of them are useful justified mass reversion. But it seems to me that a more responsive and collaborative tome could have been taken in communication with good-faith editors on the subject, particularly when multiple editors suggested that Coffee pause in the reverts. DES ^(talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community as mediums for/tools of the consensus. They do not use their tools to enforce their own opinions, nor do they stop necessary actions based on the wishes of one editor. Which brings me to my second point: There weren't multiple editors asking for me to pause, reconsider, or stop. There were multiple editors requesting an explanation, but that's not the same thing. Alansohn has flat out lied by saying "As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions". I never acknowledged that, as it never happened. That aside, while I understand you wish this could have been handled without mass-reverts/deletions (hey, I do too... laboring for two days clicking away at thousands of rollbacks/deletions isn't exactly my cup of tea), I don't see how when we're talking about thousands of bad edits included in that mix. I repeat: My actions did nothing more than reverse the articles/categories to how they were on 4 Nov. Saying we should have had long time consuming collaborative discussions about ~1,750 categories and ~5,000 edits, the vast majority of which were bad and all of which were created in a month by an editor banned explicitly from doing them, just doesn't seem to be a logical choice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence -- and certainly Coffee has failed to provide any -- that every one of these edits was bad. The community had seen Oriole85's edits for a month and until he was caught as a sockpuppet a minute fraction of his edits were challenged, despite the wide scope, breadth and visibility of the articles affected. Policy may be policy, but all Wikipedia policy dictates the use of common sense. No one is turned in a brainless automaton by the dictate of any policy. Taking even a few hours to evaluate the situation and obtain community input, given that the perpetrator was identified and blocked, could have saved Coffee and the entire community a great deal of wasted time and aggravation, and had the potential to save thousands of useful edits and categories. I'd be horrified to wake up tomorrow morning and find that Wikipedia had crashed and been restored to a backup done on November 4, though it seems that Coffee would be fine with that prospect.User:Coffee would be better served by indicating some small measure of self-realization of the problems caused both by his actions and his refusal to respond in good faith to the dozen-odd editors who raised issues with his actions ("You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned", the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response "I think you're talking out of your ass."). Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The only defense Wikipedia has is to apply WP:DENY. Well-intentioned but essentially clueless onlookers should stop attacking editors (Coffee) who are doing the only thing that can be done to dissuade a banned abuser from further damaging Wikipedia. If a sufficient number of the edits are good, approach the user and suggest they appeal against their ban, but please do not subvert standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing here since 2006. I do not think that I am "essentially clueless". I have long disagreed with WP:DENY. I don't think it is in any meaningful way a "defense" of Wikipedia. I see no evidence that it in any way reduces the incidence of vandalism or other unhelpful actions. Nor have I attacked Coffee's edits -- I have, however, disagreed with his tone, and with some of the (IMO) incorrect statements of policy by KWW above. I might add that WP:DENY is an essay, albiet one with many supporters. it is not itself policy. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Restore deleted categories. I'm having trouble working out what is wrong with Category:1845 establishments in Vermont, especially since it is populated. Either we categorize establishments by both year and U.S. State, or we don't. But Category:1845 establishments in New Jersey was created more than a year ago. And I don't think it's over-categorization to include them. So regardless of who created them, let's keep/restore the categories. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. If the category is a valid one, then by all means recreate it. Blanket reinstating the disruptive work of a sockpuppet, whose sockmaster was banned for doing the exact same thing, is rewarding the abusive behaviour that violated consensus. Sure, a small amount of the categories may well be valid. But when the vast majority are bad, as is the case here, then blanket removal is the right procedure, before reinstating any that may perhaps be valid. Johnuiq's comment is perhaps the best summary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looking through User:Oriole85's edits, I see plenty of rather noncontroversial categories being added. Category:Wooden bridges in Vermont (and several other states) appears to be an effective split of a single nationwide category. Category:1869 establishments in New Hampshire is part of a very well-established system of establishments by year and state. The deleted Category:Female models from Michigan includes Kate Upton, and I fail to see how that category is controversial, nor is Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York or Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts or Category:American women television journalists, all of which have orphaned articles pointing to these needlessly deleted categories. Wikipedia policy is not a suicide pact and there was ample opportunity to take even a few moments to consider the possibility of greater harm through the systematic and mindless deletion of these categories. Rather than "a small amount of the categories may well be valid", it appears that the overwhelming majority are not only valid, but their deletion has created loose ends and other problems. CfD works rather effectively to delete bad categories, and there appears to have been no tidal wave of problem categories created by Oriole85 cropping up there in the past month. If the overwhelming majority were invalid, where are they? Where are all the ones that conflict with community consensus? The observation made by User:StAnselm here (and so many other editors during the mass deletions) that we would be better off with these categories rather than with all of them systematically deleted is worthy of consideration now and should have been considered by Coffee and the community before their mass deletion. (Please note: I have changed the title of this section to more clearly reflect the discussion here) Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder if you ever read the previous ANI discussions I linked you to multiple times, or even WP:OVERCAT. Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York and Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts are simply unnecessary subcats (as evidenced by the lack of population). And WP:OC#LOCATION specifically calls out categories like Category:Female models from Michigan as it makes no difference what state models are from. Please review our policies before you continuously repeat yourself here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your arguments might stand a shot at CfD, but are a poor excuse for mass deletion. In terms of policy, DRVANI explicitly requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to the diffs where you made an effort to address the problem? Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand what's going on here, or you're being deliberately disingenuous to the point of trolling. Take a look at Levineps talk page, or I don't know the umpteen ANI threads where he was told to stop producing these categories. I'm not even going to bother linking you to the dozens if not hundreds of diffs that show he was warned a ridiculous amount of times to stop doing this. Or hey, let's look at the fact that he was banned from making the damn pages. But perhaps we should have just held hands with the editor and kindly asked him to stop a thousand more times... clearly that would have been the best action here. (Also, this isn't DRV.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand basic Wikipedia policy. You came here to ANI. ANI policy requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to your efforts to reach out to me to address your issue. As a stickler for following policy, I'm sure that you had dotted every "t" and crossed every "i" in ensuring that fundamental ANI policy was observed to the letter of the law. One diff would be enough, I can point to a dozen diffs where I and other editors asked you to stop your mass reverts, surely you can point to one of your own. Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community and it appears that you have failed to observe policy here. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, your continuous pattern of repeating what I've said back to me is directly disrupting the idea of having anywhere near a positive discourse here. Secondly, I'm not required to do that, especially when it's obvious that me going to your talk page wouldn't have done anything considering your refusal to listen on my talk page (and you don't get to use that as an excuse... if I had not been involved I would have blocked you for personal attacks and disruptive editing). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• You not only failed to communicate with me and deleted my attempts to discuss on your talk page the problems that you were causing, you refused to communicate with other editors and summarily deleted their comments as well. I think that you are projecting your refusal to communicate and address issues raised to you and assuming that I (and other editors) would be unwilling to address your concerns. As a law-and-order, rules-are-rules-and-they-must-be-followed, letter-of-the-law admin, you have failed in your obligation to reach out to me on my talk page. This failure to respect policy here at ANI is only part of a pattern of ignoring Wikipedia policy. I understand why you are so anxious to remove your name from the title of this section. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Link me to these so called policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Category:Wooden bridges in Vermont is a good example of what needs reviewing. Since the vast majority, in not all, of these are listed as Category:Covered bridges in Vermont is an additional by state category really needed? Or is including covered bridges in the wooden bridge category at some level suffucent? Not something that we should be answering here, but shows that what some think is a simple change is not really. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• StAnselm: There are several ways your comment could be interpreted, so let me reply to them all: If the point you're making is that one handpicked category somehow represents all ~1,750 categories, I fail to see what logic you're using to come to that conclusion. If the point you're making is that some of his edits were good, then please make sure to read the entire thread before making a comment, especially when what you're talking about has already been addressed several times. If the point you're making is that this editor and thereby his edits (and yes, it does matter who created them) was a net positive to the site, well not only is that not true but it should mean that you'd be willing to request that Levineps be disbanned. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I have read through the discussion carefully, and I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy. WP:BAN has a paragraph specifically about categories and says Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright. This is precisely what you have failed to do. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• That paragraph also says "Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards." There were over 1,000 of these categories and the overwhelming majority were blatantly useless and violated WP:OCAT. Flooding CFD with hundreds and hundreds of noms would have been just as disruptive as the ban evading sockpuppet's indiscriminate category splitting. It's also interesting that you haven't considered the reason for that paragraph in WP:BAN: that deleting categories can leave pages orphaned. From I've seen, Coffee has not only deleted the trivial categories but also reverted the edits that placed pages in those new categories. This obviously has the effect of merging the minimal splinter categories back into proper ones. Has the process been perfect? No, but there were something like 1,750 categories to see to. I don't think you appreciate the size of the mess; if you did you would not be so hasty to condemn Coffee for taking on the job or so hasty to reward the ban evading sockpuppet for being an unproductive time sink. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't really see a reason for these edits to be reverted if they are truly constructive. However, it's not the case, as Lukeno94 says above, and it is better in this case to revert first and ask questions later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Could we ask that Alansohn stop changing the section title to misconstrue this discussion? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion here is primarily about the mass deletion of categories and their potential recreation. I fail to see how a title that neutrally describes the discussion misconstrues anything and is better than a link to a single user name. I still get top billing, but Coffee can have it if he wants it. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Last time I checked, this wasn't a discussion about Coffee's or Levineps's behavior. It was about yours, Alansohn. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
      • No one poster here can dictate what a given section is "about". All posters are subject to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
        • @Baseball Bugs: What I have described was actually the main topic of this discussion (Alansohn's behaviour), though all comments are free to interpretation. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
        • (ec)You're not wrong. But the subject of this request for administrator action is User:Alansohn - so it makes sense to identify that editor in the section heading. Now, if Alansohn doesn't like that, then Alansohn should object to the section header and explain why it is inappropriate - then let some other editor who is not involved in the dispute make the change (or not make it). Edit warring over the section heading doesn't do anything other than annoy the very people who are looking at your actions. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
          • I have seen countless times that posters here other than the "subject" end up being blocked due to what's called the "boomerang" effect. Those posting and/or commenting on the complaint don't get to narrow its scope to just what they want. The scope is decided by the admins reviewing the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Entirely agree, but just because some cars kill people does not mean all cars kill people. But to get back on the actual topic (since what you're talking about isn't what I'm talking about), it is not standard practice here for topic titles to be changed in the middle of a discussion. Especially when that change is obviously being used to draw scrutiny away from the disruptive editor in order to derail the conversation. If you don't see that happening here, you aren't looking close enough (for instance, we wouldn't even be having this discussion). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
              • I agree that edit-warring over a section title is excessive. But it's clear that the topic is not just Alansohn. However, if the title were to be changed, the original title would need to be anchored, to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Read the lengthy first paragraph from User:Coffee, which is all about Levineps and his behavior, ad nauseum. Coffee's actions have been the primary topic of conversation from the overwhelming majority of the contributors here, and the issues raised regarding his actions in the mass deletion, his ignorance and deletion of comments on his talk page and his failure to comply with ANI policy appear to predominate in the discussion. Again, I'm still willing to keep top billing, even if Coffee is the main topic of conversation here. I understand why Coffee wants to deflect the unwanted scrutiny he has received, but the title I have offered as an alternative is both far more objective and far more accurate in describing the actual conversation here. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ironic, considering that the change in the title by you is just as much of an attempt to deflect attention as the actions you accuse Coffee of doing... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• How on earth is me providing the context of these events in one paragraph, something unpleasurable that has continued to the point of nausea? See folks, this is what I'm talking about. (Also a section title is not "top billing", this isn't theatre.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the discussion here. WP:DENY is extraordinarily clear, and absolutely critical to making an online, volunteer community work. If someone is forbidden from editing Wikipedia, then they are forbidden, and we must be sure that any edits they make in violation of their block or ban are reverted. Any other stance means that "blocked" no longer means "blocked"--it means, "edit however you want, and place all of the burden on the rest of us for sorting out what's good and what's bad." Coffee is 100% correct to revert all of the sockpuppets edits. Not only does Coffee not have to sort the good from the bad, he deliberately should not attempt to do so. While this may temporarily leave an article without some category that may or may not benefit it, it serves a greater purpose which ultimately makes the encyclopedia better: it helps to persuade the blocked user not to come back, because they need to know that every time they do, every moment of effort they put into Wikipedia will be erased. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DENY is merely an essay. The relevant policy is WP:BAN. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that both sides (and then some) have explained at length their positions. Coffee // have a cup made a helluva lot of reversions and Alansohn (and I assume others) chose to revert some of the reversions they disagreed with. And I recall reading somewhere in all of this that Coffee was okay with the fact that some of the edits from the banned editor could be valid contributions and there was a basis for a few reversions.

Since situations like this--where there is a mass rollback of thousands of edits--doesn't happen every day, and it is highly unlikely that either Coffee or Alan are going devote hours to re-reverting thousands of edits, it's not a question of what is to be done next in this situation but what should be done in the future when faced with a similarly prolific banned user. That's a good question to discuss but it seems outside the purview of AN/I which is about taking action on currently disruptive situations. I think this case can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Someone just alerted me to this thread, and aware of similar problems I've had with AlanSohn, suggested I chime in here. Since the issue involves the accusation of personal attacks and accusations of "disruptive editing", it would appear that my recent dealing with Alan may be relevant. I'll let those assembled here ultimately judge whether they are.

Recently, after I did a large amount of work on the Secaucus, NJ aritcle, AlanSohn reverted it, accusing me editing the citation style of the article in order to on the grounds of personal preference, which is prohibited by WP:CITEVAR, and accused me of disruptive editing, and a copyright violation. However, I did not make the edits in question because of a "personal preference", but to bring it in line with what I believed were established conventions of citation writing. If you're going to accuse someone of a certain intent or state of mind, then you should provide evidence that isn't merely consistent with that supposed state of mind, but points to it to to the exclusion of other possible, less nefarious motives. That's merely empirical, and the decent thing to do. To jump to a conclusion and then attack another editor by such an accusation without said evidence is a clear violation of WP:AGF, and accusing them of "disruptive" editing (a term we usually reserve for serial policy violators, vandals, etc.), is inappropriate. Alan provided no evidence for this supposed state of mind on my part, and refused to point out to me where the "copyvio" was after I asked him. I would've tried to discuss the matter with him, but I'm not really inclined to do so with someone who speaks to me in this way, and Alan made it clear that he would not apologize for or back down from this matter. The relevant talk page discussions are on my my talk page.

This was not the first time Alan attacked me in this manner, or employed all number of logical fallacies, deception, rhetoric, or spin in an attempt to slander me or others in order to argue his case in a disagreement. In July 2012, after I did considerable editing on the Red Bank, New Jersey article, he did a blanket revert of all my edits. However, he claimed that he "tried to restore as much of the material as he could", that "some of my rewording may have gotten lost", that he "tried his best to match my photo placements", that he "was not perfect in retaining my rewording", etc. In fact, he did none of this because comparison of the version before my edits and after he reverted them showed them to be identical; That is, he simply clicked on the version of the article before I edited it and restored it. When I called him on this lie, he tried to report me at ANI for "bad faith", even though I provided the evidence that proved his description of his revert was a lie on his part. (Compare this to his attempt to gauge my state of mind regarding what my "preferences" are, for which he provides no evidence).

Then, this past May, we were involved in another on the Red Bank article, when I properly removed unsourced content from the article, which he called "malicious". I tried to report him at ANI, and in the ensuing discussion, in which he pretty much continued the same behavior with impunity, I discovered his history of attacking others ad hominem, and outlined various other ANI discussions involving him that go back six years. (Search that last link for the phrase "This problem isn’t new"). Nothing was done to him at the end of that discussion (one participant said I should take it offline and have a beer with him. Yeah, you read that right.)

Make no mistake, this will not be the last time ANI will have to deal with him so long as ANI continues to allow him to edit here without putting an end to his violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc. I knew when ANI refused to take any action against him for his last violations that it would embolden him to continue and possibly escalate his behavior, and indeed, that's precisely what happened. This will continue if you do not put an end to it. Nightscream (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I do find this relevant, as it seems the same pattern of spouting a ridiculous amount of logical fallacies to confuse well-intentioned onlookers isn't a new thing with him. Nor, are his personal attacks on editors inside of edit summaries. This definitely puts Alansohn's combative editing into perspective. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Liz: This wasn't about him reverting edits. It was about his personal attacks inside of the edit summaries, disparaging my name on dozens of articles around the site; as well as his use of rollback against policy. Neither of these issues have been addressed here, since Alansohn has succeeded in derailing this conversation almost entirely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring over categories? Who cares about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I see, Coffee. The focus in this discussion has been on the legitimacy of mass-rollbacks of a blocked editor. I don't see much admin action proposed about personal attacks. Have they continued? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Coffee's mass deletions and policy violations

The issue is mass deletions and the relevant policy is WP:BAN, which states that "Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright." User:Coffee's mass deletions left thousands of orphaned articles. There was no careful consideration. There are no "blatantly useless categories". None of the categories were tagged for discussion at CfD. Coffee failed to observe rather clear Wikipedia policy, preferring to endlessly point to WP:DENY, an essay that has no bearing on what must be done. This failure to observe policy is the issue here. WP:ANI requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." which Coffee has also refused to observe. This pattern of ignoring policy, over and over and over again, ignoring pleas on his talk page to stop his mass deletions and using personal attacks against those pointing out the problem is the issue here. Coffee's remark "I think you're talking out of your ass" provides a wonderful summary of his actions Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Note for passers by:, What Alansohn is deliberately mischaracterizing here (for the umpteenth time with literally the same words, in his effort to derail this conversation) has already been addressed above multiple times. I would like to ask that Alansohn quit repeating himself, over and over and over and over and over again to try to get a different answer or conclusion. Not only is that very close to Einstein's definition of insanity ("doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), but it is being used to deflect the issues being identified with his editing (and to prevent anything from coming out of this thread). Repeating something 20 billion times, doesn't make it true. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As Liz and other editors have pointed out, the prime issue occurring here and now is your mass deletion of categories in violation of Wikipedia policy. You violated WP:BAN in these mass deletions and you violated WP:ANI by failing to address your issues directly on my talk page. Among my 400,000 edits I'm sure there are more that you could dredge up, but your active violation of policy is the problem here and now. As you so eloquently put it, "I think you're talking out of your ass". Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how many times are you going to re-use that quote, and remake that argument? (And no, Liz didn't say that. Don't put words in another editor's mouth.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As a by-the-book admin, you appear to have blatantly violated WP:BAN in your mass deletion rampage and you persistently refuse to address that policy violation. I recognize that you have been offended by my remarks, and I understand that, but you have failed to acknowledge the role that your policy violations have played in creating your problems here. You used it just days ago and until you come up with an even more offensive personal attack, the "I think you're talking out of your ass" remark seems to capture your attitude that rules apply to everyone else but you. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the violation of policy was not so blatant as you say, otherwise we'd already have gotten the trout from the cooler. You're complaining that articles were orphaned - but they were orphaned before the banned editor came in to edit, and they would have remained orphaned if that banned editor had not violated their ban by editing. Nuking the edits from orbit returns us to the status quo, at which point you can easily reinsert the useful categories and ignore the misguided ones. Or take them to CFD then, if you prefer. I'm still not seeing what administrator action you're looking for here. Do you want us to undelete all of the categories, then go through one by one? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN is rather clear, and I encourage you to make the determination for yourself.Coffee's persistent use of the essay WP:DENY to justify his actions has clouded the issue, but WP:BAN is policy, Coffee was required to follow it and his actions have caused the exact type of damage that WP:BAN seeks to prevent. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so - because there is no damage, near as I can tell. These are not long-standing, deeply populated categories we're talking about. And some could easily be re-created, either after discussion or outright. while BAN does control how we proceed, DENY shows us why we delete the edits of banned editors. The concern that started this is the opposite, actually - the accusation was that you were indescriminate in reinstating some of these categories, reversing Coffee without taking the time to consider which ones were worth keeping (and using edit summaries that could be seen as personal attacks, to boot). "He violated policy too" doesn't answer questions about your edits - and we've gotten away from that a bit. Could you have handled this differently? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In rather clear retrospect, with or without Coffee's provocations (a la "I think you're talking out of your ass"), I should have failed to take his bait. I tried to address his issues by pointing to relevant policy, but in the absence of any willingness to respond to these issues, the place to address them was not by manually reverting or using edit summaries. My main regret is in not taking this here to WP:ANI while it was happening, when there might well have been an opportunity to have User:Coffee address the issue with community input. Now isn't too late to deal with the issues, but failure by Coffee to comply with WP:BAN and WP:ANI is worth discussion here. I do hope that Coffee eventually recognizes his role in creating this problem, which could lead to an actual resolution of this matter. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oriole85 made edits too quickly. However, while most of edits probably needed to be undone, some didn't, and in general they were deleted or undone too quickly. There were a number of categories that were speedily deleted that I would have voted to keep had they been CfDed, and a number of categories that I would have kept rather than removed. While Coffee and I don't agree on anything, one thing we can agree: Alansohn is spilling too much vitriol here. (Full disclosure: I am mentioned above because I stumbled on this situation when Oriole and Coffee edited 160th Regiment State Armory, an article I created). pbp 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't defend Oriole85, but I have raised issues regarding User:Coffee's failure to implement WP:BAN properly in has mass deletions of categories. The status quo required by WP:BAN would leave the categories as they existed before the mass deletion, with discussion at WP:CFD regarding those that should be deleted.Per Liz "I see, Coffee. The focus in this discussion has been on the legitimacy of mass-rollbacks of a blocked editor." I'm sorry to catch Coffee in a blatant lie, but his refusal to take his lead foot off the deletion pedal and to stop to discuss his actions is what has caused the problem in the first place. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Coffee's lack of candor in recognizing that his actions in violation of WP:BAN precipitated this issue and his refusal to address his violation of AP:ANI policy are the continuing problem here. Coffee has complained about edit summaries, yet his reply " further note... stop lying" not only makes a personal attack in the edit summary but is his own falsehood. Coffee needs to end his continuing effort to battle and start to acknowledge his own issues. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This problem with Alansohn isn’t new

I'm going to take the liberty now (since Nightscream has enlightened me to this being a recurring issue) of flooding this thread with even more examples that will show why this issue needs to be handled (most likely with a form of community sanctions against Alansohn, which this noticeboard is usually good at drafting) I'm sure Nightscream doesn't mind me partially re-using his content from the previous thread.:

In this September 2007 ANI discussion (started by the admin JzG), Alan was brought forward for using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The ANI participant who gave the most responses in that discussion, Persian Poet Gal, agreed that Alan was guilty of this, while two other editors, User:Fram and User:Wikipediatrix, observed that this was not a new problem with Alan. Eusebeus pointed to a number of recurring tendencies identified in an RFC:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.

Sounds like what we're seeing here again folks, wouldn't you agree?

Alan was the subject of a 2007-2008 RfC in which entire lists were compiled showing his personal attacks, AGF violations, misuse of edit summaries, failure to acknowledge his violations and canvassing (which is greatly summarized by the above list).

After these avenues still did not fix his behaviour, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan for his incivility, personal attacks, violations of AGF, etc in 2008. ([150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155])

"Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions." Passed 8 to 0 at 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then once again, in this February 2010 ANI discussion, three editors, postdlf, Good Olfactory and Ncmvocalist observe Alan's problem with incivility, failure to adhere to AGF, personal attacks, making his accusers the subject of attacks, and stonewalling. Eusebeus concurred with this at a related Wikiquette Assistance discussion that same month.

Of course that again did not handle the issues seen with this editor, so once again in May of this year another thread had to be opened on Alansohn's combative behavior. Where I find JzG's summary of Alansohn to be most accurate: "Alansohn has always seemed to em to take Wikipedia issues very personally, and to be heavily emotionally vested in certain content. I am not sure if ArbCom will help, as he does not seem to me to display a talent for self-examination and therefore may be more radicalised by such a confrontational process..."

So, while Alansohn has continuously reversely projected the concerns editors have had with his actions onto the editors raising them (as he's done here again). I think it's obvious when editors are bringing up the same issues (time and time again) about your editing, it's not them who have the problem it's you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've had to place this discussion back at the bottom of this thread twice now, since Alansohn is once again trying to prevent the issues identified with his behaviour from being discussed (through some cleverly underhanded tactics, I might add). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Make that a third time... I would really like if other admins could help me out here, unless you just want me to lose my mind. (For further reference that this is where this should be placed, look at the timestamps.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop it

I strongly suspect it will be impossible to turn this ANI thread into a useful one by now, and there's too much FUD flying around to get me to try to solve anything, but I'll do the low hanging fruit. Whatever title this ANI thread has, and whatever order the subthreads are in, when I save this message, is the title and order they are going to have from now on, "fair" or not. Stop edit warring about it or you will be blocked. Also, the next time either @Coffee: or @Alansohn: says the other is being "sneaky", a "liar", "acting typically" or in "bad faith", or anything similar, they will be blocked. I doubt this thread will ever amount to anything even if you both start acting professionally, but I know for sure it won't if you don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've seen this done before, but does anyone think it would be a good idea to ban Coffee and Alansohn from this thread for 24 hours, to see if something productive can be discussed in their absence? Or close this as an irreparable mess? Or make it an RFC? Or is everyone having fun and want to just carry on as is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Every single one of Coffee's 16 edits today has been to this lone page. I have tried to build articles today, but leaving his claim's unaddressed is counterproductive. I am willing to stay away from this thread for 24 hours (or longer) as long as User:Coffee is willing to exercise the same restraint. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It would certainly have to be mutual. But since I've never seen this done, I'm not imposing it, I'm asking other (preferably uninvolved) people to say whether they think it's a good idea. Alternately, if Coffee agrees too, then it will just be voluntary I'll go ahead and "impose" it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Clearly my concerns are being treated as bullshit by Floquenbeam, and now my stress level has reached it's max. And what the hell point was he making by saying all of my edits today have been here? I have two full time jobs (CASA/USAF) for christ sake. I didn't have time to write or build articles today because I was running around making sure that my airmen and our nuclear mission was being taken care of, and that I'm ready for court this Friday to ensure the children in the case are properly taken care of. And of course that just went unnoticed by Floquenbeam, giving credence to that comment because clearly everything's just equal here. I'm... speechless. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest you take a Wikibreak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Coffee has done the three things required in order for a problem to be dealt with on wikipedia - he has identified what the problem is, he has said why Alansohn's actions are causing the problem, and he has provided supporting diffs. Policy and general convention is clear on edits by banned editors/sockpuppets. I suggest the quickest way to deal with this is topic ban Alansohn from category related edits for a month while Coffee gets the work done. If he wants to start putting all those useless cats back after that, well then we can have another loooooong discussion. The discussion about how to treat edits by banned/sockpuppets is just a distraction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank god someone gets it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Only in death, and still feel that Alan hasn't stopped at anything to try and deflect the attention away from his own actions, past and present; be it deleting evidence of his own poor behaviour, or making clearly unfounded (or, in some cases, downright false) allegations. That said, I agree with BMK that it may be worth taking a Wikibreak sometime soon Coffee; it seems like you've had enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts, FWIW, after wading through a yucky thread and several Special:Contribs and a messy grey area:

Coffee:

• Mass revert of Oriole85: Seems to be within policy; some would do it, some wouldn't, but certainly a reasonable interpretation of BAN.
• Dealing with effect of mass reverts on articles: Probably not optimal, but this is a short term problem that from what I understand he is working further on as he has time, and others are welcome to help too.
• Dealing with people on his talk page who questioned/disagreed: Disappointingly aggressive
• Dragging in unrelated stuff, arguing about thread order, repetition of the same arguments, and aggression on this thread: Yuck
• Not wanting to take a break from the back and forth: Disappointing

Alansohn:

• Disagreement about mass revert: A reasonable position, although consensus is probably slightly to Coffee's advantage
• Reverts of some of Coffee's reverts: Acceptable, as long as each one was thought about and determined to be a good edit, which from what I've looked through seems to be the case
• Edit summaries used during some of those reverts: Not acceptable. I note that he hasn't done this again since the ANI thread started.
• Claims that Coffee violated BAN and ANI rules: Incorrect
• Dragging in unrelated stuff, arguing about thread order, repetition of the same arguments, and aggression on this thread: Yuck
• Reverting comments here when asked: Promising

Suggested actions:

• Coffee's reverts are confirmed to be a reasonable, imperfect solution because there are no perfect solutions
• I don't see a need to ban Alansohn from categories for a month, as long the edit summaries remain neutral, and he restores any edits because he's looked though them, and is taking ownership of them. If a large portion of these are found to be problematic, then let's talk about that, but I don't see any obviously problematic ones.
• Alan is reminded of previous issues with civility (not just imagined by enemies, but fairly widespread agreement), and warned to keep edit summaries innocuous and to, you know, not make mountains out of molehills and occasionally let something slide. Out of self interest, if nothing else.
• Acknowledge Alan stopped with the dumb edit summaries, and thank him for being willing to disengage here
• Someone whose opinion Alan respects has a quiet word to dial it back a few notches
• Someone whose opinion Coffee respects has a quiet word to dial it back a few notches

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I disagree -- in some cases fervently so -- with some of the characterizations, though I'm sure that Coffee will feel the same way. Though it's never a pretty sight when the baby is cut on half, and arguing about how the baby was carved up seems rather inappropriate at this point. I am willing to abide by Floquenbeam's suggestions and I hope to respect the spirit of the recommendations made here. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 12 December 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.

Request to block disruptive user Medeis

Wickwack paddywack, give a troll a bone, this old thread needs closing down--Jayron32 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[I posted this request here yestertday, but it dissappeared within seconds. I thought it was a software glitch so I posted it again. Aagin it was deleted within seconds. Checking history showed it was deleted both times by "AdmiralCaius". I asked politely on his talk page why he deleted it. He deleted that question there as well, without comment. Deletion here without comment is not helpful, proves nothing, and achieves nothing. Is AdmiralCaius another name for Medeis? I have posted here again. I note that others have continued to complain about Medeis on the Reference Desk talk page under heading How to answer questions. We can all do without the need to rebuke Medeis. I really cannot understand why Medeis is allowed to continue. Just from the comments by others currently on the Referance Desk talk page, he clearly has a bad reputation] Recently, a user, SteveBaker (not the problem user), posted a flowchart under heading How to answer questions on the Reference Desk talk page, (http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science#How_to_answer_questions) with a request for comment. It attracted a disrespectful comment from user Medeis beginning "This seems a rather obvious ... way of [stopping] those who think it should be hatted ... when Baker and others really really want to answer it." Later, Medeis attempted to get the flow chart deleted. I contributed several posts, along with others, in what I consider a constructive way. Discussion ensued with some users supporting and/or agreeing with me, and some disagreeing with reasons given, which of couse is fine. It is clear from several posts under this heading and elsewhere that people, even if they hold different views to me, consider my contributions constructive, and they have no problem with it. Medeis deleted most of my posts, leaving the comment "Comment by banned user removed”. I am not aware that I am a banned user. I have no reason to believe I am a banned user. It seems clear to me that Medeis has deleted my posts in order to stifle or skew discussion - the same reason he wanted SteveBaker's flowchart deleted. Another user thinks I am someone they call Wickwack. I am not Wickwack, whoever Wickwack may be. Apparently I live in the same country (Australia), and share the same ISP (who has millions of other customers) as Wickwack. This is no great problem, except perhaps that it provides Medeis with a convenient unjustified excuse without providing any proof. I note that Medeis is very active at hatting and deleting all manner of posts on Reference Desk, not just mine, and only sometimes justified (i.e., only some are obvious trolls, provision of medical advice, and the like). It is a major contribution surely leading to a poor reputation of the Reference Desk in the community at large, along with Medeis's sometimes personally abusive posts (for example, the comment against SteveBaker above, quite unjustified). I cannot understand why sanctions have not been taken against Medeis some time ago. A search of Reference Desk project and talk page archives shows many users commenting adversely about Medeis. Since Medeis is disruptive, a deletion vandal, and a major contributor to bad vibes, can Medeis be banned/blocked please? In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I attempted to notify Medeis on his talk page. However there is no Edit or New Section tab on his talk page! RJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.87.169 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC) There actually is an Edit and a New Section at Medeis page. There is much discussion including a discussion of ANI issues. I am unsure about the rest although it is clear that Admiral Caius did delete the posting thinking you are a banned user. Perhaps he can supply the diff to that decision? JodyB talk 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) The history for this can largely be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple_IP_addresses. That section also links to a sockpuppet investigation page. I personally am completely confident that the IP posting here is, in fact, WickWack aka Ratbone. One of his favorite ways to troll has always been to pretend to be several different people. His IP changes to quickly, and covers too many ranges, to really bother blocking. Not disrptive enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Although this IP is not named it is from the same pool in Australia. The evidence at Someguy's diff is enlightening. I think I may hear quacking in the distance. JodyB talk 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Someguy. Other editors will note this is the third time the banned IP user has posted this in 24 (if not more, I haven't checked), it was reverted before by an editor who left a message on my talk page. His behavior has been discussed recently at the Ref Desk talk page under a header "wickwack" and throughout, with the point of his banning and the appropriateness of summarily reverting his edits mentioned repeatedly. I intend to unwatch this, and I suggest it be archived. Please leave a message on my talk page if my attention is needed agin. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Liang1a not going beyond complaints of prejudice against China to discuss contested edits to ADIZ articles

I rarely if ever take the initiative to try to get help solving an issue with another editor here but User:Liang1a has refused to substantively engage on the Talk pages with regard to the particulars of what this editor wants. The editor has only edited two articles in recent years and a typical edit in recent days is to just add "The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China" to an article. Maybe the cultural gap here as to Wikipedia's norms and purpose is just so wide that the problem is rather unprecedented in my experience. May I suggest an admin either admonish this user to either discuss the objections raised on article Talk pages and address the points at issue or alternatively restrict editing to the article(s) or by the editor until such time as there is further specific content-focused engagement with other editors?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The original text was: "The announcement of the zone drew attention and international criticism, especially from Japan and the U.S." It is obvious that "international criticism" is a subjective term insinuating that the whole world is condemning China. Obviously, the Chinese ADIZ is a political event that those countries hostile to China wish to exploit to demonize China. I don't know that the "norm" at Wikipedia is to allow partisans to use it for political ends. If it is permitted to insinuate the whole world is against China then surely it is permitted to refute it with :"The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China". Which, incidentally, is absolutely true. Furthermore, the term "carping" was used by an article published by Global Times which is an authoritative publication in China reflecting the sentiments of the Chinese government. "Carping and irresponsible remarks about China establishing its own ADIZ are of no value at all." http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/827925.shtml Therefore, I was not merely expressing my personal opinion when I used the term "carping" but quoting sourced material. As a compromise, I will agree to "The announcement of the zone drew attention and expressions of discontent from some countries, especially from Japan and the U.S." Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Also, Brian Dell or somebody, has been deleting my posts as quoted below:

It is not true that US ADIZ regulations do not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts that fly through the US ADIZ but do not enter US sovereign airspace. The US ADIZ rules are as follows: http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In North America, the US and Canada are surrounded by an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the civilian air traffic control authorities and the militaries of both nations, under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD.http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• The joint US/Canadian ADIZ, which is almost exclusively over water, serves as a national defense boundary for aerial incursions.'http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11). http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13) http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In the United States, the FAA handles the requests of international aircraft and Transport Canada handles Canadian requests.http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft. http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

There is no justification to deleted sourced material. I hope admin will ask Brian Dell to stop deleting it.Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The original research / personal opinion in his edits are blatantly obvious, so I've given him a final warning. If he wants to grind his axe, he can do it somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Someguy1221 an admin? Does he have the authority to give me warnings?Liang1a (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea but it doesn't matter. Anyone can give you a warning. You should take it on board and if it's deserved, make sure you stop the problematic behaviour. If problematic behaviour continues after several warnings, you may need to be blocked to protect wikipedia. (We don't need warnings before blocking if your behaviour is bad enough but it's normal best practice since it helps give us confidence we do have to block someone as they should know about the problems they are causing but aren't apparently going to stop.) Only an admin will be able to block you in the end, but who gave you the warnings doesn't generally matter. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific - yes, he is an administrator, and yes, he has authority to issue a final warning to a disruptive user. Anyone technically can issue such warnings, but admins can act upon them, and generally treat such warnings from other admins as more solidly valid than those issued by normal editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How do I know Someguy221 is an admin?Liang1a (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

See here: [156]. And then think about actually responding to the issues raised about your editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

From Liang1a to Georgewilliamherbert: So, someguy1221 is actually an administrator. That scares me to death - NOT! If this is the quality of Wiki administrator then my opinion of Wiki is much less. I've attempted to give a balanced view of the issue. But it is obvious that Wiki is adament to block me. So go ahead and block me. Posting to Wiki is not the crowning achievement of my life as it seems to be to someguy1221. I've read and refuted the confused and arrogant bigots who keep lying about what third party evidence is. I'll try again to refute them and then I'll stop wasting my time. It's Wiki's loss if it is seen as partisan.

If you stole a car then your testimony is first party. If I witnessed your theft then my evidence is third party evidence. The car itself is just the stolen property and not evidence to prove innocence or guilt. By the same token, the issue is about whether US ADIZ requires filing of flight plan. Therefore, what American media said are first party evidence. And the US ADIZ rules posted by FAA is like the stolen car and is neither first nor third party evidence. It is simply necessary to be shown so that people know what the issue is. How can you talk about what the US ADIZ rules are without looking at them?

I've wasted enough time. It is not worth my while to waste any more of my time. There are plenty of other forums for me to express myself. This also reflects the situation in E. China Sea. After decades of seeking Americn approval and support, Chinese leaders have finally come to the realization that it is pointless to waste its time to gain the support of the US. Hence its declaration of the ADIZ in E. China Sea as a way to tell America that it is no longer important to China.

Keep your precious propaganda mill. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you just serve as a mouthpiece for American propaganda. For me to give a balanced view to your articles helps you and not me. I've not done much editing at all in the past. So not being able to edit Wiki articles is no loss to me. And I have many other things to do to give me more satisfaction than arguing with bigots. Liang1a (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Liang1a, you cite to the same source seven times here, but you could cite seventy times and it does not resolve the matter if your source is disputed. Calling attention to a source does not resolve the issue if contradicted by other sources or if, as here, the sources don't in fact conflict but the devil is in the details as opposed to the broad strokes one finds in the Powerpoint show your repeatedly refer to. Just why your source, or more precisely how you are using it, is problematic is laid out on the relevant article Talk pages. It requires more patience all around to work through more complex material and frequently more discussion as well. There is actually a certain logic to how Wikipedia works but to appreciate it one has to stop and analyze the nature of the resistance encountered instead of just taking another charge at it. Veteran editors are less likely to be treated as hotheads than newcomers not because their temperaments are fundamentally different but because they've learned over time how to tiptoe through the turnips and get things done. Just speaking as another editor, while I'd see your proposal to change "international criticism" to "expressions of discontent from some countries" overly wordy, this sort of proposal is very typical of Wikipedia's day-to-day editing and continuing down this lane represents the way to go here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Liang1a: - I see that you are very new here (86 edits), which may be a factor in some of the difficulties your facing. If no one has told you yet, let me then assure you that one of the prime objectives of Wikipedia is neutrality. If you feel that the article in question has a bias toward China, just post your concern on that article's talk page, and allow for a discussion (like Brian has suggested). There are many people who will immediately evaluate the article, to ensure it is neutral. While that means it will not be "anti-China", it will not be "pro-China" either. There are plenty of experienced editors willing to help you, if you will let them. Just be willing to talk and work with others. Do not edit war, and don't get defensive when somebody says something you don't agree with. There is now plenty of attention on the article in question. It will get fixed where needed. Just watch, and maybe you'll learn a few things along the way. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no interest in editing the article, but having seen this ANI on my watchlist and having had experience with Chinese government sources on other matters, and with the special logic of the Chinese government viewpoint being held forth upon here, here is an example of genuinely neutral coverage by a major Chinese paper not actually in China, whose goals are expressly neutrality...even though it is very pointedly hostile to the government of mainland China...on exactly the same issue. IMO sometimes a neutral presentation of the facts of a situation is very often seen as POV by one or more sides in the equation; this applies as much to domestic politics as to international politics; the reason being that, in politics, a full representation of the facts is all too often not conducive to "fairness" because......the truth is very often not fair, but swift and obvious in the condemnation a neutral presentation of the facts of a case clearly show. Politics is not about being obvious and clear, rather the opposite.Skookum1 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ColonelHenry more personal attacks and outing

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:ColonelHenry was warned a couple of times, inluding a final notice, against making personal attacks against me and the community as a whole.

a NPA warning

a NPA final warning

Apparently he's a bit obsessed with me, and is stalking and spying on me off-Wikipedia and recently used information so gathered to out me on Wikipedia, oversighted, but, this edit.

No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke.

No follow up from me, outing is outing.

--AfadsBad (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ridiculous, WP:HA#NOT. I corrected one of the matters you brought up on your blog about errors in science content. So what, I read your blog. I've corrected three or four things you've complained about in several of your blog rants about how Wikipedia's science content is bringing about the end of the world. You should appreciate it...someone actually reads your gripes and on occasion acts accordingly to correct the griped-about passage. I didn't mention you by name or mention other identifying information, didn't mention any contact information, and neither did I direct anyone how to find your anger-releasing soapbox of a blog. All I did was mention in my edit summary that I was responding to your recent blog rant and mentioned vague information that you've already volunteered elsewhere publicly but nothing that linked you to it. Rather disingenuous to claim you were outed when no one could have identified you from what was stated, and I only stated what you've mentioned on Wikipedia, or at public events connected to Wikipedia, to tout your credentials. Sorry, but you know what they say about people in glass houses and throwing stones. If you want to rant anonymously about other people (and out them on your blog) and then complain when someone vaguely alludes to you (but not in a way that leads to you or your front door)...pot calling the kettle black. I guess you'll just write about it on your blog as yet another reason why you hate Wikipedia. Sorry, if you feel attacked, not my intention. But your hands aren't clean in this. Perhaps Adorno said it best: "The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass available."--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm not certain where you're coming from User:AfadsBad, considering you literally outed yourself with this edit. That took all of five seconds to find, and without ever reading your blog I immediately came upon it. If you don't want people being able to track you back to your off-wiki activities, then perhaps you should take the necessary steps to make sure they can't. It would be no different than if I told you that my name is Chet Long and I'm stationed in Louisiana, and then started screaming when someone else alluded to this at a later time. Which also brings into question the choice of oversighting ColonelHenry's edit, if it was no more than he claims it was (I don't have OS, so it would be helpful if another OS could inform ANI as to why that oversight was done). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Coffee - Check your email, I emailed you privately regarding the content rather than repost it publicly here. I didn't think it possible to out someone who already released that information on several occasions on Wikipedia and at Wikipedia-related events (Q&A sessions, etc.) in order to condescendingly establish "these are my credentials, I'm a scientist...you're all idiots."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good, now you're trying to out me via Wikipedia e-mail. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• • It's not what he says it is; the oversighters are not idiots; it was a no-brainer oversight containing information not on en.Wikipedia and not in my blog. And, no, it wasn't oversighted because ColonelHenry mentioning my blog on Wikipedia; the blog is mentioned and linked in a couple of places on Wikipedia, and I tag it with my Wikipedia name. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also a less than constructive edit for AfadsBad to blank a section claiming (unsourced) plagiarism, even when he recognises that it was a rewrite rather than an addition (and I can't see this section having been added in recent edit history). This is an editor more concerned with grandstanding their linguistic skills above others, rather than working to improve articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Less than constructive? It's utterly contemptible. This editor blanked the entire section on Flora, a subsection of "Flora and Fauna", rendering the main section title nonsensical and removing necessary and useful content. This is classic WP:NOTHERE. It seems our Literary Genius copied the section on his blog, and then posted his rewrite - to prove his ability to improve Wikipedia. He didn't just go ahead and improve it, oh no. He showed how badly written it was, and then showed how a Real Writer would do it. An editor apparently innocently believes that AfadsBad genuinely wanted to improve Wikipedia, and so posted the "improved" section to the article. AfadsBad proves he has no interest in making any improvements, by deleting the whole section. He does not even restore the "bad" version. He just blanks it. Outrageous. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That is what the instructions say. And, really, you can't throw an obligation to improve an article on someone just because Wikipedia editors plagiarized from them. Copyright violation instructions are clear: remove the material, post on the talk page. Don't like them, change them. But, as a volunteer encyclopedia, I am fine with choosing what I do. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unsourced plagiarism?" It wasn't a rewrite by a Wikipedia editor; I posted an example rewrite on my blog, which is copyrighted, and I own the copyright; Wikipedia editors did the usual, they copied from the internet, from my blog, and pasted my work into Wikipedia without crediting me as the author and without my permission--there's no ticket for this one. So, not only plagiarism, but a copyright violation. But, I will be glad to take care of that through Wikipedia's official channels to make sure my copyrighted work is completely removed from Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, grandstanding linquistic skills with this? " No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke." That is the most comma soaked, spagetti plate of grammer I have ever seen. I agree with the WP:NOTHERE and think this might be a case for WP:BOOMERANG. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, once more, following the instructions on Wikipedia is a complete bomb; so, maybe User:Andy Dingley can correct this to whatever he thinks people should do when a copyright violation is found:

"If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. == Copyright problem removed ==

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: insert URL or description of source here (optional). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) has been created for this."

At least I've learned that following any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia is not an argument for having done it correctly.

--AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lets get back to the outing issue. If any user self identified but no longer wishes to have their real life ID known on this website then no one should repost it, ever. I would like to make sure this is clear.--MONGO 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. I don't care if it's something AfadsBad mentioned somewhere at some time that ColonelHenry picked up on... mentioning it in an edit summary is a real dick move. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great blog, Afads. Of course, one might suggest that it would take the same amount of effort to correct the problems you complain about as to complain about them... but just pointing the problems out is also helpful. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to improve, but some editors, such as ColonelHenry and Cwmhiraeth, made it clear to me that rules and procedures trumped everything, including verifiability. Both of these users fought to keep bad science in article space, in spite of the information being made up nonsense. It would be more fun to write accurate articles than to post about nonsense, but the former is not welcome here. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No offense, but I would have been glad to work with you had you approached me initially with a little less of the aggressive "bull in a china shop" swagger. In fact, I aim to improve Dent corn in the next few months, and if you could get off your condescending high horse, I would probably enjoy your opinion and expertise as that work proceeds. But as long as you continue to be belligerent, I would never waste my time attempting to collaborate with you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if he's condescending or if you don't like the attitude on display at his blog. Any of us should be able to post any kind of blog we want that's critical of Wikipedia material without being attacked and outed on Wikipedia. I can't see what you posted in that edit summary, but I don't think it would have been oversighted unless it was serious. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oversight, from my experience with it, tends to remove just to play it safe whether there isn't a problem or not--and if it isn't a problem, it's no big deal. Knowing what I wrote, I don't believe it was serious and it wasn't anything more than AfadsBad already released in tooting her own horn to lord over others she thought inferior intellects--and it was nothing that would have led an average, unknowing Wikipedia user to know I was mentioning her. So, there was no "outing"--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, they are cautious about not removing material they don't consider outing. I wrote twice about material I was concerned about and both time oversighters made the effort to discuss with me why they felt the material was not outing; I disagreed once, and agreed the other time. When we disagreed, the oversighter asked another oversighter to investigate, with my permission, and this additional oversighter agreed with both of us in part, and removed some of the information. Very civil. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No you wouldn't have. You went ballistic because I offered some minor suggestions while you in a good article nomination. In an AN/I thread, and a subsequent de-GA'ing, many other editors posted about your hostile attitude. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's not material from my blog; and oversighting it didn't even require discussion. It was personal information about me not available on Wikipedia. And now, ColonelHenry is using his Wikipedia account to e-mail this information to others. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• (1) I mentioned what I wrote to an admin above who joined considering this matter...would you rather I repeat what I said here, publicly? (2) Rehashing four month old battles that were already litigated and resolved is not good form, AfadsBad. And you do me a disservice in thinking I can't kiss and make up. I work and collaborate with several editors who I've disagreed and argued with. If you could calm down and be a little less aggressive and little more reasonable, it could be a worthwhile collaboration...but your attitude here shows such a collaboration wouldn't be a fruitful use of my time. I respect your expertise, I have no respect for your attitude.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your inaccuracy will always be a problem. "these are my credentials, I'm a scientist...you're all idiots." That's not what I said at all; and I don't know if you purposefully misread or misquoted it, or you just couldn't see what it said because of your preconceived notions; either way, it would make you impossible to work with. And, the geology Good Article where you didn't care that the science was completely made up, since it had been procedurally promoted to GA, the fact that it contained made up, non-verifiable science didn't matter to you, so that, instead of removing ridiculous science from Wikipedia, you insisted it be kept, since you badly promoted it to "Good Article" status due to your lack of knowledge of geology. It's the Randy from Boise syndrome; I can't find common ground that lets you see how bad the science was, even thought it was a mistake at high school level. Won't work. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not rehashing a old grudge you still have that has already been resolved, that I learned from (i.e. I don't do GA reviews anymore because I couldn't dedicated the needed time, and I made an error in assuming good faith on sources and content), and that I've moved on from. You spend more time rehashing and complaining and then rehashing again that could more positively add toward contribution, and condescending or not. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Has User:Cwmhiraeth removed from Wikipedia any of the made-up science that I discussed in my blog posts? No. She complained about my blogging about her, on my talk page. But, verifiability is beyond her. So, as long as it keeps going on, she and others keep making up science and putting it on Wikiepdia's main page, my rehashing pales in comparison to the wiki mirrors copying made up WikiScience. Rehash that. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sniping from the perimeter does nothing to fix it. If you want to correct it, be a WikiGnome and correct the errors. There are plenty of users correcting small things here and there, so instead of complaining and writing jeremiads criticizing other users who can only do their best, show up, drop the smug attitude, fix things, make your case if someone asks why without biting their head of, and get your hands dirty. Most of the articles you complain of have no one working on them. I'd be the first person to endorse and support the removal of your block if you came back, focused on correcting a few things, and played well with others. You don't play well with others. I don't either, but at least I try and I do work with several other editors. Imperious swagger doesn't build collaboration. If you came back and dropped the attitude, I probably could learn something from you (I'm always open to learning) and we together could probably do excellent work. I would assert you would make one hell of a good FAC and GA reviewer--something both projects need. Hey, ball is in your court.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not blocked you know, never have been, other than an error early on. You can see an editor's block by looking at their contributions and hitting block log or something. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how anyone can do anything, in either direction, if we can't see the edit summary for ourselves. Perhaps if ColonelHenry, who knows what it said, just agrees to not use that type of information on-wiki anymore, whether or not he thinks it should be considered outing, then this would solve itself? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree to that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:14, 10 December 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.

(edit conflicted while discussion was being closed) I'd like to see something a bit stronger from ColonelHenry, because of the enduring consequences of outing, which was obviously serious enough for the oversighters. Considering the discussion above, I'd like to see stronger confirmation from ColonelHenry indicating s/he really understands outing. I also find many of his/her comments above unhelpful, particularly considering the seriousness of the issue. And following copyvio instructions is everyone'e prerogative-- we don't all have time to fix every copyvio we find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(earlier comment someone rubbed out in an edit conflict)

Involuntary outing is bad, yes. But maybe someone could explain this to my feeble brain: (1) the OP claims his own blog's content was plagiarized; (2) how is it possible to prove that claim without "outing" oneself by providing the citation to the blog? and (3) a blog is not a valid source on Wikipedia anyway. Hence, the OP should never have posted that content in the first place. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The blog was not being used as a source. The blog showed an example of bad prose copied from a Wikipedia article. The author then rewrote the "bad" prose on the blog, creating what (s)he evidently believed to be brilliant prose (saying the same things, cited to the same sources) to show how it should be done. Another person then posted the rewritten text to Wikipedia to replace the "bad" prose. AfadsBad then deleted the section, claiming that their blog was being "plagiarised", thus, in effect outing themselves. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly Wikipedia editors thought it brilliant enough to plagiarize without credit. And, not only did I remove it, I followed the directions at WP:Copyright violations, and I linked to my blog on the article talk page, so there was no "in effect outing," I posted a link to the blog on the talk page, a place where some editors discuss articles, and where one is directed to post a template with a link to the URL that was plagiarized when removing the text. Read WP:Copyright violations some time. It's enlightening. The outing has been oversighted. The blog link at the article has not. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, as has often been said here, if one is concerned about being outed, complaining about it on this totally public page is not the best strategy. So the complainant needs to decide what's more important: Staying anonymous here, or protecting a copyright on a blog. On the other hand, if someone was deliberately trying to draw attention to their blog, this could be a good strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So, should I thank the Colonel for obsessing about the blog? It certainly has driven my stats up for the day. However, it's still not outing me, like ColonelHenry did, so I don't really care about it being or not being posted here, the article where I posted it, other places where others post it. I care about editors posting personally identifiable information about me that is not otherwise available on Wikipedia in a retaliatory move, as clearly stated by the Colonel in his properly oversighted outing edit summary. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The key question might be then, is it possible to discern from your blog what your real-life identity is? If not, how did he figure it out? (And no details, please, just "in general". We don't need any reruns of such outing.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a recent ArbCom case that's going to go against you on this. He did a hell of a lot of sleuthing, but not from my blog. I should probably feel honored, as I had to search for where I interacted with him, while he was devoting a lot of time to finding out off-site information about me.

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." On Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No one outed me by linking to or citing my blog, which is not a secret. Outing is about revealing personally identifiable information on Wikipedia that does not already exist there. My blog is already posted in a couple of places on Wikipedia. I'd be glad to post it even more places, but that's not really the purpose of Wikipedia. To repeat, the blog is not how ColonelHenry outed me. It would not be oversighted, anyhow, because it is already linked all over Wikipedia and tagged with my Wikipedia user name. It's not outable. Read WP:OUT some time. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If he went way out of his way to find your real-life identity and post it here (or anywhere), then that's malicious and should be dealt with. Although there's a lesson in there for you as well: Be extremely cautious as regards your "internet footprint". If one bad-intentioned citizen could find it, others could too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what he did, what was oversighted, and what I am reporting about ColonelHenry and off Wikipedia personal information about me. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And also Streisand effect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Except that she cared that her property not be on Google. I want my blog all over the place, and, to help Wikipedia readers find me, I add my Wikipedia user name to my posts' tags. So, what Streisand effect? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Again, how can we do anything, even warn or counsel someone, without knowing what the edit summary said? The fact that it was oversighted does not definitively prove it was outing. AfadsBad and ColonelHenry are describing the contents of the edit summary in different ways, and we can never know who is more accurate. I'd say an email to ArbCom is the only practical solution, so they can either caution ColonelHenry, or block him, or tell AfadsBad he's over-reacting, or something. But we can't do that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how about a disclaimer, although I realize that after following the instructions for copyvios, and for other things, and being told I was wrong to, in all probability, it will be incorrect, or simply used as all guidelines and rules are on Wikipedia: outing is a crime if others do it, but just another bother to be given the run around if it happens to outsiders. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're intentionally attributing opinions and statements to me that I'm clearly not making. It makes me suspect (absent any evidence to the contrary) that you could easily be misrepresenting the contents of the edit summary too. So thanks, you've beautifully made my point for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I haven't attributed anything to you, I'll let you own your own comment. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block."

And, how about some of the admins in this thread reading the oversight policy? From interacting with oversighters on behalf of others, I know the policy better than you. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A keyword there is attempted outing. That's a blockable offense, whether the attempted outing information is accurate or not. There is no obligation to prove that it's the real info. The attempt is sufficient to put the attempter on ice, either for a short stretch or permanently. However, here's what you need to do, based on experience: Find a trusted admin and communicate to him offline (i.e. via e-mail) if your privacy is ever compromised. Don't bring such a sensitive matter to a public forum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Navigating Wikipedia is a nightmare, and always, no matter what you do, you're in the wrong. Read much of ANI, or spend any time here and the conclusion about "trusted" admin is limited. As for Wombat, WP:TLDR, ESSAY, RANDY, DICK, DIVA, WHATEVERJUVENILE essay necessary to not take responsibility for problems on Wikipedia, like making up information and passing it off as science and leaving it on Wikipedia, etc. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like a case of WP:DIVA. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sent to ArbCom

As usual, in spite of the plethora of guidelines and policies and admins there are none. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sending it to arbcom was probably the smartest and fairest course of action. It's very difficult to deal with something when you can't actually see with what's being discussed and there appears to be disputes over what it was. There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom. You can't blame administrators for being reluctant to deal with something when they're not sure of the details of what they're dealing with (and since administrative actions are subject to review by the community the fact that couldn't explain to anyone querying even if they were doesn't help either). Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom." And what's the reason it says nothing about this on the policy page? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

70.120.95.221 - continued disruption and possible sock

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 IP account 70.120.95.221 has been on a long-term pattern of changing flag icons, changing boxer nationalities from British to Irish, and adding in unsourced ethnicities in the ledes of articles despite being against WP:MOSBIO. This follows the exact same patterns of two other editors previously blocked for this pattern of disruption (User talk:70.115.253.212 and User talk:River City Boy). They have been reverted by several different editors and yet carry on regardless.

Examples of changing flag icons: [157],[158],[159],[160],[161],[162],[163],[164],[165],[166],[167]

Examples of changing nationalities or removing Britain or trying to impose that they are Irish: [168],[169],[170],[171],[172],[173],[174],[175]

Examples of adding unsourced ethnicities into lede: [176],[177],[178],[179],[180],[181],[182],[183],[184]

The IP has been cautioned, warned and given a final warning [185], and has also had a SPI initiated against them on 2nd December, with the two other accounts above listed. Unfortunately due to a backlog the SPI has not been dealt with yet.

Despite this they once again make another edit changing "British" to "Irish" on 10th December [186]. So it is clear that this editor doesn't want to defend themselves and wishes to carry on seeing if they can get away with their disruptive behaviour.

For me this is clear block scrutiny evasion. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:21, 10 December 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.

Rakeshkraja and All Things Nice

It seems a recently created article, All Things Nice, was created by someone who was paid by the subject of the article to create it, as he has acknowledged himself in the article. In light of the recent WikiPR scandal I think this may be a violation of WP:PAY and am posting here to see what administrators think should be done. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They didn't acknowledge that, that was vandalism by another user (see the history.) You can't make that assumption. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks for pointing that out. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There probably are advertising issues with the article though, I haven't had the time to go through it, but a quick glance looks like yes it is advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Not only is it advertising, but it's unfit to be a Wikipedia article in any way—it's (1) unsourced, (2) promotional, and (3) conflict of interest. I would suggest a nomination for deletion of this article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's at AfD now, so it should probably be handled there. The editor in question probably doesn't merit administrative action otherwise at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism report

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

---

Hello,

As I was reviewing new uploads on Commons, I was brought to this page: Joe Hockey. It has been vandalized by TheRamblingNarcissist and is still under fire. Could a sysop take action there. Sorry if this isn't the right page or if I missed something, I come from fr.wp. Thank you, Letartean (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Indefinite block. In the future, you can report vandalism on en.wikipedia at WP:AIV. --Jayron32 14:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Page noted. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 14:55, 10 December 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:Wran – continued disruption

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 editor has been engaging in highly disruptive editing since 2011. His latest editing activity primarily consists in reverting attempts at improving articles about Ancient Greece. He blindly reverts edits by other editors without ever justifying his actions. Even when the previous versions are in error, he follows an agenda of 'preserving' the content of those pages no matter what. Whenever other editors ask him to provide sources he either resorts to circular sourcing [187] (citing books which primarily consist of articles available from Wikipedia) or replaces reliable academic sources with notoriously unreliable sources such as http://www.justanswer.com [188] or http://quizlet.com [189]. When being reverted he never discusses his actions; he merely resorts to edit warring, personal attacks (including baseless accusations), and playing up into flame wars on talk-pages (one can check his talk page and edit summaries to verify this). He also frequently engages in original research [190][191][192][193]; when reverted he dubs other established editors' activities "vandalism", and then demands that others find sources for his own statements. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that at Know thyself his 3rd placement of material(he's at 4 now) removed for not being reliably sourced had the edit summary "you may think it's unreliable but you need to PROVE it wrong in this instance". Attempts to explain policy on his talk page don't seem to have had much result. I don't have much hope for this editor. If he doesn't have an adequate response a block will be in order (or rather another block). Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And if [http://quizlet.com/28600012/greek-and-roman-thought-plato-flash-cards/] is the sort of thing he still thinks meets our criteria, I don't think I want to see him editing anymore. His comment in June 2011 "Stop interfering with the rights of readers to any publicly available info, it's totalitarian" still seems to be the way he approaches sources. I suggest that everyone reads User talk:Wran to understand the issues with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My interaction with Wran was limited to the Great books edits which started at diff 85. I opened a discussion on the article talk page and posted on Wran's talk page. It was not a productive discussion, but at least the addition of unsourced material to the article stopped. Sorry to see that Wran is not learning. It's unfortunate that multiple editors must take time to explain, revert, and, now, engage in this discussion because of Wran's efforts. Perhaps another leave of absence from WP will help. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard for me to do this, because I love when people are interested in these topics and I want to support each of them. I started to fix up the article Socratic problem (it had misdefined in the lede what the problem was, only mentioning that it dealt with Plato's writings) with [194], which was all sourced with a citation to W.J. Prior's article in the Blackwell Companion to Plato. Wran removed part of this, saying it was "subjective and untrue" [195]. Discussion moved to the talk page and Wran elaborated his position that "it's a wildly speculative claim, far from the mainstream" [196]; I asked for evidence of any of any of this, of any source which contradicts the Prior source, but none was given by Wran. I even provided more evidence that Prior's view was mainstream (as if being published in a Blackwell companion was not prima facie sufficient): [197] and [198] showing that Louis-André Dorion also shares the view, both in the Blackwell Companion to Socrates and the Cambridge Companion to Socrates; and Debra Nails shares the view in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And then Wran will cite Nails solely as a source later (even disregarding contradicting views): [199] (which itself became a spat with Omnipaedista [200]). So Wran will favour Nails' view at one time, and disregard it as non-mainstream at another, and no evidence is presented to establish why. There needs to be some way to require that one does not remove reliably source material (at least when it is not contradicted by any other reliable source), and neither re-add removed material which does not have a reliable source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block - Highly actionable case and way beyond the warning stage, what with multiple blocks and warnings. Topic ban would be the only alternative, but likely just kicks the can down the road. An indef is overdue. Jusdafax 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Indefinite block - Well, enough is enough. We should not accept this type of disruptive behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Done. I've called it "disruptive editing", which in this case combines edit warring, a consistently combative attitude, and frequent incompetence in the business of reliable sourcing. That they weren't blocked indefinitely over their DSK edits was a show of good faith, but that cup is empty. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 11 December 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.

Gabriella~four 3.6

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.

---

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has, recently, created huge numbers of very short pages which consist of the text "Monster High link", or something similar. She is clearly intending to create a redirect, but she doesn't appear to know how. So I posted this on her talk page, to try to teach her to create proper redirects so this won't happen again. But to no avail; she has continued to create such pages, which, as Neonchameleon pointed out, does nothing but "make work for everyone else," who have usually tagged these pages for speedy deletion rather than redirecting them as I have usually done. This seems to fall into the realm of disruptive editing, and I would like an admin to decide if this is in fact true and whether any action is needed. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You weren't even the first; a week earlier User:Jni had tried the same thing. And after you, User:Howicus also made a valiant attempt to no avail. Kolbasz (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

She does read her talk page - or at least has blanked it. Twice. Also looking at her entire talk page past the times she blanked it, she's had more than two dozen articles nominated (and mostly deleted) under wp:Speedy in a one month edit history. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone care to email this user, since talk page messages aren't working? Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: She has been blocked for 24 hours. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Meant to post here with the block. I hope that will get some attention from the editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

She was still doing it, though, right up until when she got blocked. See here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I put an "advertising" tag on the article. Most of the article content comes from promotional sources, not third parties. The article could use some non-fan attention. John Nagle (talk) 08:34, 11 December 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.

BLP concerns?

Shouldn't this edit be a BLP concern? It is an unsourced claim and does not appear to be talked about in the article at all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. There are several in that category, so you might want to review them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversial categories in BLPs are difficult to deal with. It's important that we do mention controversial things, if they're covered by sources, but you can't put an inline ref next to a category so the technical problem of verifiability joins the human problem of putting labels on people.

In Ortaylı's case, the article's only actual source - that isn't a dead link - is the Turkish government, and that's definitely not going to call him an Armenian genocide denier, but on the flipside the article is unlikely to be neutral without independent coverage. I realise that Ottoman history is neglected on en.wikipedia, but there's no shortage of English-language historiography out in the real world... bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. Sourcing is vital. There was no source for this, someone just stuck it in there. From the sourcing standpoint, it was about as valid as categorizing him as a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Basically, this borders on a violation of a restriction on a sensitive topic. Unless the info is sourced, it should not be added. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. thanks guys... Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

magickirin11 socks

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.

---

for example this rowdy.--Severino (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor is making constant BLP-breaching edits; for instance, repeatedly calling Jesse Jackson a "racial hate mongrel"[201][202] and describing Amy Goodman as a "terrorist supporter"[203]. The unwarranted personal attack on me[204] makes it clear that thgis person has been editing under another IP or account previously; all the signs point to User:MagicKirin11. RolandR (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly User:MagicKirin11. The preoccupations and terminology are identical. Special:Contributions/70.183.160.105 Special:Contributions/74.104.159.130 are other IPs used by the same editor. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An SPI could be in order, to at least have a digital trail of characteristics and a sock trail :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, and given their penchant for personal attacks and racist trolling I have preemptively pulled talk page access as well.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 11 December 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.

Pramukh Swami - Controversy - Alleged Sexual Assault Allegations by Pramukh Swami and BAPS Senior Monks

There is a cabal of wiki-editors who have a conflict of interest regarding pramukh swami and won't let any controversy to be posted.

I have attempted to post sourced controversy regarding the figure in question and the same profiles have changed the record back.

The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj&action=history

I've added to the talk page and there is no comment. The editors monitoring that page are trying to stop the truth from getting out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShantilalSodom (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the above user and RevDel'd the username from the history for being offensive and a BLP violation. I, unfortunately, don't have time to investigate the content additions at the moment. @Mark Arsten: seems to have been there recently however. John Reaves 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just looking at the history at Pramukh Swami Maharaj, it looks like there's been persistent edit warring and sockpuppeteering (including by the OP, above) to add a section to this article that may not comply with BLP. @Materialscientist:, @George Ho:, @Mark Arsten: ("the same profiles" noted above, none of whom were notified about this thread)

  I suggest semi-protecting the page against non-autoconfirmed (not just using pending changes, as is current) and blocking every SPA/sock puppet. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed PC to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BLPN and RSN should probably weigh in on this. The allegations have been posted in the media. Is it out-of-line to just mention that these allegations have been made even though they haven't proven to be demonstrably true in a court of law? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

How is the username offensive? --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say absolutely not to posting content about allegations. I'd suggest doing so is inline with posting gossip, no matter the source. And imagine if we posted every allegation made in a newspaper. Once there is some definitive information, and if its deemed significant, I assume it would be , but I'm not in position to judge, then that info could be posted. Remember that what is posted on Wikipedia does not necessarily disappear once it disappears from our articles. It can posted on other sites using WP, and be there a long time, long past the time the allegations have disappeared.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

@George Ho: The username is the subject's birth name plus the word "sodom" , as in sodomite or sodomy. John Reaves 04:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Anybody's username is "Sodom" or something and not blocked for that? George Ho (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

George, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. John Reaves 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sodom" ain't offensive, is it? George Ho (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, Sodom was a city in ancient Jordan. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the content that was inserted involved accusations of sodomy so I believe it was intended to be. 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

William Kelly (Olympian) probably needs speedy delete

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, I'm not sure what the best route here is but William Kelly (Olympian) needs to be deleted as far as I can tell, the sooner the better.

I've not been able to verify any of the relevant details, meanwhile the article claims drug use, outs the possibly person (if they exist), and the entire article may be a hoax. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a hoaxed copy of Jason Kenny, so I have deleted it. Bencherlite^Talk 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That explains it, thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 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.

Dale Boone

Lately, the self-declared official WP account of champion eater Dale Boone, User:Worldchampiondaleboone, has been persistently making unverified changes to his own article and spamming it with promotional links to an Indian eating competition which he dominates. Such behaviour should not be tolerated... Can he please be barred from touching his own article? Read, COI! 218.186.193.101 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

IP removal of sourced info

94.180.37.119 constantly removes a sourced information from Lachin. 3 times already:

• [205]
• [206]
• [207]

The RIA Novosti (Russia's state agency) article clearly states that

"The council also voted in November to establish a sister city relationship with the city of Berdzor [the Armenian name of the city] in the territory."

First time he called RIA Novosti an "Unauthoritative source" and then claimed that "After protests in Azerbaijan, the agreement was canceled" and provided no source to back it up. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute/edit war. I advise you to bring this to WP:AN3 if you believe edit warring here on the IP's part is problematic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Constantly" amounts to 2 edits. If it persists, post a complaint at WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor is using a dynamic IP. There are a number of reverts from editors using the same dynamic telecom service from the same country—highly suggesting that it is the same user. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that to me. Blocking won't work, so semi-protected for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:AleexxAlcala issuing severe personal attack

Resolved

User:AleexxAlcala issued a severely hurtful personal attack, attacking my sexual orientation, on my talk page because I removed unreliable information from online blogger Josep Vinaixa that (s)he user keeps insisting be added to Pulses, the upcoming album by Karmin. The editor called me a "faggot" and insisted that gay people like me are annoying as f**k, also entitling the section as "Idiot". This user is clearly unable to work respectfully with other editors, and their severely bad attitude is not what is in the best interest of this website. And they're severely upset, due to my issuing the first-level Disruptive warning to the user, due to continuous addition of the content back into the article after its removal, claiming they're done research and that it is fact. However, no other reputable source has confirmed their claim(s). Their behavior should be looked at, as it is extremely disrespectful to hurl homophobic slurs at someone, no matter of their sexuality. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Active DRV short-circuited by an apparent super-vote

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.

---

• Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Henry Earl DRV

I had sworn of ANI a month or so ago, but IMO this is something that at least needs to come before the community to review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Earl closed as a delete 18:19 Dec 10th, an editor files a Deletion review (inked above) at 20:31 Dec 10th, and the DRV is closed as an overturn 1:44 Dec 12th. Usually discussions that are closed after so short a time are done so via WP:SNOW, when the consensus is overwhelming. However, here, the discussion stood at 6 endorse & 5 overturn or relist; the closing admin invoked not Snow but WP:IAR, claiming essentially that the endorsers were wrong and that he is right.

Jclemens is a noted inclusionist, regularly taking a conservative stance in regards to how policy such as WP:BLP1E is applied in deletion discussions. That's fine, we're all allowed to hold opinions and argue them. What is IMO very not-so-fine is using one's position as an admin to essentially clobber an active and ongoing discussion because they disagree with both it and the initial AfD result. There are no hijinks at the DRV; no severe civility issues, no socks, nothing untowards; all who had weighed in at that point are regulars and veteran editors. The article Henry Earl should be re-deleted, the DRV re-opened, and Jclemens' closing statement may be converted into a discussion entry if he wishes. We appoint admins to, when needed, weigh the consensus of a discussion and act according to the project's policies and norms. We do not appoint admins to delete or restore articles on their personal whim. WP:IAR is to be invoked in the rarest of circumstances, and I do not believe that the project is harmed by its omission if that is what the consensus of editors decides. Tarc (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Tarc, I undid the out-of-process close before I saw that you had posted here. As I said to Jclemens, let's just be patient and wait for a proper close by a neutral editor once the traditional 7-day discussion period is complete. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you thought it appropriate to post here, I'll point out here that as the original AfD closure, your undoing of my IAR (IAR is not out of process; IAR is a pillar) closure is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I'll further note here that I've invoked special BLP enforcement to keep the article undeleted and unhidden while the discussion continues. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. Consider it an IAR invocation on INVOLVED, just like you invoked IAR to attempt to supervote and shortcut this DRV. We're back at zero again. — Scott • talk 10:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this statement from WP:INVOLVED is applicable here: "In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." The close was obviously improper - one of the most blatant supervotes you'll ever see.

The utterly frivolous invocation of special BLP enforcement is also very concerning. There is no way that deleting a person's article is a BLP violation. The idea that we are required to keep articles on people we've decided don't meet our notability guidelines and policies if we think the subject might miss out on financial benefits is one of the most preposterous I've seen on Wikipedia. Neljack (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here I think is the biggest question I have for Jclemens as well. I'd like to see him expand on the topic. As I see it the reasoning is dubious at best. Jusdafax 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Note ~ Not an Admin) Since I somewhat benefitted from this, I do not know if I should support the closing by Jclemens, but I would like to say that the article should NOT be re-deleted. Instead, it should be as it is now, with the content being {{temporarily undeleted}} as it should have been when the discussion went to Deletion Review. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; I have no objection to leaving it restored while the discussion continues. 28bytes (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion needs to continue, Jclemens supervote action in the DRV was disruptive. Yes there was canvassing involved by a third party and some suspicious keep voters, but that is, if anything a case for relisting, not automatic closing. WP:TROUT for Jclemens and remember when it reopens DRV is not AFD round 2. Secret ^account 13:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it is anywhere within the letter or the spirit of WP:BLPBAN (as invoked above by Jclemens), or of WP:BLP policy in general, to say that the deletion itself of an article is a BLP violation. This is regrettably becoming a case of an abuse of admin tools. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep calm. The DRV discussion is ongoing and will eventually be closed by somebody totally uninvolved. There are not current problems with the situation. Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Still, the invocation of BLPBAN, which Jclemens has even dared to formally log here [208], is so obviously ludicrous and abusive ("deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" – by that logic any deletion of any self-advertising promotion piece would be a BLP violation!) that this cannot possibly be allowed to stand. I am finding there is already a pretty solid community consensus against this attempted ban here, so I will soon strike it from that log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. That wasn't just frivolous, but outright bad faith abuse of process on JClemens' part. Resolute 14:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a bit of a problem with "Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building". I suspect that if a non-admin committed a similar violation he would get either a stern warning or a short block, not a call to "let it go". See User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I promised myself I would never mention Jclemens again, but this is too egregious to ignore. It is most definitely an abuse of admin tools, and if it ever happens again, I'll open an ArbCom case to have them removed. I can accept that people might honestly think that BLP1E doesn't apply, although I would disagree. But it is not possible for someone who understands BLP to claim that restoring the article was "protected" from reversion by BLP. Falsely claiming a "BLP" trump card when you are actually going against the only possible BLP aspect undermines the respect of the BLP policy by others, and its use by honest admins who are actually trying to enforce it. The consequences of doing it once should be community censure. The consequences of ever doing it again should be tool removal. Since 28bytes is OK with leaving it open during DRV, and ANI can't do more than criticize an admin for abusing the tools, I guess that's all that can be done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think a desysop discussion on Jclemens should happen sooner rather than later, since this is not the first time he has abused tools to push his inclusionist agenda. Creatively misinterpreting policy and using his admin bit to abuse process is nothing new with this editor. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Note that Jclemens has now continued to edit-war on the restored page attempting to uphold his invocation of the BLP exemption [209], even after I had formally stricken it from the enforcement log as having been overturned by consensus [210]. He has also attempted to file a "warning" against me in the name of that same invalid BLPBAN claim [211][212]. I would seriously propose blocking him if he continues in this vein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It ought to be noted that also holds checkuser and oversight permissions. John Reaves 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Could everybody please take one big step back from the fight? Jclemens, please stop taking further actions here. Let's just let this article resolve itself through the normal editorial process. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• " Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm." What? John Reaves 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. That, and Jclemens' similarly-worded BLPBAN rationale, are mind-boggling. I was willing to take the attempted supervote closure as merely ill-considered, but the bizarre invocation of BLPBAN is giving me serious pause. — Scott • talk 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours so community can decide whether Jclemens should continue to hold admin privileges. Based on his response to Fut Perf, he refuses to see the problem and has NOT promised that his behaviour will not continue, thus he should not be given the chance to continue unless the community decides he was somehow correct. Abuse of IAR and spuriously imposing sanctions upon another editor are unacceptable to see in an admin, and I am of the opinion that Jclemens has violated the communities' trust to the point that they should not retain admin privileges at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Someone remind me what it takes to remove tools an administrator on account of their abuse. Can that be done in this venue or does the matter have to land at ArbCom? Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, only ArbCom can remove the tools from an admin for cause. Jimbo technically can too, I think, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen again. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship pretty much covers it, even though they could do with being more clearly written. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I believe the community would be allowed to restrict his use of the tools. Basically, it would be like imposing a topic ban. Something to the effect of "Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations" would suffice. We would have to enforce it with blocks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • My understanding is that ARBCOM exists for situations where the community cannot come to consensus and/or resolve the issue themselves. ANI is not a method listed at DESYSOP, but if community consensus exists there's no reason to involve ARBCOM, especially if it is likely that the behaviour will continue, as here. If consensus exists in this thread that Jclemens has seriously abused their admin privileges (IMO, such consensus exists already and several people have said exactly that), all it would take would be to flag down an active Buro to press the button. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I am mistaken, there is no precedent for a community based desysop (please correct if I'm wrong) and it is unlikely that a 'crat would act on it. Also, how would revocation of the admin permission affect the checkuser and oversight permissions he has? John Reaves 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You'd need a steward to remove checkuser and oversight. And you responded to the wrong comment. Dark Sun (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So the community could (theoretically) ban him entirely, but can't evoke removal of the tools (a far lesser sanction) even with clear cause and consensus to do so? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and if true it should be changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Community desysop has been proposed many times and failed many times. I'd agree that it should be available, but that puts me in the minority. As of now, all a consensus can do is motivate Arbcom to act. Arbcom is currently the only venue for forcing tool removal, like it or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record I'm discussing only community desysop as a principle, I'm witholding comment on the specifics here, at least for the current time.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He hammered in the final nail be invoking BLP because it would deprive him of publicity. This is saying that it should be kept to promote him, which is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and there is a possible COI. Dark Sun (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• What a lynching....not concurring with the recreation or rationale, but this "get a rope" mentality is overkill.--MONGO 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Despite being an outspoken inclusionist myself, and despite thinking that Jclemens opinions on the matter are mostly correct, I have to admit the behaviour he displayed is disingenuous at best. Perhaps not much more of whoever closed the AfD trusting arguments like "multiple events sum up as BLP1E", but still. I hesitate in calling for desysopping because 1)I am not well informed of previous Jclemens history 2)out-of-process actions on the opposite side have instead usually given a free pass or even cheers (do you remember the old unsourced BLP deletions of a few years ago, before the BLPPROD process was put in place?) 3)some arguments here seem to show the same degree of disingenuity (what COI has Jclemens with the subject of the article?!?) 4)Jclemens is being badly outed/cyberbullied off-wiki, and I am suspicious people just waited for him to make a wrong step to tar, feather and kick him away. In short, I don't like this discussion, I don't like the tones and the witch-hunting: but I must agree the behaviour of Jclemens on the case in point (especially calling for undeletion for BLP reasons) is highly questionable. I'd prefer ArbCom to look into the matter. I also would ask to unblock Jclemens so that he can participate to the discussion and explain himself. --cyclopia^speak! 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think in light of the above information (thanks to all for that) that this would indeed be a good matter for ArbCom to handle rather than having a hissy fizzle here. I share the view that the actual substance of the DRV ruling is arguably correct, although it was done prematurely and with what I see as abusive threats of retribution in order to enforce a favored content outcome. Administrators threatening to use the stick are in fact using the stick. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Opposite side have instead usually given a free pass or even cheers". WP:BATTLEGROUND much? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone needs to calm down. Let's have a discussion about what to do with the article, decide it according to policy, and move on. There's no need to attack anyone. Everyking (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I had thought that his advocacy for promotion of corporations was a little beyond the pale, but this BLP invocation is pretty stunning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am not surprised at Jclemens's reactions of invoking WP:BLPBAN and signaling an Arbcom case. He has a pattern of digging in and doubling down when confronted. Examples include defending his use of rollback on Snottywong's AfD recommendations at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire (June 2010) and clinging to one sentence in the lead of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion until a RfC was filed at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs (September–November 2011, but stretching back before WT:Deletion review/Archives/2010/November#G4 (copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 4#Carli Banks)). (I have a few more recent examples, but the disputes are smaller and more obscure.) Regarding his invoking WP:BLPBAN, he should review WP:Crying "BLP!". This is deliberate irony. If I remember correctly, this essay has been cited to downplay legitimate concerns. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think an ArbCom case is a terrific idea and I hope he pursues it. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation With what I can count I see 3 potential ArbCom cases (Nightscream, Kafziel, and this) of Administrators using their powers in a manner inconsistent with current consensus. Might it be a good idea for ArbCom to issue (and have delivered to every admin) a blanket statement reminding them about the responsibilities that are laid upon them for having admin-bits and that they are expected to be conservative in their exercise of bits and to not cause undue concern in their exercise. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens restriction

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.

---

Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations. Violations of this restriction would be enforceable by blocks.

• Support as proposer. We may not be able to desysop him, but we are able to restrict his use of the tools. It would mean that he is to act like a non-admin when dealing with any contentious BLP issues. Failure to adhere to it could be used as the basis for the Committee to desysop him by motion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. What? No. Calm down. Everyking (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am actually quite calm and don't even disagree with Jclemens with regards to the deletion of the article, but his invocation of the special enforcement regime in this case is so absurd and abusive as to warrant some sort of action regarding that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely too broad, and we're not talking of BLP violations here, we're talking of out-of-process discussion closures. I could understand a temporary ban on closing AfD/DRV discussions, but not this. --cyclopia^speak! 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I have no confidence in Jclemens using administrator tools in the BLP area. P.S. Everyking: please don't tell people to "calm down" because you disagree with them; that's patronizing and unhelpful. — Scott • talk 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I second that P.S. I'm getting very sick of people telling others to "calm down" here. It's smug and offensive and always has the opposite effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. He has abused administrative tools and edit warred against consensus, claiming a BLP violation when he just wants to promote the subject. Dark Sun (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support pbp 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly harsh, too broad and likely way too soon to even consider. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This is a lynching, is absurd and is Wikipedia at its worst. Period.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC))
• Support as reasonable emergency restriction to resolve current situation until a full desysop can be decided by ARBCOM. The original DRV supervote was problematic, but the subsequent actions and attempting to invoke IAR as a catch-all defence is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens very reasoned calm comment on his talk page indicates he will be away for 12 hours. How is this an emergency?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

• Support Jclemens views on BLPs is unacceptable Secret ^account 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Unacceptable? - How so? Also, who is going to be determining what is an "obvious violation" - there are shades of gray in many "obvious" situations. This is too broad and out of place as well. Start an RFC/U then act on anything determined there. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "ban JClemens!" Wikipediocracy canvassing thread is [linked removed].—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're not shy about linking to an "outing" thread, which has gotten people threatened with blocks and oversighted before. Kudos for your cojones, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait - until the block has ended and he has had a chance to calm down. For what it's worth, placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious, should it come to that, and it is my opinion (again, if that is the consensus reached here) that if they cannot be trusted with BLPs then they cannot be trusted with the tools full stop, and the matter should therefore be escalated to ArbCom for consideration of a de-mop. GiantSnowman 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is not an acceptable use of the bit, and is the reason why there needs to be some form of oversight on administrators, other than other admins / ArbCom (which is all admins). GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now It was wrong headed, but we've had wrong headed admins do things in the name of BLP before. I think a warning from the community should be enough. Hobit (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the formal reversal of the abusive threats and unilaterally imposed non-policy-based restrictions — and its implied warning to the Administrator to knock it the hell off — is the path forward rather than this perhaps overbroad and certainly unfocused approach. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - but if he violates the BLP rules again in anything approaching this manner, then he should be fully desysopped rather than just restricted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• We have surely advanced so much since the era of Grace Sherwood...ah, I oppose unless we can prove Jclemens is also made of wood.--MONGO 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he weighs the same as a duck........ Carrite (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, moving way too fast. Legoktm (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jclemens has clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to administer such topics. Frankly, I see little reason to consider him fit to administer anywhere else, given such blatant abuse of his admin status to enforce his own point of view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This feels a lot like a lynch mob. I'd want to see a properly diffed request with evidence that can actually be reviewed before making this kind of determination. --Elonka 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - This sanction on Jclemens is, I think, a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jesus guys, I really hope I don't ever screw anything up around you all. Given that JClemens specifically said that they would be offline for ~12 hours in their last edit (5 hours ago), and given that the block is only for 24 hours, I really think we need to back down and cool off for a bit. There is no urgency to this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Jclemens has made a series of mistakes in this sorry business, but we ought not to rush to judgement so rapidly. I have criticised his actions in the past, but he's been a good servant of our project for many years and I don't accept that he is unable to learn from mistakes. The block hopefully will bring home the seriousness of how the community has viewed his actions and may yet bring about the desired outcome: that he doesn't make the same mistakes again. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  To paraphrase, "Jclemens is not now and never has been a Wikipedian". Time he learned that the rules apply to him just as much as they do to everyone else. Eric Corbett 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  Some (fellow) admin decided to temporarily revoke his "Wikipedia citizenship". ZOMG. ArbCom to the rescue (see below). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Look, he's blocked, and has not yet had a chance to explain himself. Is he now brutally aware that he f'ed up? I would expect so. Does he agree that he f'd up? We don't know yet. Blocks and restrictions are ONLY to be used when the editor is unwilling to follow the rules ... now that he knows the community consensus is that he f'ed up the rules, let's see what he has to say ES&L 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• He has posted a statement on his talk page. Nick (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Re: "Does he agree that he f'd up?". The answer is an astounding "No, ArbCom shall vindicate me" (paraphrasing) [213]. If filing ArbCom cases weren't such a pain in the ass, I'd file for emergency desysop myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a further restriction is merited at this point. Let's see how he handles situations like this in the future before concluding that the block isn't enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mark Arsten. This is an overreaction, and at best premature. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wait - and let him talk. I believe his use of admin tools was quite blatantly wrong. But he should have a chance to explain himself. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• No opinion on this, but I'm --> <-- close from blocking the next person who refers to this as a lynching. NW (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you're near the end of your rope.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comedy barnstar forthcoming. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with GiantSnowman. Administrators have to be able to use their tools to deal with BLP violations when they see them. If they can't be trusted to do that, they can't be trusted to be an administrator. Either Jclemens will act properly in this area in the future, in which case there is no problem, or he won't, in which case he will surely be desysopped. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Drop the pitchforks and let tempers cool. Please don't block me NW, I didn't refer to lynching (with apologies to Dr. Strangelove – gentlemen you can't use levity here, this is the Dramah Board). But yes, as GiantSnowman says, "placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious". Ultimately, I don't think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that it would be even more beneficial for Wikipedia for this person not be an admin at all, lest we want to transform it into Spampedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support "deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" ?!. Since when is that an argument to restore an article. Wikipedia's purpose is not to ensure a subject receives "attention and income". I am shocked and dismayed at such an attitude. Dlohcierekim 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support- I agree entirely with AndyTheGrump. Pushing such a ludicrously wrong-headed interpretation of policy is one thing. But he's using his admin bit to override established process against consensus. It's not the first time he's misused his tools to try to rule by fiat. Frankly, I think his admin bit should be removed altogether. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose. Except in the case of an emergency, only ArbCom can desysop someone. A community restriction on the use of an administrator's tools is an end run around the rule. I understand that an admin may be topic banned or blocked, but this proposal is not in line with those sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, your conflation of (1) community control of an editor's use of a tool with (2) desysopping is self-serving and misleading. This is not desysopping (he'll still have the user right), it is the community exercising control over an editor in one precisely-circumscribed behaviour. I get it that you don't like that. But we can do it, and we should do it where appropriate. Your (and many, many other admins') position, that only ArbCom can deal with poor admin behaviour, is a frank misrepresentation of the facts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in that I can't imagine a restriction like this being compatible with holding adminship. The arbitration committee is the place for review of tool use, which is where this should go. I have just stumbled over this so have not digested the whole story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - needs to go to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but only procedurally. There is very strong consensus that Jclemens' action was inappropriate. Significant concerns have been raised as to his continued suitability for adminship. This should (and IMO must) be heard at Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Wrong venue, and far too messy and vague. Needs to go to ArbCom (which I note Jclemens has said is his wish on his talkpage anyway). Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is exactly the right venue to restrict the behaviour of an editor. Admins are not special cases in that regard. Personally, I'd ban him from editing or discussing BLPs broadly construed. But this is a good start. He's not fit to deal with BLPs on any level, but I'm sure he can block obvious vandals, socks and spammers, protect pages under vandal attack, make technical page moves, etc., etc. - so desysop would be overkill and against the interests of the project. This limited restriction is useful and definitely within our power. If this proposal doesn't pass - largely on "procedural" grounds or "admins are special" grounds - the next step should be an RFC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ah yes, an admin is accused of abusing his powers, complicated by a questionable block of him that at first glance appears punitive. As others note, ArbCom is the place to make a big-ticket review of this sort including but not limited to a judgment on a proposed restriction on some uses of the admins tools. As for the article that this is all about, I've read it and it seems notable to me. But this matter has gone way beyond the article now. I see numerous facets that require scrutiny. Jusdafax 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't agree with Jclemens' actions or views on this at all. The agenda seems to be some sort of bleeding-heart action to help out a homeless man, and I empathize with that but it's not what we do here. About the accusations of lynching, I'm not sure these quick polls are the best way to handle admin misconduct. How many people here !voting are like me and just took a quick glance at what happened? How many mistakes should an admin get? As a general precedent, this sets up a situation where those who feel abused by administrative action could pile in and overweight the discussion (doesn't seem to be the case here). I lean towards leaving it up to ArbCom. II | (t - c) 05:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no pattern here, no proper consideration either. I don't know what he was thinking but it did no particular harm. Additionally, the controversial edit of restoring the appearance of the article occurred prior to full-protection - anyone, myself included, could have done it, so there is no admin tool usage issue per se. Wnt (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jclemens in multiple actions has acted boldly to assert his personable opinion. That personal opinion is not necessarily unreasonable, but his use of admin privileges, and clear use of implied authority in what looks to most of us to be an opinion inconsistent with the opinion of the community means that Jclemens no longer enjoys the consensus support of the community to judiciously exercise admin functions. I believe that Jclemens should submit to a reconfirmation RfA before resuming any admin functions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This was a very blatant example of abuse of admin status to enforce personal opinions, and as it is far from the first time that this has occurred, it is time sanctions are enforced to prevent future abuse. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm no great fan of Jclemens - he's seriously wrong in his actions in this case and I strongly oppose his autocratic approach (specifically here and in general). But this is a kneejerk reaction to an issue that really hasn't caused any harm and which in no way constitutes an emergency, and does not in itself imply repeated abuse of BLP policy - editors should not be topic-banned for one violation of policy (especially if done in good faith, which I think this was - however bizarre the reasoning). There's no rush, and we should let discussion continue and let's see how he responds. Then when heads are cooler and if the thing can't be resolved amicably, someone can start something up at whatever WP:ALPHABETSOUP (Ha! I wasn't expecting that to be blue) venue is appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as this is an ultra vires attempt to effect a community desysop by calling it another name. I neither know nor care about the dispute at issue, but if we want to overturn the long-standing consensus that community desysops should not be allowed, then that discussion should take place in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, should the supporters wish, they can instead propose a topic ban from deletion discussions or BLPs (noting that there appears to be precedent for community bans from AfD/RfA). Should Jclemens violate that topic ban, he would be subject to blocks of increasing duration. Should Jclemens himself wheel war the block, his adminship can be rapidly revoked by bringing a narrowly-tailored Arbcom case. While I'm personally opposed to complex or "magic word" based enforcement processes, there's something improper about sidestepping a longstanding consensus through what is, respectfully, creative wikilawyering. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:18, 13 December 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.

Proposed: Reverse BLP sanction in this case

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.

---

Irrespective of the ultimate fate of the article in question or of Jclemens, his declaration that "Henry Earl is placed under deletion, redirection, or blanking prohibition, since hiding Mr. Earl's history could deprive him of charitable contributions during the holiday season." is not within the spirit of WP:BLP policy and should be officially considered reversed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support although the sanction was never official anyway. Dark Sun (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Formal setting aside of the abusive action is desirable; further action along this line by the Administrator after such a result would open the door for an ArbCom case with a clearly foreseeable outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - self-evidently misguided. WJBscribe (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support reversal as an obvious incorrect application of BLPBAN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as much as I feel the article should stay in WP space, and even that the article could indeed help Mr. Earl, the prohibition is ridiculous. --cyclopia^speak! 18:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• support I'm with Cyclopia here. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have nothing to add to what has already been said.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Nothing more needs to be said. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Jclemens' invocations of WP:BLPSE and of WP:BLP here are obviously incorrect and at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the relevant policies. Without comment on the rest of this mess, this particular action by Jclemens is so far removed from the realm of reasonable administrative discretion that reversal should be a slam-dunk. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens' declaration is so loopy it sounds like somebody doing a parody of a power-mad admin, and is exactly the sort of thing that (quite rightly) gets Wikipedia criticised and fosters mistrust of admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Obvious. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the merits of the original AFD. Not a reasonable reading or application of policy at all. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support in order to avoid establishing any precedent for this kind of action in future cases.JodyB _talk 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• LOL, so BLP now is used to protect the financial "rights" of panhandlers? Maybe Jclemens needs to explain if he wrote that in jest or not... Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. And because WP:BLP policy cannot be overriden by admin fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This was an absurd mis-application of WP:BLP. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This was not within the spirit of BLP policy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above - JClemens' interpretation of policy is incorrect, on this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely ridiculous interpretation of our BLP policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I really can't see this as anything but an attempt at entrenching a supervote JClemens must have known would be viewed as controversial. Resolute 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support There is no right to a Wikipedia page, and it cannot be construed as "harm" for a person or entity not to have one. That a business, or even a worthy charity, might gain income if such a page existed, and might fail to gain it if the page is blanked or delted is irrelevant. If a page exists primarily to increase anyone's income, that is a clear violation of WP:SPAM, and in and of itself grounds to delete the page. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Support I can't add anything to this part of the discussion other than that I can't see any way to the BLP sanction. And this part of the discussion is unanimous. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the spirit of BLP policy is "do no harm" and deleting Mr. Earl's nearly nine-year-old article would hurt him financially, then Jclemens's actions are indeed in the spirit of the policy, in a refreshingly counter-intuitive way. Merry Christmas! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought that might be the rationale but there is no evidence or apparent reason supporting the reality of such a personal financial loss, and according to policy the article does WP:NOT exist for that purpose, nor is it a recognized basis for inclusion, under the inclusion criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many ways to help people who are homeless and struggling with alcoholism. But creating a Wikipedia article detailing their arrest record isn't one of them. The fact that some people need this explained to them is incredible, and Jclemens' claim on the moral high ground here is sickening. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should address your concerns to the creator of the article, MastCell. It wasn't me and I doubt if it was Jclemens (I haven't looked). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to anyone who defends the existence of this article on "humanitarian" grounds. I apologize for the confusion. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to you, MastCell, for playing games with you, because I knew what you meant. My opinion is that the article doesn't need defending on humanitarian grounds because it already conforms to our policies. I see Jclemens's "humanitarian" defense as a novel approach wholly within the "do no harm" spirit of WP:BLP. I am willing to AGF when he says his concern is the welfare of Henry Earl and as far as I'm concerned, Jclemens does have the moral high ground here. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if someone could prove that the article benefits him financially; keeping an article for that reason, essentially saying that the financial considerations of subjects trumps our inclusion guidelines, would be a terrible precedent. We would be essentially creating a "right" to have an article. I do not want to do that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I debated with myself as to whether this warrants a reply, as the IP appears to be trolling in the spirit of Jclemens, but, for the record, I can't believe someone is taking that BLP argument seriously. Are we going to transform this site into the encyclopedia of panhandlers whose biographies cannot be deleted because it would be causing them financial harm? Really? What about not deleting any spam whatsoever, because deleting spam also causes some living person financial harm?! Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The article meets the letter of our policies. There was no reason to put it up for deletion in the first place. Yes, some alcoholic panhandlers are notable. Get over it. Spam, on the other hand, is specifically forbidden by policy. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Wiki-wise notability is determined by WP:CONSENSUS or we wouldn't have WP:AfD & DRV, and not by pounding your fist on the table invoking the financial losses of the subject in case of deletion. But I suspect you knew that already and are here to serve us red herrings. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability should first be determined by policy, then if there's a grey area, by consensus. I'm only trying to understand Jclemens's reasoning, since he's not here to speak for himself, not to serve you red herrings. Unlike many editors, I understood what Jclemens was saying when he opined that someone who doesn't embrace all Five Pillars is not a true Wikipedian. A simple, logical statement that seemed to enrage many—to the point where many start frothing at the mouth when they see Jclemens's name. That surely is a large part of this current drama. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Who says the spirit of wp:BLP is "Do no harm"? As I understand it the spirit of the policy is first "Don't do anything that might get us sued." Do no harm is a distant second. Especially after a certain recent Arbcom ruling. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone should edit Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and add Keep. Deleting this would cause financial and attention loss to the subject (and BLP prohibits that!) Sometimes reality exceeds what people might have a priori conceived as examples of bad arguments... Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is however an interesting wikiphilosophy point in the Jclemens behaviour. Many editors here, including many who piled up on the Mr.Earl AFD, think that removing articles on "ethical" grounds is often necessary. But everybody here (including myself) seems to insist that instead keeping one on the same grounds is ridiculous. Why such a double standard? Why don't we think that both actions are ridiculous? The actions of Jclemens were WP:POINTy, but it is interesting what they revealed.--cyclopia^speak! 10:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be an extension of American legal/social principle that while a person can be forbidden from certain damaging speech, a person cannot compelled to speak in someone's favor. Similar to this, in criminal law, a person can be forbidden from causing harm, but cannot be compelled to help those in need (well emergency services can, but regular citizens cannot). I don't know to what extent these unidirectional principles extend outside of the United States. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: in criminal law, a person can be forbidden from causing harm, but cannot be compelled to help those in need This is interesting. Here in Italy the law imposes a duty to rescue when you find someone in immediate, critical need of medical help -not to do so is a crime.--cyclopia^speak! 12:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it take an experienced attorney to know what could get Wikipedia sued? I'm not an attorney. I think the spirit of the policy is more general, as I've said, something like "do no harm". (Neonchameleon, I don't know what ArbCom decision you refer to.) WP:BLP says ". . . the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Jclemens apparently understands this to mean more than "don't put anything libelous in a BLP". --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 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.

Jclemens blocked

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

---

First, do not rush to unblock Jclemens. The usual pattern in these ANI's is (1) outrage, (2) motion to sanction, (3) block, unblock, reblock, (4) ArbCom, (5) desysops all around. Could we please not do that this time?

• It has never been Wikipedia policy to block for abuse of admin tools. One bad action does not justify a second bad action. I urge the blocking admin to reverse. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Jehochman: we can block admins for tool abuse, or anything else for that matter. Your constant pleading for your class as a special case, beyond the reach of community sanctions, is false and self-serving. There is nothing in policy or precedence that implies misuse of admin privileges can only be dealt with by an arbcom case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, apparently his BLPSE action was not in jest and he thinks ArbCom will clear him. [214] Good block I say. He can appeal to ArbCom if he wants, preferably without disrupting more Wikipedia pages in the meantime. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose his resigning tools would shorten the process. That or acknowledging a mistake and moving along without further theatrics. Carrite (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Not concurring with original block but no unblocking please...everyone chill out a bit.--MONGO 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Bad block. I echo Jehochman. This was a bad action made in response to a bad action. There was no obvious risk of Jclemens disrupting the project during this time. Resolute 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose this block. I do not see it as in any way preventing harm. It looks punitive to me. I also urge the blocking admin to reverse. This block clearly does not have consensus support. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Good block He was engaged in disruptive editing by edit-warring and threatening to use BLPSE against another admin where it clearly did not apply even as his actions were being strongly criticized by the community. Should he come back and file an unblock request acknowledging his wrongdoing or otherwise signaling such actions will not be repeated then the block can be reversed. If he is unwilling to do either then he can sit it out for the next 18 to 19 hours.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now. Enough lynch mob. Reverse purely punitive block. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked The edit warring (and really wheel warring—even if no tools were used, special permissions were used/threatened to be used). Let's not unblock until we figure out if ArbCom is the place we need to be going and/or until Jclemens promises to disengage and refrain from such behavior in the future. NW (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock As far as I can tell there was no potential for harm when the block was made, as the admin had said they have no intention to block anyone and were going off-line. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock I really don't think there's much prospect of Jclemens trying anything at the moment, and if he does there will be lots of people watching him and ready to block him. So the block isn't preventative. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked- by his words and actions Jclemens has indicated that he intends to carry on in this manner. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• unblock needs to be able to take part in AN/I discussion. Dlohcierekim 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

He can do the same thing that I had to do. Post his response on his talk page and get someone to cross-post it here. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and keep blocked. He was using the tools in an edit war / edit dispute, and has given no indication that he will stop. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked: This is a 24-hour block, people. He deserved it, probably more. It will be up before this discussion is over. Voting on whether a block should be reduced by less than a day is kinda a waste of time. pbp 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. There was no indication that Jclemens was intending to stop using tools in a questionable manner; this was a good, preventative block. — Scott • talk 01:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't like the way this is being handled. Everyking (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked unless he promises to stop. Now that I've had time to review the situation, I think this was a very questionable block by Starblind, but I'm also very concerned by Jclemens' insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong. I think that TParis, the admin who reviewed the unblock request, has got it right:[215] If Jclemens promises to moderate his behavior and let the discussion play out, then go ahead and unblock. So far though, his reply to TParis (in my opinion) is not sufficient.[216] If Jclemens decides to accept the conditions wholeheartedly though, I would have no objection to unblock. As for whether to de-sysop, I think those calls are a bit premature at this point. From reviewing Jclemens' contribs and admin actions, this seems to boil down to: He made a premature controversial close of a DRV, and used his admin tools to undelete an article. It appears to be a decision that is not supported by followup discussion and consensus, but he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with. I don't see that as a reason to de-sysop. As for the followup warnings and invocation of BLPBAN, those are a different matter, I'm still looking into that part. --Elonka 02:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You missed that he edit warred during the DRV to restore the article's contents [217] [218] after his premature closure of the DRV was reverted by another admin and he took note of it [219]. That's not fair to characterize as "he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with", but more like: "he was told by a fellow admin (several in fact) that he is persisting in actions contrary to policy, but he just sought new ways to get his way (like threatening his colleagues with WP:BLPBAN)". Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked for the moment, but remain open to Jclemens's unblock request(s). Right now, the best assurance he's willing to give is "the idea that I would be disrupting the encyclopedia if not blocked or restricted is ridiculous". Unfortunately, the whole reason we're here is that that isn't ridiculous. If/when he agrees that he won't continue the edit warring, DRV-closing, or BLPBANning that led us here - even if it's just because he intends to file an arbcom case instead, to get the whole thing sorted out - then I would be fine with the block being lifted prior to its original endpoint. Until he can tell us that, though, the assurances he's willing to give are too little for me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now - How can we have a discussion about sanctions without the accused? This sure looks punitive to me. Jusdafax 04:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock provided he agrees not to edit Henry Earl or block anyone for doing so. He's a good admin, not a vandal; he's not going to go back on his word, and he deserves the right to speak in response. Though he's going to have a lot of convincing to do with this BLP idea. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. What part of edit-warring against consensus, issuing completely frivolous warnings, attempting to circumvent standard editing procedures by invoking an utterly incorrect BLPBAN, etc, is acceptable behaviour for an admin? Added to which, Jclemens has shown an immense lack of clue with their "unblock request". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock Punitive block; no emergency; discussing Jclemens without him being able to present his case in this venue is akin to a kangaroo court. --cyclopia^speak! 10:44, 13 December 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.

Question

How does an article that's been around for almost 9 years suddenly become a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE I suppose. Someone discovered it. Wasn't there some big bruhaha about "unwatched BLPs". Somebody decided to watch/read that one, I suppose. Didn't we have hoax articles that were around for years? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be because we're a bit rubbish at keeping on top of BLPs. There are thousands of similar articles out there, unwatched, unloved, some will be particularly egregious violations of the BLP policy, but they just sort of become accepted, a reference might be added here or an update made there, but without anybody really thinking "should WP have this article - maybe I should PROD or AfD it and see what happens". Nick (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't BLP what the "living people" category was supposed to help accomplish? I note the admin's comment, "Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm," seems highly unusual. I have to say that while the admin's heart may be in the right place, his sense of what's appropriate on Wikipedia seems to have made the wrong turn at Albuquerque. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

JClemens' argument was invalid, but so was the argument made by the AfD closer. JClemens' idea would lead to keeping random articles because you decide the subject needs the publicity, say, because he is homeless. 28bytes' idea would lead to deleting random arguments because you decide that despite passing GNG their subject somehow makes them 'indiscriminate information', i.e. that you should discriminate against information you don't like. Of these two ideas, the latter is the more dangerous, because it cuts into the encyclopedia. If JClemens were to be penalized, 28bytes would deserve worse. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of 28bytes's closing rationale. I understood it as meaning that, although GNG is arguably met, the community has editorial discretion to decide it is unsuitable for this encyclopedia regardless. Which is completely true, and not really up for dispute. 28bytes judged the consensus of the community as he saw it, which was that the article met the spirit of WP:BLP1E, and closed the discussion accordingly; it's not "28bytes's idea", it's the community's. Contrast this with Jclemens's behaviour; turn up with a supervote based on mistaking DRV for AfD, his inclusionist ideology for policy, and a keep vote for a closing statement. When everyone, rightly, objected he edit warred to maintain his preferred version and tried to decree an editing restriction based on a self-serving reading of WP:BLP so silly it hasn't even passed the laugh test here on ANI, with the intent to force the result he wants at DRV. In short, he's trying to rule by decree. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If the latter of the two is more dangerous, then WP:GNG itself needs to change because that's not 28bytes's rationale, it's what the community decided upon. 28bytes citing WP:GNG in a closing rationale is hardly "dangerous" or problematic, and interpreting 28bytes's close as "you should discriminate against information you don't like" is a misunderstanding of what was written, at best. - Aoidh (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The AfD was organised and canvassed offsite for the purpose of disruption, which lent high profile to what normally would've been an innocuous discussion. Passes WP:N, but you can make an emotional appeal that it's nicer to not have an article, combined with a totally disingenuous appeal to BLP1E (while in the larger framework of BLP, perhaps deletion could be justified) - with enough high profile sources that the actual harm reduction of not having a Wikipedia are is quite small, and where the encyclopaedic importance is very low - it's an excellent choice for someone looking to cause a kerfuffle. WilyD 09:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it all quite well. It's kind of a show then; let's pretend we can make Newsweek et. al. to have not written what they have written by invoking a false BLP1E argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wily's claims are pure, unadulterated bullshit. The article's existence was raised offsite; that bit is true. The idea to delete it rests entirely on my shoulders; no request, or even a hint of a request, was made by any other user. All Wikipediocracy members who joined in the debate are editors in good standing here; one of which at least is an active administrator, and another one (who !voted against deletion, as well) just stood for ArbCom. No proxy voting occurred, and there was no request for anyone to participate in the AfD debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that the gist of Wily's rationale remains; it was made drama because of the off-site lobby. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's made a drama by people making it a drama. It matters not one iota whether this issue is raised on-wiki, off-wiki, on IRC, on Twitter, on a blog or by the Pope. The people who have commented here are all Wikipedians in (more or less) good standing who are perfectly entitled to their opinion, the more people who are involved the better. If, and it's a big if (which doesn't apply here) raising the issue off-site was to cause sockpuppets and meatpuppets to come along and side with one particular group, that's a problem, but the reality is those who found this discussion via Wikipediocracy are generally well versed in policy, are experienced enough to have made up their own minds and their contributions are of equal value and importance to those who found the deletion and discussion via XfD, DRV or ANI. Nick (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) None of that is responsive to the critique or the explanation. It is merely evidence for the wiki's lack of independence, making the wiki vulnerable to off-site campaign. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Luke beat me to it; I was about to describe those comments as bullshit as well. That administrator would be me. I'm only one of quite a number of admins that post on Wikipediocracy; including even former and current members of ArbCom. The existence of this article was a disgrace, and I would have supported its deletion no matter how I found out about the AfD, whether it was in project space, on a user talk page, a forum, Twitter, a random web page, or even word of mouth - because there are valid policy-based and ethical reasons to delete it. That will almost certainly be true of every single person that voted delete who also happens to be a poster on Wikipediocracy. — Scott • talk 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Don't slag me because you don't like the truth of the situation. Without the canvassing, this would've been a non issue. Anyone looking to delete the article for it's own sake would've slipped a prod tag on it, and five days later it would've slipped into the night. No muss, no fuss. Bugs asked an honest question, they deserved an honest answer. WilyD 14:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am no longer a member of that site, but we really have to end this notion that everything they do is analogous to the work of the fork-tongued, cloven-hoofed devil. People...some editors here, some not...raised a concern about a BLP article. Whether or not that increased the number that would've attended to the AfD by a factor of 5 or 105 is immaterial to the quality of the arguments that the editors who show up make. WP:CANVASS is meant to blunt the impact of droves of non-Wikipedieans showing up and voting with empty "KEEP OMG THIS BAND HAS 9,000 FANS!!!!!!!" It should not be abused to poison the well in this manner, suggesting that a deletion discussion is tainted for the sole reason of what particular external website is discussing it. Yes, the outing and the lynching imagery in their thread was puerile, but that doesn't detract from the arguments to delete, or the arguments to endorse here...esp by editors with no WO connection at all. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASS is meant to prevent the distortion of consensus by one or more determined partisans. You can consider it a corollary of WP:BATTLEGROUND. In this case you had a thread stating "Wikipedia kicks a man while he's down" with an OP plainly arguing that the article was all about defaming, shaming, and otherwise harming a poor, defenseless homeless fellow. This said to an audience that was already somewhat predisposed to having extremely negative views regarding the existence of BLPs on obscure individuals. Lost in all that was the fact he has a devoted following on the Internet and in his local area, which apparently has no ill will towards him at all. Anyone who thinks that can possibly result in any objective outcome has much better expectations of humanity than humanity honestly deserves.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as a "distortion of consensus". If there are Wikipedia editors who happen to get news of that AfD's existence via Wikipediocracy first, then show up to provide reasoned arguments for either its deletion or retention, then that is all that matters, i,e, if their opinion is a good one. If someone posts "delete this article sucks", or if someone registers an account that day just to vote, sure, those kinda of votes will be discarded in the final tally . My point is that there's too much hemming and hawing about where people get their news from rather than the substance of their input. It's similar to the creation of articles by banned editors; if the end result is a good article that satisfies the project's notability and other criteria, then so be it. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh come on, you are smart enough to know how things really work. WP:NOTAVOTE mean the numbers are not supposed to matter, but it does not mean the numbers have no effect on a closing admin's decision. Sort of like WP:BATTLE, it is a statement of intent not a statement of reality. A large number of editors citing any rationale that could even conceivably be valid are going to be given greater weight in evaluating a discussion than a small number of editors disputing that rationale, no matter how thoroughly the rationale is rebutted nor how minimally it is defended. In those situations a "no consensus" decision is possible, but a closing admin favoring the small group over the large group is rare. Canvassing is about biased editors corrupting the process by playing into that reality of admins not wanting to rock the boat by going against a larger group of editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the fact that I support the deletion of this article and 28bytes' rationale, the simple truth is, things like this get posted to Wikipediocracy for the express purpose of creating drama. The sort of message that the OP wrote in the thread over there would be considered blatant canvassing on Wikipedia. Running off to Wikipediocracy first should not excuse this. Resolute 15:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record I've never been to Wikipediocracy, have no intent on going there - and supported deletion under wp:BLP1E. Now possibly I got caught up in a campaign from offsite, possibly not. And frankly I don't care - I believe my vote was accurate. And as for why now, that's simply a matter of wp:OSE. Someone nominated it for deletion now as opposed to some other time. And whether a prod tag would have worked is a whole different question. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct

As the proposals here have been closed and no one has filed a WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case (yet), the obvious remaining WP:Dispute resolution avenue is WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. I see three major issues here: Jclemens's interpretation of WP:BLP, his use of admin tools/authority, and his refusal to accept feedback. I believe that he has history in each of these, although I do not have complete evidence organized. There may be enough to go directly to Arbcom. I have created a page for organization and coordination at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Jclemens. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what we need in this case is to waste more time repeating the same arguments over and over for no practical end... Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is Jclemens's history of abusing his admin tools, trying to rule by decree, and making bizarre self-serving policy interpretations when challenged. It's not just about this incident. Reyk _YO! 11:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that desysopping Jclemens is a very practical end. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen on that front without going to WP:RFAr. Is someone ready to do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go to ArbCom. An incident where an admin, (especially one with checkuser and oversight) has tromped all over everyone and everything the way he has, and acting so... unusual, all for the sake of trying to use the project to get money for a barely-notable career criminal, (and all the drama that has since ensued as a result), must be heard by the wiki-supreme court. Among all the WP:DR processes available, that is where this belongs. - ^theWOLFchild 12:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (btw - can I start writing my own BLP now? I wanna cash in before Christmas...)

Is there the the current threat of further questionable admin Action? Yes: File an immediate ArbCom request invoking the need to bypass the RfC/Admin Action step of DR. No: File a RfC/Admin Action (as per Wikipedia:RFC/U#Use_of_administrator_privileges) and give the Admin an opportunity to rectify the issue that is of concern. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

Regretfully, since this situation appears likely to recur, I am filing a request for arbitration regarding this issue. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:57, 14 December 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.