Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726

CueCat article

I'm asking here because of a block and un-block that I've done on the most recent user that appears to be a sock. Before proceeding, I wanted to get additional input from other editors.

On the CueCat article, there has been some strange activity over the past week. I've never edited the article myself (that I can recall), but placed it on my watchlist due to some 3RR activity, which has since lead to some likely quacking sounds. Note: prior to this activity, the article hadn't received much editing in several months.

The first edits were by Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs), whose edits were reversed with the reason "revert extensive whitewash". They restored their edits[1] and made claims of working on a book and having several thousand pages of supporting documents they could provide to Wikipedia[2]. After restoring the content, they then stopped editing for a while.

Next, within two hours, Factiod (talk · contribs) began editing the article and edit-warred with multiple editors over the same material - eventually being blocked by me for 3RR violation. On their talk page, they claimed to be writing a book and having several thousand pages available to supply to Wikipedia[3].

Now, today, the new account Proofplus (talk · contribs) posted to the talk page with the same material. Initially I blocked this account as I thought it was block evasion then corrected to a sock-block ... however, as the accounts hadn't (as yet) been used in attempts to game the system nor used abusively, I've undone the block for now. (Note: The user is making unblock requests on their talk page ... perhaps the auto-block is still there? It didn't appear to be in place, but perhaps I missed it?)

I believe it highly likely that these three accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but would appreciate having some additional reviews. To me, the quacking is so loud that I doubt an SPI would be accepted (behavioural evidence is pretty strong here, to me). But, I would like additional eyes to take a review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: there had been an autoblock, now lifted by User:Steven Walling (thanks). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: The most recent editor is making a good-faith effort to discuss and not edit war over the content. While I still believe there is sock and/or meat-puppetry taking place, the most recent account is attempting to follow normal DR processes to gain consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus has been posting to everyone's Talk page who's been involved in the brouhaha about the article and inviting them to respond to his comments. Despite his apparent efforts to be "good", I'm not convinced that his account isn't related to the others. He, like the others, calls himself a researcher. He also talks about IP sets and other issues related to patents. His English, like the others, is poor. Still, trying very hard to assume good faith, I have replied on the article's Talk page to his comments, as best as I could understand them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ProofPlus here, female first, grammer is not the topic. Next, I see a continual recurring theme, but I am not really sure about what you are talking about - "same group". But first, since I am from Israel, maybe you are detecting a diffence in language syntax. But, I can see your need to point out others flaws. My understanding is - notify everyone that comments are being made, share ones research and then ask for comments. Did I miss something? My message was vey clear. Posted facts. Gave links. Made suggestions for corrections to the record. I understand the submission issues and have followed them and submitted the links for review. So, maybe that you can understand? If you are having a hard time understanding and reading (I used to tell my Profs that too to bluff them) then I suggest you seek some help and maybe others here can understand my post. I will happily answer any questions, but won't egnage in the sexist stuff trying to say one is incompotent due to language barriers. Hope this is clearer for you now Barek - which is in fact a good Hebrew name!(64.134.28.233 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Better for you to log into your account when posting. Thanks for the gender correction, but nothing I said was sexist, nor did I say you were incompetent. Also, you didn't really provide sources for your statements on the CueCat Talk page. In any event, what I did in response was I restated what I interpreted you to say so you would understand what I was responding to. It also permits you to correct my interpretation if you think I got it wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

maybe a clarification here. IS Meatpuppet some insult to me being a woman posting in what is so strongly a mans enviroment? Is this ok? Please stop, I find that term very offensive. I have checked my talk page and do not have multiple replies, but Barek states "everyone's talk page". I would asume then Barek is posting to and from multiple accounts? Is this possible? Please help me understand this when possible. Many thanks.(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

As far as I know, the term meat puppet is not gender-based. See WP:MEAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please verify who signed the comment to which you are replying. It appears that the comment "everyone's talk page" was made by Bbb23, not by me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barek, happy to know meat puppet was not an attack on me. I just provided the following information to Andythegrump and it may be relevant here. But, to confuse me with someone else is not okay and I am sure you can verify such through computers and connections. This may help explain the renewed interest in the cuecat device. Hope reposting it here is fine. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

SNIP>>Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

I'm even more confused now. What's the connection between CueCat and RPX Corporation? Nil Einne (talk) Edit: It seems not only do they share a similarity of interest in CueCat but both ProofPlus and User talk:Factiod#whats all the blocking and hub bub about? came to CueCat while investigating patents. Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Ran kurosawa was trying to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer. But parts of that seem a lot like the source [4] so it's likely a copyvio unless Ran kurosawa is actually the author of the website which raises further implications. In any case, another reason to look out for their work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus continues her odd behavior. After I responded to her comment on the Talk page here, she "responded" by opening another section here as if no one had responded. I might also add that she has not provided any links on the Talk page, despite her statement that she has. The various editors involved in these articles - to the extent they are different individuals - are eating up a lot of other editors' time for pretty much nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible block avoiding IP

An IP has indicated to me on my talk page that they are editing as an IP because of previous accusations of sockpuppetry.[5][6]. They are currently on 75.21.156.42 but frequently change. I would be interested if anyone knows who the original account is and if they are currently blocked. This IP is adopting an argumentative approach on the talk pages of several other users [7][8] and should be stopped if this is block evasion. SpinningSpark 19:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruption: Users Jurriaan and Jurrian also multiple IPs

Notification of most rececent IP most recent user account

User Jurriaan (also User Jurrian, also multiple IPs) has a basic and fundamental problem with Primary and Original research policies, and repeatedly disrupts talk pages by engaging in primary research. diff demonstrating persistence example of conduct This recent version illustrates the depth of page disruption

This has been persistent, spread across 12 months, multiple articles in a constrained topic area, and spread across multiple IPs and their user account. A list of IP accounts from Jurriaan's user page lists:

• 212.64.48.162
• 212.182.183.8
• 82.136.223.40
• 82.169.203.147
• 82.170.245.157
• 82.169.203.180
• 85.144.162.215

Given that Jurriaan is unwilling to abide by basic encyclopaedic policy, I'd like them restricted from contributing to topics on Marx, Marx's works and political economy broadly construed until they're willing to abide by our sourcing policies and policies on disrupting talk pages by soapboxing. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A quick look through the ISP list shows all of the listed addresses as being registered to the same upstream ISP, except the last one, which appears to be a static ADSL registration on a separate ISP. All of them, however, geolocate to the same area. I'd suggest opening a full WP:SPI report, because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Yes, I know, I promised never to use that template again. The shoe fits too well not to put it on here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to Fifelfoo's allegations and accusations. There is no evidence that I have disrupted anything. I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text, whereas Fifelfoo feels that only a secondary source interpreting Karl Marx would be authoritative on Karl Marx. Actually, I am not interested in contributing my time to improving the article on commodity fetishism or anything else, if I get falsely accused of disruption. I have cited the IP numbers on my user page specifically so that my edits can be verified, it is not a big secret. I have no idea what your "megaphoneduck" is about. User:Jurriaan 3 Nov 2011 20:46 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

SPI isn't the main issue as the User/IP isn't avoiding previous restrictions. The problem is, "I have merely committed the sin of referencing some ideas by Karl Marx to Karl Marx's own text" an unwillingness to abide by our policy on original research and the extensive (and abusively framed) discussions on talk pages on the same point. The User/IP has extensive access to the entire secondary literature on Marx, and is deeply aware of the masters—but do they turn to Mandel, or Lafargue, or Bukharin, or Cardan? To any of the heterodox or orthodox scholars? No the User/IP attempts to produce their own understanding from original texts. This behaviour has been continuous since 2010 on commodity fetishism at least. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider this diff of Surplus product over October where Jurriaan edits under the minor tag the following content into the article:

The translation of the German "Mehr" as "surplus" is in a sense unfortunate, because it might be taken to suggest "unused", "not needed" or "redundant", while literally it means "more" or "added" - thus, "Mehrprodukt" refers really to the additional or "excess" product produced. In German, the term "Mehrwert" simply and literally means value-added, a measure of net output, (though, in Marx's specialist usage, it means the surplus-value obtained from the use of capital).

This, and the paragraph "In modern economics…value of inputs." which is footnoted against an argument from first principles.

The User/IP clearly understands scholarly conventions; but, is unwilling to operate within the original research conventions of wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Character mask is content almost entirely authored by the User/IP over 2+ years. It includes wonders such as:

One of the centrepieces of Marx's critique of political economy is that the juridical labour contract between the worker and his capitalist employer obscures the true economic relationship, which is (according to Marx) that the workers do not sell their labour, but their labour power, i.e. their capacity to work, making possible a profitable difference between what they are paid and the new value they create for the owners of capital (a form of economic exploitation). Thus, the very foundation of capitalist wealth creation involves a "mask".[17]

[17]: ^ "...the paid and unpaid portions of labour are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week." - Karl Marx, Value, Price and Profit, part 9.[8] "Since Lassalle's death, there has asserted itself in our party the scientific understanding that wages are not what they appear to be - namely, the value, or price, of labor — but only a masked form for the value, or price, of labor power." - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), part 2 (emphases added). [9] Cf. the Resultate manuscript in Capital, Volume I, Penguin edition, p. 1064, where Marx uses the word "vertuscht" ("covered up").

Which belong in journal articles or conference papers, and not on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP editor 74.64.126.212 - persistent failure to source / incomplete sourcing

IP editor 74.64.126.212 periodically updates or edits information on pages relating (directly and indirectly) to the University of Michigan but consistently either 1) fails to provide proper sources for the edits, or, 2) provides a source but includes it only in the edit summary and not in the article to accompany the factual edit. This latter practice requires in each instance that another editor 1) notice the edit; 2) check the supplied source; and 3) edit the article to reflect the updated ref. If no one makes these corrections then after a while the article's assertions no longer match its cited refs and cleaning them up is likely to entail a laborious process of reconstruction. I make the necessary fixes on pages I have watchlisted, but otherwise have no appetite for following the editor around and cleaning up their incomplete edits. I've asked the editor several times to learn how to cite refs, see User talk:74.64.126.212 and following that effort, added relevant templates through level 4 on their Talk page, all to no effect. The editor does not respond in any fashion (indeed a review of the IP’s 200+ contributions reflect no contribution to any Talk page), and the practices continue. I have been reluctant to seek a block for what seem to be, essentially, sound factual edits but these changes requires the diligent attention of at least one other editor to ensure that the pages are not slowly degraded, and on the whole the practice is disruptive. Also I think that the editor’s failure to engage at all leaves few other options.

I previously sought advice on how to deal with this at WP:EAR, which discussion seems to have run its course. The advice there amounted to, “seek a short block”. I’d appreciate any assistance or advice that this group may offer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If they've received multiple warnings and are not changing their practices I would report them at WP:AIV. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just checked out the IP's talk page. I'd say you could file at AIV now if they are still being disruptive. Doniago (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, AIV is not the appropriate venue as the IP has not edited since yesterday and their edits are not clear-cut vandalism. This is a long term issue with poor or incorrect sourcing over many months. That being said, JohnInDC's last message to the IP was a clear explanation as to why the edits are problematic; if they continue their behaviour when they begin editing again then a block will be necessary. I have watchlisted the IP's talk page and will monitor their edits moving forward. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to have another set of eyes (or two) here and unless someone has a different idea about how to proceed, I've got my answer. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone who makes work for others (by doing references incompetently) is not exactly a good-faith contributor. I suggest a short block to get this editor's attention if they will not participate in any discussion of what they are doing. If they continue to edit Wikipedia with the same practices (now or later) while ignoring the issue presented at ANI, then we have a problem worthy of admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP and Mommie Dearest

Before List of films considered the worst descends further into edit-war territory, I would like someone to take a look and see if they can 'splain things to the IP in such a way that it gets his attention. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now, but I'll watchlist the page. 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That's one of those articles that has always shown a tendency to expand or contract based on personal opinions, which is why we try to keep some good reins on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's some fun reading. Reminds me of this book. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• He's back. Another edit showed up in recent changes. FYI, it is my opinion that the article will always tend to edits like that, is very subjective, and prob should not exist for those reasons (although I am aware that I am in the minority on that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, vandal's IP is 50.74.225.194‎ Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)‎

Edit warring ≠ vandalism. Anyway, Carnildo has protected it for a week. 28bytes (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring is bad faith, though; and the guy did essentially section-blank; so I think the term vandalism is appropriate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's a difference between vandalism and good-faith but wrong-headed editing, and this is the latter. And refering to Purple's earlier comment, yes, the page attracts lots of editorial opinions, which is why strict sourcing to hopefully multiple "worst movies" sources is required. For example, if Roger Ebert says "I hated it!", that carries a lot more weight than if an editor says "I loved it!" It's never going to be an exhaustive list. If you look through the Maldin book, for example, you'll find hundreds of them labeled "BOMB". This particular article is intended to list just a few, widely discussed bad movies. The examples serve an educational purpose about what can go wrong in moviemaking. (In the case of Ed Wood, of course, you can say it's pretty much "everything".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account, misuse of article for soapbox

The new SPA account, User:The99declaration has made some rather obtuse postings on the article 99 Percent Declaration that could constitute legal threats and are certainly WP:SOAP [11] --Amadscientist (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see explicit legal threats, but I do see problems with the username. That username definitely needs a change to an individual one. –MuZemike 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand MuZemike's post...but not the unsigned post by User:Pugugil below.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What post? [post-cleanup]. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The post that was deleted. Perhaps he meant something by it. Your question seems tongue in cheek at best and dishonest at worst.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus has been doing a little manipulating of that spam post and the users talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The99declaration is apparently Michael Pollok, a criminal defense attorney and the author of the first drafts of the 99 Percent Declaration. Please help keep this important contributor! There are very serious WP:BITE issues on the part of Amadscientist, who has repeatedly blanked[12][13][14][15] the author's correspondence from Talk:99 Percent Declaration because there is a content dispute concerning very recent events with the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group. Instead of welcoming The99declaration, Amadscientist wrote this as his first message on his talk page: "Single purpose account. Misuse of article space for personal soapbox is unacceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)" and became upset when I welcomed the user. I do not believe Amadscientist is here to write an encyclopedia nearly as much as to try to push a point of view, and I have complained about tag-teaming on Talk:Occupy Wall Street where such behavior is still clearly in evidence. Please help. Dualus (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See formal ANI complaint below.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page blanking continues to WP:BITE the original author of the 99 Percent Declaration -- what can be done to save Mr. Pollok as an editor?!? Dualus (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I could always apologize for biting the newcomer, but that does not excuse your manipulation of the talk pages, or your refusal to stop unwanted contact.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you are referring to my restoration of material I posted to Talk:99 Percent Declaration from new user Mr. Pollok's comments on the deletion discussion, as "manipulation"? Why do you think I am not allowed to post to talk pages? Dualus (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommend merging this section with #User:Dualus manipulating spam posts of other editor and talk pages below. Dualus (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Luchow's

Resolved

I'm bowing out, since Mrs. Drmies is wondering what's keeping me. Beyond My Ken notified me of something brewing in Luchow's, particularly some ownership issues. He was right; I've reverted, left notes on the user's talk page, and finally a 3R warning. I came withing one clock of blocking them for disruptive editing and edit-warring, but I should leave that to someone else, if it has to come to that (I hope not). Your interest is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I blocked BruceWHain (talk · contribs) before seeing this message, but not much has changed so my block still stands. Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to pounce this one, darn. Here's the block log and offending edit for archival purposes. Tell Mrs. Drmies that we apologize for keeping her waiting! m.o.p 04:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

...and I have declined Bhatman ... err ... User:BruceWHain's unblock ... which wasn't really an unblock ... then again, just like Chuck Norris, Bhatman wouldn't need an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Professional wrestling throws

I am involved in the edit warring which has been going on at this article which it looks like has had citation concerns for four years. I am trying to avoid it getting out of hand by using edit summaries, the talk page, and posting about it here. Can we get more eyes on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folgertat (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Edit warring on a wrestling article. I assume it's scripted. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dr "Professor Pain" Mies, you are seriously breaking Kayfabe here. All those throws are booked. No way, no how are they shoot like the Montreal screwjob. --The Shirt of Hurt... 58 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, as far as the content of the issue is concerned, it's not clear to me why, in this edit some unverified things are removed and others aren't, but that's a matter for the talk page. Wile I don't want to count and do things with dates and times, it's clear that y'all are edit-warring, though some (User:Francis Marks) do it worse than others (you)--without edit summaries and explanations. Both of you should stop, right now, and edit only to the talk page and work it out.

  In the meantime, there is nothing here for an admin to do, and I don't rightly see why this report is here. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I've given both 3R warnings on their talk page. I consider this closed: any further disruption should be dealt with first on the 3R noticeboard, and such a report will probably be followed by a swift block. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow

User:Phoenix and Winslow has made an attack against a company that is unwarranted and offensive, its also one in which he holds a bias against the company as it won a court case that defines Ugg boot as a generic in term. If this was made against and editor or a individual person I'd have no hesitation in blocking the users account before bringing it here for review. The thing is this isnt an individual its a company Uggs-N-Rugs but P&W description of the company is matter we should be concerned about Wikipedia is not a soap box, IMHO sanctions should be taking to address this action as its clearly intended to disrupt the discussion and prevent consensus. Gnangarra 06:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• • User advised[16] of discussion Gnangarra 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Err, I really don't see it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume the reference is to referring to "Uggs-N-Rugs" as "Uggs-N-Muggs". To be honest, I do see a problem with some very POV claims being posted, repeatedly, with a lot of aggression towards Australian companies and editors, that sometimes feels to be borderline trolling. I'm not sure that it is something that could be handled here, though, but I'm also not sure what the best route is. Try for mediation again, perhaps? - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My first instinct here was to regard this as a specious attempt to have dissent shut down (in isolation that's nowhere near a blockable offense and would be worth a rebuke at best if the subject were a BLP), but looking through the discussion there's certainly something troublesome about Phoenix and Winslow's approach to the article. You know you're heading down the wrong path motives-wise when you begin making analogies to the way Barack Obama's BLP is free of conspiracy theories and use it as an unfavourable comparison. Phoenix and Winslow should be advised to leave his personal opinions of the subject at the door when discussing them: the rest should take care of itself, given that it seems to have been established that P&W is in a distinct minority on the content matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:93.167.122.65

I picked up a 3O request for the article Giles Coren, but I don't think my response there is likely to make much difference. The dispute concerns an edit war over adding the sentence "he is best know for his anti-Polish prejudice" to the lead.

Can I suggest semi-protecting the article and blocking account creation from the IP address?

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 72hrs. If he comes back on same IP it will be longer, if IP changes I can semi the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Structural inequality in education and Structural inequality

New article Structural inequality in education appears to be a copy of an old version of Structural inequality. I don't know anything about the subject matter, so have no idea whether they are OK or not, or whether the articles should be merged etc. However, the attribution has now been broken so something needs doing about that please. Polequant (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the talk page of the original article has a discussion going back to last month where this was planned out, was there a particular reason that you chose to run straight to the drama board with this rather than simply sending a friendly note to the user explaining what he missed, or alternatively simply fixing it yourself? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And can you tell me how I can sort it out please? I cannot do a manual move as there is now something in the way. That is why I brought it here, not for any drama. And I see you are an administrator, so you can sort it out. I would be grateful if you could do the honours. Much obliged. Polequant (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The user's already left a note to that effect on the new talk page. If you want to make it more formal, add {{split from|page=Structural inequality|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Structural_inequality&oldid=458531007|date= 22:17, 3 November 2011}} to the top of tjhe split page. If we were being incredibly pedantic we could histmerge the new page from the user sandbox, but it doesn't really matter because the sandbox page has only had a single editor who is the same as the author of the new page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It didn't look like a split to me, it looked like a copy-paste move and a completely new article in it's place. But if that's all that is needed for attribution then fine by me. Feel free to close. Polequant (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what it is. I'll split the history when I have time later, if no one else has. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Contributions for User:201.170.3.74

• Yorsh797 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.170.3.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Due to some bad mojo over at commons where Yorsh797 made some bad uploads, I went over to check en-wiki to see if it was ok here as someone had included the images in some pages, and I assume that IP is the user in question. I notice the user is making small edits related to number of goals and assists mostly, but some edits doesn't make any sense, for example [17] increases "caps" a lot, but decreases "goals". I asked Yorsh797 yesterday if he had any references to the numbers, but haven't got any reply. Thus I would like for a wider analysis of this matter, as I'm no expert in mexican football, and I've could have mistaken some relevant data here that makes everything logical. _→AzaToth 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User Boabkal

Could an Admin check the edits of this user:

User Boabkal is personally attacking me. He accuses me of being pan-Turkic even before I had a conversation with him.

See: Talk:Great_Seljuq_Empire The source for the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan

This user is pushing his POV and original research. I had sourced material explaining some sentences. But he doesn't like those sentences and then declares the whole book as: 'bad, misleading and false' and he deletes the sourced material. He is pushing his own POV and original research and accusing me the whole time and personally attacking me.

The source doesn't deny that Seljuks were under Persian influence, it just says that under their rule the Turkification of todays Iran and Azerbaijan started, because then Turkic peoples started to migrate towards those areas.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• BoAbkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Notified BoAbkal[18]
• Advised DragonTiger23 to add diffs to comments perceived as attacks[19] and reminded s/he should remember to notify other editors.[20]

(to be helpful) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[21] Here he/she is already accusing me of spreading 'black pan-Turkic propaganda'

In the last sentence here [22] he says: 'I can only conclude you're biased (i.e. pan turkic) and based on the other violations in your userpage history, I am certain of it.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have welcomed[23] the editor (only 16 edits) and left a personalized uw-npa1 on BoAbkal's talk page,[24] including hopefully helpful information on dealing with disputes which included other relevant links (undue, pov, balance, relevance, dr) - as well as a note to be careful on wording so comments are not misconstrued as a personal attack.

Does anyone deem any further actions are needed? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can any admin tell user Boabkal not to delete the two sources that explain about the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan? DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's simply removing citations that support the article, let us know. If it's changing content to something you disagree with, you need to take that up on the article's talk page and engage BoAbkal there. A polite note on BoAbkal's talk page to meet you there may be a good start. Admnistrators (except as required by an ArbCom case or community decision or for policy violations or similar) will not engage in a content dispute in administrative capacity. Once they involve themselves in the content, they can no longer act in such capacity.

So, if the issue is the first one, please provide a few diffs - that can be addressed. If it is a content dispute, try working it out on the talk page, or engage in some form of dispute resolution. If you need help, let the community know here, or post a message on my talk page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---

DragonTiger23, please do not pose yourself as a victim of personal attacks because it will not work with me, and you have no evidence of it. Furthermore, if you want to claim that I personally attacked you (which is false in that regard), then look no further than your claim of me vandalizing an article, when in fact it does not constitute as vandalism at all. That accusation you brushed on my name is, however, a form of personal attack, in which I think the admins should look into.

Judging by the series of violations you have committed, as seen in your user talk page, it is evidently clear that the Great Seljuk Empire article is not the only one you attempted to change in order to give a biased 'Turkic' point of view. There are loads of other articles in which you personally changed in order to give a biased Turkic view on, not least of which are articles such as the Latin Bridge.

On 23rd of August, you were blocked by an admin for "persistent revert-warring across multiple articles motivated by national POV agendas".

I have no doubt in my mind that the so called source you provided in your Great Seljuk Empire article on the so called 'turkification of Iran' was a bad one. Bad either because you made it up, and then provided anything as a source (to make it more believable), or because you used a source that is not academically qualified. The sentence you wrote, furthermore, went on to CONTRADICT what most academically qualified sources in that article were saying, i.e. that the Seljuks had no intentions on turkifying Iran. As I have clearly pointed out in that article's talk page.

You are in the wrong here and I will personally see to it that your attempts of spreading disinformation in Wikipedia articles does not succeed.

Wa Salamu Alaikum.BoAbkal (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Please could an admin explain to this person to stop his agressive attitude against me. He is making Wikipedia:No personal attacks here and when he edits here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Seljuq_Empire&diff=458935774&oldid=458854610 Wikipedia:No original research Seriously just because he doesn't like the sentence of the source he declares it as 'not academically qualified' Because first of all reed this [25] who is BoAbkal to decide that this author and the other authors are 'not academically qualified'. And this is the other author: [26] They are both academics, experts on history, that User boabkal personally attacks them just shows how pathetic biased he is. Are there no admins to stop this nonsense??

With a quick search on google books I found many more sources on (Seljuks Turkification) seriously this is written in so many history books, I didnt make this up. here [[27]], [[28]]

on the matter of the Turkification of Iran/Azerbaijan. Because this is already a fact. But there is no way discussing with Boabkal, who would equally name all of those sources as bad and the authors a not academical. This is simple because Boabkal is not neutral he is trying to push his point of view, deleting sources when he doesnt like them.

This is the online version of the source (so I didn't made it up, as he falsely claims) [29]

Here [30]

Can you believe this user boabkal?? Simply said, he is biased and insists on deleting the sources regarding the Turkification of Iran and Azerbaijan. He uses the most simple argument: The sources are bad. This user does not care anything about the source or wikipedia rules. He accuses me the whole time of spreading pan turkism, how did he come u with that I dont know, If I would write one time he was pan iranian, I would be blocked, I dont want to personally attack anyone but it seems he himself is describing himself actually, he seems to be ethnically biased and tries to push his pan persianism. I have learned from experience that for some reason many Persian have racism against all things related to Turkic/Turks. And they get away with it all the time on wikipedia. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Salamu Alaikum,

Your post just above proves how ignorant you are. What made you come to the conclusion that I'm Persian or Pan Iranian? I couldn't care less about either Turkic or Iranian cultures. My motive is to make Wikipedia clear from bias and disinformation. For your information, I'm Qatari, from Qatar, an Arab country.

Your sources contradict the commonly accepted scholarly views that academics worldwide have attested to. Your source is not an encyclopedia. It's a history book written by one or two authors and its titled as an encyclopedia but it isnt. Encyclopedias have references from academics and scholars to support their information. That source you gave does not.

I will continue removing it as it contradicts what the Seljuk Empire stood for.

I told you time and time again I have nothing against the statement, but the validity of the statement. It is not a valid statement. Your sources contradict mainstream view. That is all.

PS: Continue this discussion in the talk page for the article rather than cowering away. BoAbkal (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---

You want to make Wikipedia free of Bias and disinformation? Then start by deleting your account for you are the one who is spreading his bias. The source contradicts nothing, and its 100% valid, you want to remove two sources from two different authors written by academics by using your own Original research. Are there no admins to stop this?? It is vandalism. Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ramanatruth keeps blanking a section.

I noticed Ramanatruth keeps blanking an entire section atAdvaita Vedanta. 72.92.115.76 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show any diffs as to why you say this? Also I notified Ramanatruth of this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, but if you look in the history, it should be obvious. Ramanatruth keeps deleting "Claims of Buddhist Influence Section" which I know has been there for a while. 72.92.115.76 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See [31] for edit history of Ramanatruth. There is just a couple of entries over the past two days. Two appear to be section blanking.--Nowa (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

From Ramana Truth

CONTENT DISPUTE IS NOT VANDALISM

I have spent years learning and practicing Advaita Vendanta. If you have content disputes with my edits lets discuss. Why should you guys block me. I am new to wikipedia but will add references to validate all my content. I want to make sure Advaita Vedanta is represented right in Wikipedia.

Advaita philosophy , the concept that "Brahman is all that is", is mentioned in the Hindu Holy book, the Bhagavad Gita which predates the birth of Buddha.

Ancient texts that talk about Advaita Vedanta which predate the Birth of Buddha

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstallsales/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=128_129

If you want I can add multiple references to validate Advaita thought and the birth of buddhism.

Advaita Vedanta is the central tenet of Hinduism mentioned in the Upanishads texts which include Bhagavad Gita.

Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi led the Hindu renaissance by explicitly taking about Advaita Philosophy to bring the Indian population back to Hinduism, when Buddhism was spreading in India.

I request you to have a dialogue to make sure that the Advaita Vedanta is represented right.

Reporting edited content as vandalism prematurely without discussion defeats the spirit of an open encyclopedia.

User Boabkal disruptive edits at the page of the Great Seljuk Empire

Can any admin have a look at this page and the harmfull edits done by user Boabkal. The problem is that this user is deleting two sentences based on sources. First he agressively accused me of being Pan Turkist and spreading pan Turkic propoganda, afterwards he attacks the source and authors.

Here [[32]]] and Here [[33]] in the Talk page

I am asking any Admins to watch these page and explain to this user and stop him deleting sources.

Thank youDragonTiger23 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you let us know about 6 sections above. Did you check there? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations and incivility by user Xizer

Xizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted to their old block laden past behaviour and is edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning consensus reached at WP:BLPN and engaging in gross personal attacks: diff1. I request a block of this user to prevent further disruption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." causes me an immediate high level of concern. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ks0stm. Please also look at the report below where Xizer alleges incivility on my part yet provides no examples. This is tendentious editing on top of gross incivility and violation of consensus arrived at WP:BLPN and edit-warring BLP violations as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are Keizers (talk · contribs) and Xizer related? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in this edit summary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Ks0stm. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violations and incivility by user Dr.K.

Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning valuable, well-sourced contributions to this article that are not in any violation of Wikipedia policy. As this is now Dr.K.'s third revert of the article today, this user is now in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule as the rule clearly states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

No consensus on WP:BLPN has been reached as to whether or not this article should contain information pertaining to current events surrounding the controversial Internet video that has surfaced and has now been mentioned numerous times by credible news outlets such as CNN and NBC.

Go read the discussion of the article on WP:BLPN. It's literally just four dudes discussing whether or not the article should even exist, not what content should be included in said article. Xizer (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RRN is the best place to report edit warring. As far as the talk page is concerned, why not take it to AFD if people think it should be deleted? That would solve the problem for a while. N^oformation ^Talk 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This report (by Xizer (talk · contribs)) is based on a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (hint: this is an encyclopedia and not a place to shame people regardless of what vidoes may show), and a severe misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The most recent edit by Xizer at William Adams (judge) (diff) added an attack piece with edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." Dr.K. is urged to revert as many times as necessary to protect a BLP. If Xizer could indicate that they now understand proper procedures, no further action need be taken. If such edits are repeated, particularly without serious discussion, Xizer will need to be separated from the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Xizer is actually misquoting the policy page. Nowhere at WP:3RR does it say the sentence he quotes above, nor is there any sentence or statement at WP:3RR which could be reasonably paraphrased or interpreted to mean what he says. No further statement on the substance of his complaint, but I am not made sympathetic to his argument when it contains such a deliberate and obvious mis-statement of policy. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A classic WP:BOOMERANG. I agree completely with the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's quoted from Template:3RR. N^oformation ^Talk 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So stricken. I should note that that particular wording should be changed, I'm not sure I like it much, but I will not discuss it here further, as this is not the venue. I'm headed to the template talk page to start a discussion... --Jayron32 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: (See also the thread above) I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in this edit summary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the block, especially given his intention to continue to edit war. This is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. Given this, he should know a helluva lot better. WilliamH (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

William Adams (judge)

I need some independent eyes on this article. There is an edit war brewing with some editors wanting to introduce news articles (many of which are copies of each other) to the WP article while the AfD is going on. IMO, there's too much naming and shaming going on, and I'd block the article completely, without those links, but I guess I'm not neutral enough (also, I watched the video and I'm kind of sick to my stomach). Some quick and decisive action would be appreciated--or, if not action, a note at the AfD itself. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, see also the section(s) above. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't watched the video, but even assuming it's sickening, I don't understand how User:Sceptre gets away with calling the judge a "reprehensible cunt". As I stated on the AfD page, it's remarkably uncivil and a BLP violation. Sceptre is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean he can express it with impunity here. (As an aside, I don't know if "cunt" has a different meaning in British English, but in American English, it's one of the more offensive and vulgar words in the language.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• And you just repeated it, tsk tsk. Yeah, I saw that too, and I don't know what to say. I'm on record as defending some of our regular uncivilians, so I shouldn't say anything. But it's rude, in any language, and while the person in the video is really doing disgusting things, it's not our place to comment on that. Sceptre really shouldn't have said that. How he gets away with that? I'm not blocking for civility, lots of admins aren't. I guess that's all there is to it. You're free to slap a warning on their talk page, of course. Just don't call him an asshole, cause I'd block you in a heartbeat. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I really don't know how to respond to this. He does something wrong. You acknowledge that. Yet, you seem to be more interested in taking a jab at me ("tsk, tsk") for my commenting on it and threatening me with a block for something I haven't done or even contemplated doing ("call[ing] him an asshole"). I suppose one day I'll learn my comments about this sort of thing almost never gain any traction. I suppose, too, I should be grateful (sort of) that you didn't ignore me. To quote you one more time: "I guess that's all there is to it." --Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bbb23, lighten up ('tsk tsk' is a joke--I didn't know you were so humorless, and such a literal reader). You completely misread my comments--how you don't see that I agree with you (I acknowledged the rudeness!) while, at the same time, I am telling you that we simply don't usually act against such civility breaches is not clear to me. And yes, that is all there is to it: you will not find an admin who will block for a remark like that, and while that is sad, perhaps, that is the way it is. I don't go around calling people names like that, you don't, and Sceptre shouldn't either. Now what do you want me to do about it? I left them a warning--do you want me to hand out an instant block for a bad word? Until you understand the predicaments that go along with having ideas about civility, until you understand the difficulty of enforcing a policy on civility, and until you see that some people express themselves in ways different from yours, maybe you should ignore everything I say, including this. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Drmies, I'm not "humorless", but I am often "literal", and I did misunderstand what you said. Thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad. More clarification: I do NOT think lightly of these things, lest my tone makes one believe that. If I did, I would have just passed this over and said nothing, like (I assume) many others did. Thanks Bbb, for pointing it out here. Please forgive my strong response. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Now that we've cleared it up, there's nothing to forgive. I actually appreciate your sticking with me while we fleshed it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration

99 Percent Declaration is undergoing major disruptive editing during an AfD discussion. There is no way of knowing what we are “keeping” or “deleting”. It would be helpful if a disinterested administrator reviewed and took appropriate action.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This AfD is only two days old. I'd like to give it some more time to develop consensus. m.o.p 21:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. The issue isn’t AfD, but edit warring during an AfD. Consider this version at 20:45, 4 November 2011 versus this version three minutes later--Nowa (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

After studying the history of the AFD page until my eyes blurred, I have realized that you mean the ARTICLE itself. I have blocked User:Factchecker atyourservice for 31hrs for massive edit-warring on this. Please take future edit-warring complaints to WP:AN/3RR for proper service, and be far more clear as to the problem. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that FIXING the article during the AFD is not a bad thing - in fact, it's recommended. AfD often helps bring articles to someone's attention who then has the knowledge/opportunity to fix it ... that's what the WP:ARS used to be about ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,but in all fairness you should ban all editors engaged in the edit war. In fact, I think the page should be fully protected during the AfD. It has become a political battle ground.--Nowa (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have blocked the other disruptive edit-warrior that was found as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to the situation.--Nowa (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus manipulating spam posts of other editor and talk pages

Note: Recommend merging this section with #Single purpose account, misuse of article for soapbox above. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus has been using the spam soapbox message left on the article 99 Percent Declaration [34] and on the "Request for deletion" discussion by another user. He placed the text on the talk page to make it look like a message left there by the editor and also signed the post as the editor in question.[35] [36] He also went to the editors talk page and began manipulating a post left there by me.[37] He has also seen fit to request off wiki discussion against my previous request that he not contact me further on my talk page.[38] [39]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to the blanking[40][41][42][43][44] of my contributions to Talk:99 Percent Declaration and the WP:BITEing of Michael Pollok at his talk page. Dualus (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to your manipulation of another editors post. Something I have warned you about before.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What precisely are you complaining about? How can you accuse me of "manipulation" when you have just blanked the same section from Talk:99 Percent Declaration four times over the space of an hour? Have you read WP:TALK? I know you have already been warned about edit warring. Dualus (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that user Dualus has been attempting to request contact of editors off wiki. I am not the only one,[45] although I have stated clearly his contact on my page is not wanted.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have been attempting to tinychat with those who have been accusing me of trying to push a point of view. Only one editor has agreed to do so tomorrow. If any admins would like to join in, that would be great. Unless there's some reason it isn't allowed. In the mean time, would someone please restore my blanked material to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Dualus is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. He has a habit of hounding editors who disagree with him to the point of harassment, often pressing them to talk off-wiki.[46][47][48][49][50] Inserting disputed content into articles without adequate discussion,[51][52] Making bad-faith accusations against anyone who disagrees with him,[53][54][55][56][57][58] and is a constant state of "I didn't hear that!" where he argues the same points ad nauseum regardless of how many times they have been refuted by multiple editors. [59][60][61][62] He has had an edit-warring noticeboard complaint about him in the last 24 hours, and it doesn't take more than a look at Talk:Occupy Wall Street,Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26 or the article talk page in question to get a clear idea of this editor's propensity for disruption. Trusilver 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, Truesilver. At least, not without combing through about 500 man-hours of absurd editorial conduct by the user in question, in order to document the utter disregard for both substantive content policies and the policies relevant to maintaining a collaborative atmosphere. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing those diffs. While some show honest mistakes, I don't see how any of them show "an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor." Honestly I have no idea what tendentious means. I welcome discussions about my behavior, and I have been trying to reach compromises. But for now, would someone please restore the blanked material of mine back to Talk:99 Percent Declaration? I don't want to be accused of edit warring simply because I am trying to keep my own article talk page section, from the author of the subject of the article, no less, from being deleted. Dualus (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When I refer to "my talk page sections which you have repeatedly blanked" I am not saying I own them, I am saying I put them there. Per WP:TPO it is completely inappropriate for you to delete them! Dualus (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the policy says. Are you suggesting that the material you keep deleting is somehow a BLP issue? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not see the BLPVIO. Please can you explain on the article talk page how it violates BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If an editor makes a claim on the article itself with no references it is contentious, regardless of the fact that they claim to be that person. The continued use of this material by Dualus is a clear BLP issue. Is this incorrect?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its an incorrect application of BLP. Its good reason to depreceate the content and we couldn't use it as its as meaningless as a usenet posting but its not a BLP vio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for specific accusations against named parties that do make this a BLP issue. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the exact sections of BLP violations as requested.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Where? Dualus (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see some links. However, anything posted by that redlink and claiming to speak for someone has to be considered a BLP violation unless proven otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dualus continues to replace this contentious material and has been edited warring against the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. I wonder if a block for these actions as well as unwanted contact would be appropriate at this time?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Unwanted contact"? Are you referring to the fact that you keep deleting whatever I write on your talk page? I recommend that interested parties review your deletions of my questions on your talk page. In the mean time, what is the specific reason you keep blanking the message from Mr. Pollok? Dualus (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• ENOUGH ANI is not a venue for bickering between participants in a content dispute. Please can you both stop the back and forth and allow other people to go through the allegations and consider them. Flooding the section with arguing between the two of you is going to get you both blocked if you don't stop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge the presumption that the editor called 99-whatever actually is who he claims to be.[63] In fact, the "conservative" thing to do, as per BLP rules, would be to assume that he is NOT, and that anything he says could potentially be a BLP violation, as it would put words in his mouth. Now, if the actual subject can be confirmed to be that guy, then it's a different story. But that would have to be done by reliable sourcing, not by a red-link claiming to be someone. For example, if CNN has an interview with the actual guy, and he says "I'm editing Wikipedia under this 99-something user ID", that would tend to make it more credible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If an individual claims to be the subject of the post and asks for modifications, are they not usually directed to OTRS to prove/disprove the claim first. Putting information in the article or on the talkpage because "I'm Foo, so I know it" is likely to be a BLP violation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, I'm afraid I don't see that as a BLP then or now since its not uncommon for real people to post things related to them. The unattributation is obviously grounds to depreciate the comment and we wouldn't give it any weight whatsoever but I'm still struggling to see how it violates BLP. Maybe this is another case of BLP creep. Is it worth a general discussion on this anywhere to try and get a wider consensus on this point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you wish me to post those sections here and the precise areas in the spam from the redlink editor? I could also post the e-mails sent to me that were legal threats but that seems unneccesary at this point as the editor has received an idef ban and I have passed them on to another admin, but if you feel this should be made public to be defined as threats to Wikipedia for a permanent ban I can. For some reason I think he assumes I am an admin or the reason he is being banned.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More edit-warring

I created this edit-war notice less than 1 day ago, which caused the page to be protected.

As I wrote there, Dualus has previously been cautioned for edit-warring on several occasions (which is also mentioned above), and seems to think that merely commenting on a talk page justifies continued addition, without obtaining the agreement from other editors.

Now, xe is doing exactly the same thing on another article - making an addition [64], and when another user removes it [65] Dualus puts it back saying "replace per talk" [66].

But there's no consensus on the talk - just Dualus saying he'll add it, and one other user removing it.[67]

Dualus is causing disruption on Wikipedia, and I think xe should now be blocked; many users have tried to explain our policies, guidelines and norms, but Dualus seems incapable of following them.  Chzz  ►  20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am in total agreement. Every time I come across this editor, I see someone (usually very patiently) attempting to explain some policy that User:Dualus is not following, only to see it explained again the next day, and again the day after, and so on and so on. At some point, it starts getting hard to assume good faith and one has to start thinking the user is intentionally being disruptive. Trusilver 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be indef banned myself but then I have less history with the editor and I guess requests to stop contact by editors must be requested here. So, if he is not given an indef ban I would request that he be blocked from making any posts on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific sections of BLP violated

Criticism and praise[68]: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

The information was not originally presented in a responsible, conservative or disinterested tone, or repeated in that manner. It was copy pasted simply to repeat the accusations and information.

Challenged or likely to be challenged [69]: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that 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.

No references of any kind were used when this was placed in the article and repeated again on the talk page.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [70]: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

This constitutes original research and is not sourced at all. Returning the material is a violation of this section after my removal of it.

Avoid gossip and feedback loops[71]: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

The user that placed the material is an anonymous source and we cannot divulge who it actually is or is not, since the user used a username and not a real name and is simply a new Wikipedia user, it fails as a reliable source and should not be repeated even on the article talk page.

Using the subject as a self-published source[72]:Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: # it is not unduly self-serving; # it does not involve claims about third parties; # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; # there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; # the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If Dualus is going on the assumption that this is indeed the actual person, it violates this section as being self published on Wikipedia and does not meet the standard for use on the article or the talk page.

Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization[73]: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

The editor that placed this here is playing the victim even though he is not mentioned at all. By repeating these claims and accusations this violates this section.

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources[74]: With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

We have to assume the privacy of the subject above the belief that the user is being honest about his or her identity right now. The user has not posted any further evidence or references to prove such and repeating the information violates this section.

People who are relatively unknown[75]: Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

Little to no restraint in repeatedly adding the information back. No secondary sources. Repeating the information is questionable.

Subjects notable only for one event[76]: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

Undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Nuetral wording is not used by either the original editor or Dualus by repeating it. There is no notability present in the posting from an anonymous user.

Privacy of names[77]: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

This person and the people he accuses have not been widely disseminated and in fact some have been intentionally concealed. No value in adding these names in the article as originaly done and then repeated on this talk page.

Where BLP does and does not apply Non-article space[78]: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[6] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.

Legal persons and groups[79]: This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heavens' sakes, 1 second of googling finds several professional pages with contact info for that lawyer guy. If there's doubt that he is who he says, someone could email him and/or ask him on usertalk to confirm identity with OTRS. Yes there is a BITE problem going on. He should be thanked for his willingness to contribute here and given any help he needs, even if he's currently making typical newbie errors. We all made errors like that when we got started. 71.141.89.4 (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanked? So many "occupy" articles were started that Wikipedia simply became a place to host their manifestos...Lord help us that doesn't happen again and say "look, we made the big time on Wikipedia!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Biting problem? If that single action I made over rides his use of a name to promote his agenda and his spam message that earned him an indef block, I am pretty sure I would have joined both Dualus and that red link editor in a block of some kind. Right now I am more concerned with the exact reasons why Dualus didn't earn the same indef block for repeatedly spamming the talk pages against Wikipedia policy in the same manner. I am also concerned with the exact reasons why Spartaz feels this is NOT BLP issues and violations. He had me post all my exact and specific concerns and then just blew them off in a single post the same way Dualus has in talk page discussions. I go to his talk page and I perceive hand holding by this admin for the editor in question. Taking such care to guide one editor and then demanding exacting information from another seems to be a perception problem on my side so I have no choice but give him (Spartaz) the benefit of doubt. I wish he would extend that same courtesy to me. I have followed the direction of that administrator by posting at the talk page of that article. I have delivered the threats from the red link editor to another admin and I have also included an unsolicited e-mail from another editor that seems to show Dualus attempting to get one editor to work for him. I already have a phone number left to me in a legal threat against Wikipedia of the supposed editor. I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation use it. OTRS the guy and go from there. He has made accusations in that spam against individuals. What else do you need? Dualus repeats these accusations by this editor without public Wiki permission by the editor. I realize this proves nothing. But it is more evidence against Dualus than he has to prove any accusations he has made against others.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, with all due respect, you had me give specific reasons why I feel these are BLP issues. Now please give your equally specific reasons why you think they are not. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kai Chen Qiu

Can someone take a quick look at the edit history of Kai Chen Qiu and then delete it? It's a hoax page, but the number of new editors working on it may indicate sock puppetry. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just been deleted, but it might be worth checking on the socking issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a good chance there's meat in those socks, but nonetheless this was a good block. Typical bored schoolkid nonsense. The autoblock that's been added should put an end to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one Kaichen Qiu Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering User:Edgar181 deleted Kai Chen Qiu, it seems fairly obvious where User:Edgar131 got their name. From the edit history, the autoblock doesn't seem to have helped with the socks. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

See also:

• Seed1734 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fanboy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

- Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to involve other articles now, see the 3 edits of 203.51.55.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) that I reverted. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pembury Hospital

Resolved

Not an issue after all.

Pembury Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not sure, but I think I've messed up on this one. The Pembury Hospital article was originally at that title. Another editor boldly moved it the The Tunbridge Wells Hospital (which is what the NHS Trust calls it). I G6'd the original title and then moved The Tunbridge Wells Hospital back to Pembury Hospital (per WP:COMMONNAME). However, in doing so I appear to have lost most of the edit history of the original article. Would another admin kindly look into this and sort out anything that needs sorting out? Apologies for the mess. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything's fine: I can see all the history at the Pembury Hospital page, and only the move at the TWH page. I suspect purging your cache would force the page to display the full history for you (that normally works for me when I have the same issue...) Bencherlite^Talk 08:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't work out why it wasn't showing, as I didn't think that what I did was incorrect. Hence my post here to check. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

When I tried to save an edit...

Resolved

 – The village stocks have a new member, buried in trout. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A flag went up saying... "Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

Rest assured, I have no edit war in Real Housewives of Beverly Hills...and how the heck does anyone have a user name of "Master of Puppets" and how the heck can someone interpose such a message when someone is editing?? Please someone figure this out...

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See this ( permalink ) for an explanation. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

and I'm guessing his username comes from Master of Puppets. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's good to assume good faith, even when someone flags your account, mistakes happen. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only offer my deepest apologies. Maintenance of an edit filter I was using for a test went awry, and it happened to save before I was finished with the regexes. I've lifted this and am terribly sorry to anybody it affected. m.o.p 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: I can guarantee that the filter was incorrectly programmed. Anything it flagged (which, in this case, was everything) was probably good content. m.o.p 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to dust off the village stocks it seems ;). Alexandria (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this was a genuine, if colossal error, corrected in seconds. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of a conversation on #wikipedia-en-admins that started "hey, did you know it's impossible to delete the Main Page?"... Black Kite (t) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh look what you've done, even the bots aren't happy now ;). HurricaneFan25 19:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wondered why 28bot was crying... 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me and I got the same notice, but just briefly. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to brag-ban MoP

I propose a six-month ban on bragging on the part of User:Master of Puppets. They claim to have broken Wikipedia, which is grandstanding of a magnitude not becoming of a regular administrator; as far as I know, such claims can only be made by bureaucrats. MoP may return to bragging if they survive six months without braggadocio or if they delete the main page during that period. Intermediate bragging will lead to a lengthening of the ban and a free cussword on MoPs talk page by the first fifty editors. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank people for understanding and making light of this situation - rest assured, it won't be happening again. Ever. m.o.p 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Two gifts for MOP:

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

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK...I am getting the sense of humor now...LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I seriously need to edit something that does not have the words "occupy" in it.....(that will probably help me take stuff less seriously...and improve articles I have abandoned over the last two weeks)--Amadscientist (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Collis Potter Huntington‎ birth date anonymous reversions

An anonymous user has made multiple reversions of the birth date in the Collis Potter Huntington‎ article, replacing a date that is supported by a reference and is the consensus previously reached on the article's talk page: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]

The anonymous user has indicated in edit summaries and on one of several talk pages no interest in discussing the subject or compromising. I'm not sure what else to do. Could someone take a look at this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the basic info here, I was part of the discussion to reach consensus on this topic back in 2007 (see the article's talk page). I was asked this week to take a look again. I haven't had a chance to do more thorough research yet; my first thought is to keep the original consensus since the new edits don't appear to me to add a strong enough reference to support the disputed date. Also, part of the original consensus was to show both dates in the article noting the references for both, and it appears that that part of the consensus has been disregarded by editors since then. Slambo (Speak) 04:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There really should be no date issue or problem with Mr. Huntington's birthday. I own a copy of Cerinda Evan's definative biography on Collis Potter Huntington (Collis Potter Huntington / by Cerinda W. Evans - complete in 2 volumes Publisher: Newport News, Va. : Mariners' Museum;(1954) ASIN: B0056PIFGU) as well as several other books on his life and times. In none of these references is there an issue with the birthdate, it is consistently given as (1821-10-22)October 22, 1821. It appears to me that the problem started with someone citing a website that shows tombstones and grave markers. However, I cannot find the date in question on the website listed as the source of the April date. Additionally behavior of these repeat edits including comments in the edit summaries including "does this look like my bothered face?" seem more like trolling to me than the work of a concerned revisionist. I have attempted to open dialog with the anonymous editor to no avail. Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your editor keeps changing IP, so I would imagine he is not even looking at his talkpage for any warnings. I have semi'd the article for two weeks, see if that slows him down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are You The Cow Of Pain?/Otto4711

The user was banned indefinitely (see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#User:Otto4711 - WP:ban proposal) but still edits under IP's and vandalizes Template:James Whale. Can we please make this stop?--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Crouch, Swale

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

As this proposal has strong (unanimous, actually) support, I'm closing it as "enacted": User:Crouch, Swale is formally banned by the community. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

This user is a massive sockpuppeteer and per the most recent actions, has no intent of quitting. Even impersonating banned user Scibaby. I therefore propose a full ban. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for whatever good it will do. Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support – He's banned in my book at least; I've already been reverting all his edits and deleting all his creations as of late, mainly because he knows he can. –MuZemike 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Doubt this will make much difference but they clearly deserved to be banned. Was involved in this at the beginning and then get distracted by writing a PhD thesis so hadn;t realised how bad this had got. Dpmuk (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, his disruption is not limited to mainspace, for example this inane move request. Kid needs to find something better to do with his life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We really shouldn't need the formal ban process, but since it's a good way officially to say "Goodbye" to a troublemaker, it's better that we do it. We definitely need to say "Goodbye". Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Ban is obvious but needed to assist removal of future disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Banned in my book too, but for what it's formally worth... WilliamH (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support For gross incompetence and liberal servings of WP:IDHT, disruption and worst of all, rampant socking. -Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support - Obviously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously unconstructive, they deserve to be banned. HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I actually feel quite disappointed to see this, as he has created several articles; but I assume that this new type of behaviour is not going to change, so I'll support. Minima© (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of those articles were from reading names off a map, so I don't think there's any loss. Polequant (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very little reason not to ban him. OIFA (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; I'm disappointed that it had to go this way (having had some interaction with their earliest edits) but I think that by this point a community ban has net benefit to wikipedia. We've gone far beyond the point where mentoring &c might be viable. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Didn't realise they were still around, and I thought they were already banned. Not that it will make much difference really. Polequant (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. With 400+ socks, this user obviously needs to be banned. WikiPuppies! (bark) 20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User talk:MrRhythm

Hello all,

On 23 October, User talk:MrRhythm started changing the GDP nominal and PPP rankings in the infobox for the United Kingdom. The accepted, long-standing values of 6th and 7th are linked from the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) respectively, where they are sourced from the World Bank, IMF, and CIA Factbook. MrRhythm is changing the values based on his own analysis of the 2011 British census. However, doing this introduces conflict both within the article (as the former values are mentioned elsewhere in the article) and with the two GDP lists themselves, as items in the same list are being compared according to differing criteria. Both I and User:Rangoon11 reverted MrRhythm's edits over the next two days; I invited MrRhythm to the article talk page to discuss the changes.

MrRhythm did not respond in any fashion, continuing to insert his original research into the infobox. I then opened a discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, again inviting MrRhythm to participate. He did not participate there either, but he also stopped inserting his information into the article for several days, so I thought perhaps he had gotten the message.

At the DRN discussion, User:ItsZippy recommended that I bring the issue here, as the main issue wasn't a content dispute but disruptive editing. I informed MrRhythm of this.

Tonight, MrRhythm again inserted his original research without discussion, so maybe it is time to bring this here. I haven't looked at his other contributions outside of the UK article, but if you look at his contribution list, he doesn't appear to have ever used a talk page or an edit summary.

I hope an administrator knows the appropriate action to take. I have seen blocks given in the past to get the attention of uncommunicative editors; I don't know if that's the right solution, but I am open to ideas.

I'll be notifying MrRhythm of this thread immediately after posting it.

Thanks, NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

MrRhythm informed. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to give Mr. Rhythm a week-long block to work on their communication skills. The next admin who agrees may block; I won't be on for much longer. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is this an extreme over-reaction to one edit after an Oct. 25 warning? A revert and warning isn't enough? And if you look at this talk page, nobody has yet encouraged him to use edit summaries, nor specifically invited him to talk; he's a clueless newbie, that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Because the diffs I provide above where I link to my requests for him to engage on the article talk page and at DRN are clear evidence that no one has ever invited him to talk. And the two instances on his talk page requesting him to use the edit summary, including the one I left, proves that no one has ever asked him to use the edit summary. Poor newbie who's been editing since July. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 06:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see I did miss the invitations among the complaints. It's still an over-reaction. Dicklyon (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given MrRhythm a final warning not to edit war. I think it is telling that the user has not made a single edit to anywhere other than mainspace despite multiple warnings and invitations to discuss on their talk page. Northumbrian, I know you are making efforts to open a dialogue, but you too are edit warring here and should proceed with caution. You would be better served seeking more opinions on the content, such as notifying a relevant wikiproject or opening a RFC. SpinningSpark 11:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted SS, I know I was getting close to the edge; that's why I went to DRN and finally here. Thanks for the advice and the final warning to MrRhythm. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 14:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rhythm has a method, and it's not particularly effective at all times :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Or he could be a Neil Peart fan - see track 11. Ravensfire (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dicklyon Sorry if my reply seemed snarky. I wasn't asking for a block, just noting that I'd seen admins give them in the past in similar circumstances. Though on further reflection, beyond trying to get the user to communicate on the talk page, there probably isn't much an admin can do that a non-admin can't short of a block. At any rate, the user has several hundred edits since June, engages in original research, and does not communicate. While it might be in slow motion, and he seems to be flying under the radar for the most part as, before his UK changes, his edits have not really been challenged on his talk page, it is disruptive editing, and this does seem to be the correct venue for that. I think the final warning given is a good next step, actually, because blocks should be a last resort. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 19:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A mess I don't know how to fix

Saifullah Abro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has redirected their user page to Saifullah Abro (which, in one of its previous versions, appears to be a lark or hoax) and redirected their user talk to the article's talk page. The user has been attempting to blank the article page and has removed CSD tags from the article which I placed before becoming aware of the totality of the quagmire. I don't know how to proceed. Best of luck. Tiderolls 06:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I will not be leaving a message informing Saifullah Abro of this post as I have no freaking idea where it will land.

I just moved it back to user space, where it came from. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not able to move his user talk page back. Dicklyon (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. User and user talk page move protected, so he won't be doing that again in a hurry. Bencherlite^Talk 08:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there's still some cleanup work to be done, though. Our young friend Saifullah Abro is also:

• Saifullah Abro Kamario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saifullah1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You can observe the truth of that assertion re the "Kamario" account just by comparing its edit history to that of the Saifllah Abro account if you're not already completely convinced by the closeness of the account names. Look especially at the first edit for each: We've certainly seen this person before.

And I likewise assert that the user account Saifullah1012 represents the same person as user Saifullah Abro. For example, compare this version of Saifullah Abro's user page to this version of Saifullah1012's user page: They're nearly identical.

I'm too lazy to file an SPI when the quacking is this obvious: At least two of the three accounts this person has used can certainly be blocked on quacking grounds. Given the history we've had with this person, I'd say that it'd be fine to go ahead and block all three accounts, actually, i.e. to block the Saifullah1012 account as well, and see if he shows up on the talk page for any of them to request unblock.

And since the first edit of the "Kamario" account leads me to suspect this person has created an eponymous article previously - I can't see any previous deletions beyone the most recent one, not being an admin - I'd suggest that salting Saifullah Abro in mainspace might be needed, as well.

Finally if there happens to be an itinerant checkuser lurking about the premises, it would be a mercy to run these accounts with a possible view toward discovering more socks. I say so because as I was composing this, I just found what I think is another probable sock, based on behavioral factors, but I'm not inclined to disclose the account name at present, given my lesser degree of certainty on that one.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a checkuser, and this sort of thing should really be ironed out at SPI, that's what it's there for. For what it's worth, Saifullah1012 is  Stale, and when accounts doing this behaviour step out of the ether, it's easy and obvious to whack. WilliamH (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find that response very counterproductive, and your "stale" observation re one of the accounts wholly irrelevant. I'm not being glib and I intend no disrespect, but absolutely no one who frequents this board and who actually looks at the evidence above will doubt that these three accounts represent the same person. Given that, I see no reasonable or permissable basis for keeping all three available to a person whose behavior has already caused a deal of trouble. Why do you think this person should be allowed access to three accounts that obviously don't qualify as legitimate alternates?

Also, you say "it's easy and obvious" to whack accounts like this when they call attention to themselves at some future date, but that's not necessarily so, based on what I've seen previously at SPI. If the person uses shared school computers, for example, or one at school and a different one at home, and just one or two of these accounts causes trouble at the same time in the future, are you completely sure you'd be aware of all three? If not, why should someone else have to spend the time to track down the connection among them a second time when it's obvious now that this is the same person? At the very least allowing one person to maintain three accounts in this way interferes with scrutiny, even if the accounts aren't used at the same time, e.g. to !vote in the same AfD.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, if an account is stale that means the data that can be used to determine a technical match isn't there. (Checkusers only keep data for so long.) It has no bearing on a behavioral match. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, I didn't say that I doubt these three accounts are the same person, and that they should be allowed to use multiple accounts abusively. What I said was entirely relevant: the server logs that are retrieved by checkuser are not stored for an indefinite amount of time, therefore checking Saifullah1012 will retrieve nothing whatsoever. I agree with you entirely that these accounts belong to the same person and should be blocked. If you'd prefer to be more discreet about other accounts you think might be linked, feel free to e-mail me, but from my perspective of just these three and no others, there is no reason to investigate a technical link among accounts where it is a) already obvious or b) impossible to establish. Technical data can change, but problematic behaviour is always problematic. WilliamH (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, WilliamH, and thanks for clarifying; I'm sorry I misunderstood your post. Yes, I knew what "stale" means in the context, btw, but thought that recourse to the logs of the two accounts that aren't stale might turn up the other accounts I was thinking of as potentially related, without my having to risk the potential drama of a mistaken accusation. But your suggestion of e-mail is a better alternative, anyway; thanks for offering. I've now taken you up on that suggestion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion in userspace

Hi. It's not an earthshaking matter, but can someone please figure out what should be done with these two userspace pages? Note they appear to belong to different user accounts but not different users, as I presume, and that the first account appears (?) to have been created with a forward slash embedded in the name. Not going to notify either account immediately, since I don't want to create any pages to do so, which would complicate matters at this point, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They're both the same user. The first is a subpage. From reading his talk page I'm wondering if he may be trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for others to submit photos to his website. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the most intelligent post I've ever made, I find, Ron. "Created with a forward slash embedded in the name", indeed! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm wondering if the pope might be Catholic! Obvious violation of wikipedia's purpose. An admin needs to indef the user and delete those pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:174.51.189.153

Anonymous editor 174.51.189.153 (talk · contribs) continues to make edits at New World Translation that take one source out of context and ignore other available sources provided at Talk. The editor continues to revert, and refuses to engage in discussion at Talk or User Talk. The User has previously been blocked by User:Dougweller for 24 hours for this, but persists. I and User:BlackCab have both tried to engage the editor at Talk.

• Talk:New_World_Translation#Douay
• Editing history of NWT article

Because of the editor's persistence and refusal to discuss, I request that the editor be blocked permanently.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has been asked several times to discuss the issue but ignores the request. He or she has no interest in collaboration and despite being blocked for ignoring warnings has returned to the same behaviour. A longer block or a permanent block seems reasonable. BlackCab (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for a response from the IP, but I expect a block will be forthcoming. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why won't an article semi-protect work? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protect sounds reasonable. It appears the editor is now editing from another IP (possibly a friend's place - WHOIS confirms both IPs are in Colorado, US), as modus operandi of this edit is a continuation of the same behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I agree with that suggestion. An IP block clearly will do nothing to stop his behaviour; a semi-protect could slow him down. BlackCab (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the article has had to be protected before. Semi'd for a month. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of process category deletions by admin who refuses to back down

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

category restored and taken to CfD. --Jayron32 00:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Here, User:Stemonitis, an admin who rather prides himself on pushing the boundaries of WP:IAR, has deleted two categories, and despite complaints by four editors has refused to restore them & take it to CFD, and do anything other than argue that he is right. I have no view on the issue at all (turtle taxons), but process should be followed in the area of deletion above all. Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You may (or may not) have a valid complaint, but this is the wrong noticeboard to raise it. Go to WP:DRV. --Jayron32 23:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

While the deletions themselves would normally be disputed at DRV, I think the central question here is whether or not Stemonitis abused his tools by carrying out these controversial deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't tool abuse something which is debated here? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard we admins are a bunch of tools, and we're abused all the time ... :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I'll throw in the rather old behaviour that left his talk page on my watchlist. That didn't involve admin tools, but I don't think a person who persists with this attitude should be an admin. Flouting policy and processes is one thing, but what is remarkable is the way he refuses, in both cases, to see anything at all wrong with his behaviour, throughout a lengthy discussion. User_talk:Stemonitis/Archive34#Ancient_Roman_Pottery\Part 1 and, after I reverted, part 2. Can none of you have a word with him? Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why CfD wasn't used rather than IAR--it seems to me that the latter should be the exception, and waiting a couple of days for a category to be deleted wouldn't destroy the project. I agree with Lothar's comment on Stemonitis's talk page, that admin tools shouldn't have been used here. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not dispute resolution. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of how monophyletic taxa should be classified, that doesn't change the fact that the process of how this was done is completely wrong. Stemonitis' actions of removing cats from the articles and then deleting the categories is something that I can somewhat put in good faith as being normal editing. But the moment that another user disagreed with the deletion was the moment that he should have restored them and taken them to CfD. His argument for Ignore All Rules in that discussion is completely inaccurate and a mockery of the IAR policy, weakening its use and how it's meant to be used altogether. This is an unacceptable stance for an admin to be taking in regards to an action where he utilized his admin tools. Silverseren^C 07:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have responded in more detail on my own talk page. The two categories specifically mentioned have been restored and are now at CfD. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Ramanatruth just totally vandalized the Advaita Vedanta page AGAIN

Ramanatruth just totally vandalized the Advaita Vedanta page AGAIN. This was discussed yesterday.72.92.11.179 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They have now been notified at User talk:Ramanatruth. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 17:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Any username with "truth" in its name is usually headed for the exit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not put one of those "semi-protected" lock on the page? All and all the weird views of Ramanatruth are almost entertaining. The Bhagavad Gita being written in 3000 BCE, almost made me spit up my orange juice in laughter. 72.92.11.179 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why we don't just block editors with "truth" in their username on sight? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A little thing called WP:AGF. Although I agree they often turn out to be problematic users, their name itself is not the actual problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a serious suggestion, more a comment on a pattern I've noticed in my 1 1/2 years. I should have appended an emoticon to the end, I suppose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So, the reporting user needs to brush up on what the definition of vandalism is. This is a content dispute. Why is there no discussion on the talk page? Why are we going straight to ANI without trying to discuss this directly with the user? Page fully protected for four days to give you both a chance to handle this the right way instead of the wrong way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

From Ramana Truth

CONTENT DISPUTE IS NOT VANDALISM

I have spent years learning and practicing Advaita Vendanta. If you have content disputes with my edits lets discuss. Why should you guys block me. I am new to wikipedia but will add references to validate all my content. I want to make sure Advaita Vedanta is represented right in Wikipedia.

Advaita philosophy , the concept that "Brahman is all that is", is mentioned in the Hindu Holy book, the Bhagavad Gita which predates the birth of Buddha.

Ancient texts that talk about Advaita Vedanta

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/bookstallsales/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=128_129

Advaita Vedanta is the central tenet of Hinduism. Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi led the Hindu renaissance by explicitly taking about Advaita Philosophy to bring the Indian population back to Hinduism, when Buddhism was spreading in India.

Why cant I reference the works of Ramana Maharshi in the recommended read section or the body of Advaita Vedanta?

I request you to have a dialogue to make sure that the Advaita Vedanta is represented right.

Reporting edited content as vandalism prematurely without discussion defeats the spirit of an open encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanatruth (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve the content dispute itself, you should be doing that at Talk:Advaita Vedanta. That's why the page is now protected from editing, to give those who had been revert warring a chance to discuss the issue instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

At Talk:Tenerife airport disaster#ATC Error?!, by HistoryBuff14 (talk · contribs) and his IP 199.191.108.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Namely stating criticism of the Spanish Controllers constitutes Libel. At any rate, even if it isn't a legal threat, he's chosen to soapbox with WP:OR on the talk page of at least two articles, and has received talk page warnings about this on his named account. I chose to collapse his OR post on the Tenerife article but he chose to revert this, deleting my post in the process. I reverted this and he then reverted me but left my post intact this time. As I like to adhere to WP:1RR wherever possible, I've decided to leave it for now. My invitation to discuss the issue on his IP talk page has gone unanswered. N419BH 18:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

--Please see my recent note on your talk page regarding one of your points. This is entirely a misunderstanding that is my fault alone. Regarding my libel warning, I stand by that. Neither the Spanish nor American investigative reports blame ATC for the accident. The Pan Am copilot also entriely cleared ATC of any culpabilty for the tragedy. Only the Dutch report did, and I don’t feel it necessary to spell out the reasons why this report should be viewed in a most dubious manner. In any event, KLM ultimately did assume sole responsibility for the tragedy. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding regarding my editing your remarks. I actually agree with your edit.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've left HistoryBuff14 a little note on his talkpage about the libel thing (it's the Dutch report he's saying is libellous, not N419), explaining why it can be misunderstood.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet Another Backlog

Hey All, there is a backlog at WP:RPP, if a couple admins could take a look, it would be appreciated. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

jeez, it's been like this all week. What gives? everybody is off doing CSD, which hasn't been backlogged at all lately. I'll take a crack at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

CSD's been backlogged whenever I've looked at it. Must all be whacking vandals. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

List of amateur radio organizations

List_of_amateur_radio_organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 88.2.226.36 (talk · contribs)

Earlier, there was a dispute/edit-war on this page, with an IP user repeatedly trying to split off the Catalonia radio-station into its own section - the article is organized by countries, and Catalonia is not defined as such.

I reported that an edit-war, and after trying the start discussions, 109.69.9.10 (talk · contribs) was blocked. It looks like the same user may now be back under a new IP address (the 88. shown at the top).  Chzz  ►  21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The article it links to, Unió de Radioaficionats de Catalunya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created a few days ago by Ea3wr (talk · contribs) - and that user has also made the same change to the list article.  Chzz  ►  22:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else hear a loud quacking sound from the IPs and Ea3wr? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. I've blocked the other IP for edit warring and semi protected List of amateur radio organizations for 14 days, in the hope that the editor might start discussing things. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems somebody didn't read the text above the "Save Page" button about irrevocable contributions.... [87] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Textorus and insulting people at WP:RD/H

Can someone at least warn User:Textorus that he shouldn't insult other users' questions like he did here? --Belchman (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Gimme a break. Or a template that says Administrative action declined. Are you new to that noticeboard? Conversations often go off on tangents like that - it's part of the fun. You had your answer given perfectly civilly, and within a very short time of posting. What more do you want? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus seems to be in a cranky mood today. In the thread immediately above the one referenced here I've had "HiLo, it's like you are being deliberately obtuse and disruptive here" when I've been my most diplomatic self, a very sarcastic post about calling Hilary Clinton, and an Edit summary of "grow up buddy". I'm neither surprised nor personally upset that some editors find Israel topics a little confronting. But it's not a nice look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading that thread, you do rather come across as if you already know the answer that you want to hear. Although you may not have intended to sound like that, it is very annoying when someone does it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If I have been at fault (and that does sometimes occur ;-) ) it would have been be more in the form of rejecting answers I didn't think much of, and I did try to explain why. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note Belchman has been blocked for a truly undedifying comment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I do note that Belchman needs to develop thicker skin, if Textorus comment was worth coming here to start an ANI thread Belchman's follow on comment was well beyond the pale. If someone capable of making a comment like that can't handle Textorus's mild chiding, then I don't know where he can be helped... --Jayron32 01:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Belchman's conduct coming here and then posting that comment (twice by reinstating it after it was reverted) is truly bizarre. And, from reading subsequent comments he made on his Talk page, he clearly doesn't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The OP usually confines his gripes about other ref desk editors to the ref desk talk page. I'm surprised he took it this far, especially as the comment he was griping about here was pretty tame, and was simply a reaction to Belchman's lecturing. I note he was also taken to the ref desk talk page about this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, the AN/I boomerang should be made of Nth metal or something considering how often it gets used. And given Belchman's comments on his talk page since the block, I sense an indef rapidly approaching with zero loss to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Star Parker

Just a heads-up - the March 2011 deletion of Star Parker has been highlighted by a high-traffic conservative/libertarian blog. Comments are starting to show up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Star Parker and elsewhere. Personally I think the deletion may have been a bad idea - Parker is certainly well-known in conservative political circles - but my knowledge of her doesn't breach the threshold of being able to recreate the article. Kelly ^hi! 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was moved to incubation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Star Parker. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've speedily closed an IP's DRV request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 5 and pointed any visitors to the incubator.  Sandstein  08:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And also semiprotected the article for a week, with relevant links in the summary; there's been one recreation already.  Sandstein  09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ramanatruth a socket puppet for Indefinitely Blocked Pri-ya_chen

Resolved: No match. m.o.p 05:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Ramanatruth is a socket puppet for permanently banned editor Pri-ya_chen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pri-ya_chen72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For example look here72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Very few people who know the background of this situation are reading this noticeboard. For the sake of being able to respond to your concerns, could you post edits from both acounts which show evidence that the samed person is operating them. You have only posted an edit from the older, now blocked, account. If you could post something from both accounts we could compare the evidence. --Jayron32 04:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the latest insertion of similar Ramana material HERE, scroll down. Notice that the username is "Ramanatruth" for additional evidence. 72.92.115.251 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The username itself isn't really much evidence, but this is worth checking out. m.o.p 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Users do not match each other. Looks like these are just two different people sharing the same point of view. m.o.p 05:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Kolins and nationality categories

Kolins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) insists on removing valid categories relating to footballer nationality from numerous articles, despite community consensus stating that what he is doing is wrong. I have tried to talk to about it multiple times (check his talk page for a number of threads about it), yet he continues to make these edits, even after the consensus was re-affirmed. What is the best way forward? A topic ban? I don't really want to suggest a block, as he is otherwise a decent editor. GiantSnowman 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps WikiProbation would suffice? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What on earth is that? 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. User:ChocolateWolf mentioned it to me, but I have no idea what it is. Maybe monitering him so that, if he makes such an edit again, ha shall be blocked. Ask Chocolatewolf. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Olaf, I think you should leave your roommates and other imaginary entities out of it. If you want to contribute to ANI, bring something useful to the table--not this or the usual sock allegations. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, not a vandal per se. But is this behaviour decent, after the pertinent WP:FOOTY discussions, of which he has been notified by Snowman and myself? His subsequent response has been "yes yes, reach all the consensus you want - we HAVE - i don't care"! Not very decent is it? Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Snowman, I am sorry, but in looking at that discussion I do not see a real clear consensus on what to do, let alone a clear condemnation of the editor's actions. I will say that their unexplained removals are disruptive, there is no doubt about that, but given that you all aren't looking for a block that's really neither here nor there. I think you could try the following: in a subsection, below, lay out your case clearly and concisely with a proposed topic ban (even if that's not what you necessarily want--you kind of have to do something like that given that this is ANI, and so you're asking for admin intervention). Phrase it clearly and preciserly, though, since that discussion at FOOTY:TALK was far from clear. Drop a line to all the editors who participated there and maybe place a note on the FOOTY talk page, and see what comes out. (My guess is, unfortunately, not much--but if you want to accomplish anything you'll need editorial input and clarity on the categories.) Good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice Drmies, I am currently at work but when I have enough free time (tonight/tomorrow) I will do as you have suggested. GiantSnowman 13:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Some disruptions just take more time to handle than others. This, unfortunately, is one of these, because we're not dealing with a simple vandal, because they're not communicating, and because the very terms of the discussion (see Eldumpo's comment below and your link to TALK:FOOTY) lack clarity. Sorry Snowman. There's just little anyone here can do (I mean, with our special admin tools.) Drmies (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think there needs to be some high-level guidance on what information should be included for nationality, including a definition of the word itself. I started a thread on this issue at [88] although it has not had that much input. If matters were sorted at a higher level then we could start to deal with how 'footballing nationality' fits in. Eldumpo (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Snowman says...

OK, I'll try to be as brief but detailed (you know what I mean!) as possible. Nationality transfers happen in association football/soccer all the time. This player switched from Germany to Ghana, this player is going from England to Nigeria, this player from Cameroon to Burkino Faso - and that's just news from one website in the past two days! However, just because you change footballing nationality does not mean that you lose your previous nationality - you are still legally a citizen of both countries. Kolins, however, disagree with this common sense approach. Imagine the following scenarios:

• A player born in Venezuela but raised in Spain, who represented Spain at junior level, and Venezuela at senior level. Surely he is both Spanish and Venezuelan then? Not according to Kolins for this player or this player.
• A player born + raised in Spain, but who represented Equatorial Guinea at international level. Surely he remains Spanish, the country of his birth, the country where he grew up? Not according to Kolins for this player or this player or this player or this player...

I hope you get the point I am trying to make here - just because you are able, due to a fluke of heritage/partentage/whatever, represent a "new" nation at international sports does NOT mean that you suddenly "lose" your old nationality. GiantSnowman 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the principle you're showing above, in particular that you don't lose your original 'nationality' just because you play for another national association. But I don't believe this approach is necessarily agreed by all at Footy (some believe you can only have one 'nationality'), and to be fair to Kollins, these rules are not to my knowledge set out anywhere. Really all these categories should have text at the start explaining the inclusion criteria for the category and including wiki links, in order to try and clarify what is acceptable.Eldumpo (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And I understand where they are coming from, but what about players who have played senior international football for two nations, such as Ricky Shakes or Jermaine Jones? GiantSnowman 12:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the main question is the extent to which we do use a guideline/policy to steer us, or whether we simply report what reliable sources say. If you look at the sources at Jones' article his nationality/country is dealt with in a variety of different ways. I like the way NFT clarify matters by separately listing place of birth and national team. We need to consider what Wiki articles our 'nationality' comments point to. That's why flags can be a problem - they provide no context as to what the flag means.Eldumpo (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel we're getting slightly off topic here with talk of flags etc. - this is an issue regarding categories, and one editor's particular edits. GiantSnowman 13:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy4me - disruptive editing? (moved from AIV)

• Easy4me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – vandalism after many many warnings. RadioFan (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. The corrections I'm looking at seem to be accurate rather than subtle vandalism. If I'm wrong, can you provide some diffs? Swarm ^X 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This editor has a consistent history of making seemingly random edits, primarily in music articles and often around release dates, without edit summaries and without references. Hard to tell if they are accurate or not without refs. Without something to identify what they are doing here, if just the occasional edit summary, it's seen as vandalism.--RadioFan (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's disruptive editing to me, since malicious intent cannot be inferred but standard editorial procedures are being demonstrably ignored. Still blockable. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this here from AIV, as it seems to be either a user lacking some clue or a malicious slow-moving vandal. I'm of the opinion that the user is just attempting to help, as evidenced by their interactions with editors who have warned them: see [89], [90]. Of course, some more eyes would be nice.
All editors involved in the discussion and Easy4me have been notified by myself. m.o.p 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, if an editor is making good-faith (even if obviously incorrect) edits but ignores attempts to discuss, and starts getting warned to stop, then they ought to be blocked if they continue. I have not yet read the contribs and I don't know if that's what's happened here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well feel free to read the contribs and share your thoughts; I scanned some, and I see nothing to suggest this user isn't acting in good faith, much less vandalizing. It's not easy to tell, though, so I agree that a review is justified. Swarm ^X 11:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I swear I'm not trying to vandalize or anything like that. I'm just a regular editor like you guys. I just keep forgeting to put something in the edit summary and I don't know when to mark it as a minor edit. Also, about the single release dates... I'm going by what the song pages say they were released. If you say that they are incorrect, edit those song pages. Plus, I've never contributed to discussion pages and need some info on that. I hope you guys can understand. Thanks and keep editing! :) Easy4me (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if any facts you introduce into articles are incorrect to us, but you think they're correct, this is what you need to do. Again, although you seem not to be disruptive, I have viewed your edit history and saw some factual errors repeatedly being made. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You also seem to make some edits which are basically changing something, then changing back, which can be known as editing for a high article account to game the system. --Bryce Wilson | talk 14:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I sorta see what you mean. Yes, occasionally I do make factual errors and I notice them like two minutes later and undo them. It may be a force of habit. I have ADHD. Sorry for those edits I make sometimes. Easy4me (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor regularly make factual errors, sometimes reverting them, sometimes not, doesn't cite sources and repeatedly misuse the "minor" edit check box. After a raft of warnings, we now hear the editor is unable to correct these problems. If all of this is true, I know of only one way to fix this. Any other ideas? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• SummerPhD, you're asking for a competence block? Drmies (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it, I'm suggesting that the facts presented seem to leave no other option and asking if I've missed anything. (But yeah, my reference may have been more than a bit vague.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go there yet. I've just checked his edits since he posted here, and haven't found a problematic one yet. We've established that he's cross checking the information between articles, he's now using edit summaries at least when he remembers, and he's fixing a lot of bad wikilinks to boot. I think we should cut him some slack.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that no action need be taken, yet. If this edit can slow down and edit more carefully, I think all will be well in the end. If this editor continues to fail to cite material added to articles or (worse) introduce incorrect information, then some action is warranted.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer

• - Enough said here. The AfD has been closed and some comments have been written to avoid missinterpretation. --Tone 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved: Discussion closed. m.o.p 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have reverted m.o.p.'s close of this AN/I discussion. As what is being complained about is m.o.p.'s own early close of an afd he should not also be the one to say that we have discussed the matter here successfully. (I've notified m.o.p.) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming increasingly overrun by bad faith and bad behavior. At this point it seems to me that the thing is going to get kept at least and likely merged. I would invited some disinterested administrator to step in and close the thing and save the lives of countless innocent electrons. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That sure was an interesting discussion to read. Closed as keep. m.o.p 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The closure was premature: AfDs are supposed to run for 7 days, and there was still extensive discussion going on. I also consider Master of Puppets' closing statement to be inadequate, as he/she has clearly not read the comments, and seems to have just 'voted'. Still, whatever - if Wikipedia wants to publish adverts for snake-oil salesmen and hucksters, and pretend to be an 'encyclopaedia' there's not much I can do about it. Frankly, I'm getting fed up with all the infantile "it's notable!" arguments here anyway. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is notable too - but I don't see that as a reason to contribute to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to close a truly controversial afd as keep or delete early. It inevitably results in either a reversal of the close, or a move of it to DelRev, followed almost always by another afd. {Closing a disruptive AfDas no-consensus with the intent of having it immediately relisted from the start is another matter, and might have been a satisfactory solution). Myself, I have no fixed view of the underlying issue: on the one hand I think it worth an article; on the other, the article as it stands is unabashedly promotional, and a good case could be made for deletion and start over by an uninvolved editor. As for reverting the close on the AfDI do not wish to do that after having first reverted the close on the AN/I, but I certainly think someone should do so. I assume it will get to Del Rev eventually, but there should be a full 7-day proper discussion first. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Master of Puppets' closure of the AFD was correct, IMO, but I agree that two days early is pushing it too far. Both DGG and I have not participated in the AFD. I would say that if one other uninvolved editor believes the same and posts it, the closure should be undone. NW (Talk) 01:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw it as more of one day early, but I guess that's rounding up down a bit too much. Either way, I'm OK with re-opening it if people feel that the premature close misrepresented consensus or that two more days will result in a different outcome.

Also, DGG, feel free to revert the close yourself if you think it's too controversial, since reverting the resolution notice effectively means nothing (given that the concern was raised after I had marked this as resolved). m.o.p 01:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Now what happens? We have an AfD with no notice on the article, and a large number of contributors presumably thinking the issue is resolved, and unlikely to contribute further. We also have offensive racist remarks etc in the 'discussions' - which was the reason the AfD was brought up here in the first place, though this seems to have been forgotten in the rush to close it. This has turned into an utter farce - and this AfD is undoubtedly being watched by outsiders, given the way they happily source their material from it (some are even honest enough to acknowledge this). Whatever happens now, we are going to look stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We let the AfD run its course and close it as appropriate? That's standard procedure, at least. m.o.p 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No. 'Standard procedure' wouldn't have involved a premature close - and does 'standard procedure' involve reverting a closure, and then not letting anyone know? While you are here, how about an apology? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it might be worth while to add a notice to the AfD so editors understand why it was re-opened. I had to go to ANI to find out. Not every editor has ANI on their watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And presumably you wouldn't have known about it yourself if I hadn't pointed this out on the article talk page? Frankly, this looks to me like an admin making a mistake, and then not having the decency to clear up the resulting mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally closed the AfD due to flaring emotions and a good sense of consensus being built - something I felt was more important than waiting two days for people to tear at each others' throats. Since people were opposed to this, and I agreed to revert, I'm not sure what more you'd like me to do. It's not like people won't be able to see the AfD now that it's been re-opened. It's still listed on the main AfD pages. Users can still comment on it as they would normally. m.o.p 05:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many of the 'new contributors' to Wikipedia that the AfD has attracted are going to be looking at 'the main AfD pages'? Why was it left to me to have to notify people on the appropriate pages? As for what you 'felt', I suggest you think more, and rely on your feelings less. If there are 'flaring emotions', do you really think they can be made to go away by arbitrarily ignoring due process? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Veiled insults are not useful when it comes to communicating. I apologize if you've been led to think differently. Also, I've already said that I stand by my close - I'm not quite sure why you keep asking me to verify my intent. m.o.p 07:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I rarely veil my insults. And what has you 'standing by your close' got to do with the fact that nobody saw fit to indicate in an appropriate place that it had been overturned? And is anyone going to do anything about the racist remarks that led to the AfD being raised here in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Then you'll understand if I point you towards this policy. As for proper places and indication - I'm still not sure what you expect. A banner informing everybody about the change? A message on every user's page? Reversion of the closing actions is just fine. m.o.p 07:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Zedshort (talk · contribs) made that personal attack and has been warned explicitly by Drmies.[91] This was followed by a discussion on Drmies' talk page.[92] Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To me the issue here isn't a personal attack, but rather the use of racial stereotyping. The discussion on Drmies' talk page largely consisted of Zedshort defending the statement as 'funny', and reiterating the stereotype. The gist of what was said is that all Germans are genetically predetermined to be obsessed with rules (and by inferrence are Nazis). I am German and find the comment on Teutonic people totally unacceptable, and Zedshort should at the very least apologize for this statement. I also don't appreciate constantly being labelled as AndyTheGrump's sock- or meatpuppet by Zedshort. (I've discussed this with Zedshort and am satified that he did not mean it in this way) On the AfD, I totally agree with m.o.p's close as keep, as the discussion had completely deteriorated, and even when ignoring the single-purpose comments, the overall consensus (to me) seemed to be a keep. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly not veiling your insults or veiling your swearing on the Afd page :) I've suggested that you try to be more civil and stop posting thinly veiled sarcasm (thinly veiled by using the term 'magic teapot', and other derogatory phrases, and then striking them out). Can't you express yourself in a less inflammatory way? Yes, someone upset you, but surely you've learned as most of us have that posting immediate responses can make the situation worse? Diplomacy is (usually) better than aggression! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmccc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reversion of the closing actions is just fine"? Really. So leaving the reopened AfD invisible to people who look at the article is 'just fine' is it? It looks more like an attempt to sweep an error under the carpet to me. As for the 'teapot' comments, you clearly aren't aware of the background and, need to look into the history of this - I had a long debate with a contributor who wished to include a discussion of the teakettle metaphor in cold fusion, and its relevance to the E-Cat, based entirely on WP:OR. In the AfD I've been accused of sockpuppetry, and subject to racist abuse. The AfD itself has been a total mess, with off-Wikipedia canvassing for votes, and comments based on nothing but OR or pure wishful thinking (not to mention the highly-suspect !votes of many 'new contributors'), and crazy conspiracy theories raked up to show alleged 'censorship'. Yes, I used a swear word in a response to the 'contributor' who seemed to think that implying I was a Nazi (or whatever) was appropriate for the discussion, whereas actually justifying his arguments wasn't. All for the sake of an article that any objective assessment will see violates WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTPROMOTION and almost every other Wikipedia policy. If WP:CIVIL (not WP:NPA, "how the fuck" isn't a personal attack) is more important than article content (and the reputation of Wikipedia - this is a highly-visible article, clearly being used as a source by 'journalists') then my behaviour was wrong. Or more likely, I'm wasting my time here, and Wikipedia is nothing more than a blog/webhost for dubious 'science' with all the credibility of magic beans - or magic teapots - run by individuals with a murky past and a knack of manipulating credulous journalists. Of course, we can pretend that this is none of our concern, and ignore the fact that our E-Cat article is being exploited to give this 'device' credibility. Or rather, you can. I can't. It looks like I'm in the wrong place. Since Wikipedia seems to consider 'anyone can edit' more important than 'an encyclopaedia' (rather than an advertising space for hucksters) I should probably leave you to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of the closing actions would include reverting any removal of the AFD listing on the article. If this was not done earlier, this is unfortunate, but if you noticed, just do it yourself like you did and if you feel it necessary, remind people it needs to be done. No need to get in to a big huff about it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a good, long read of this. Aside from that, I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you, nor will I feed your fires any further, as it's not being productive in the least. If you've got any questions after the AfD has been closed again, feel free to ask. m.o.p 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• proposal. Because of the Afd procedure was first closed and then reopened, I propose to keep the procedure open for other 10 days in order to be 100% sure to thoroughly discuss all the matters involved in a proper way.--79.24.132.112 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We've already had thorough discussion about our thorough discussion. Leaving the AfD open past seven days seems a bit excessive. I'll leave it open for a few extra hours to accommodate the time it was closed; after that, consensus will be re-evaluated and we'll be done with things. m.o.p 03:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope that you aren't intending to close it yourself? That would hardly seem appropriate in the circumstances. I like your optimism though: "done with things"? I doubt it. The hucksters are still there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's inappropriate about it. The only stated problem with my first close was that it was premature. This one will be at the seven day mark. And, let me assure you, I'm not biased by having closed it once. Of course, there's the whole 'involved admin' thing, but I think citing that is ridiculous when I'm ruling over a subject I have no knowledge of and can only judge the consensus of the community. Maybe I'll invoke my right to rouge. ;) m.o.p 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, let me assure you that I consider it utterly inappropriate. You have prematurely closed an ongoing AfD, gone out of your way to avoid drawing attention to the fact, refused to apologise for your error, and now seem intent on pretending it never happened. You are involved - in covering up your own errors. I suggest you think again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, and the input appreciated. Given that ANI is the tenth-most watchlisted page on Wikipedia, I find any assertion that I'm avoiding attention a bit laughable. Anyway, I'm done here. Feel free to reach me on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The AFD was closed by Tone but just as a note, while I don't agree it would be inappropriate, I do feel it would have been inadvisable. There is clearly a lot of ill-feeling on all sides and I don't see any reason why it has to be you, so it was better just to let someone else do it to reduce further controversy given your earlier close. Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But... I like controversy. Just kidding. I've already used my one allotted rouge action for this month, anyway. m.o.p 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Flood (Men's rights)

Please add Michael Flood to your watchlists; it is a BLP which is the target of a number of men's rights activists who hold him, shall we say, in very low regard. So far the activity is limited to a number of talk pages and offsite discussion. I have added an article probation notice to the talk page but doubt that will have much effect unless it is clear that other admins are watching the situation closely. I myself have limited online time right now and cannot watch this with the attention it deserves. Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Flood is helping correct the article on the talk page. The article is very poor on biographical detail. Before 2008 he was a post-doctoral researcher at La Trobe University, funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. That is not in the article. He mentions on the talk page five main areas of research (where men's and fathers' rights has no particular prominence), but again that is hard to unravel from the current stub. Mathsci (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel is another BLP article that could do with some eyes, for similar reasons. I am already concerned about undue issues in the "reception" section, sourced to a Psychology Today blog. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• At some point an editor claiming to be Kimmell edited the article.[93] Very little of those edits survived. Mathsci (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnwhite99 continued deletion of Afd template after repeated warnings...

Resolved

I have submitted an article OpenDDR for deletion at Afd and Johnwhite99 keeps on removing the tag even after repeated warnings. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 15:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't removed it since he questioned it and you responded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it will stay that way. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and did anybody think of dropping a Welcome template, in order to assume they had complete ignorance of the rules?? I've done it now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

a vandal seems to be loose

Resolved

 – IP has stopped editing. AGK [•] 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

at Sand Creek massacre. I have to leave for work, but can someone here cause his (her?) computer to explode or something? Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the resolution noted above, this was garden variety vandalism by one IP, and although two editors, including Carptrash, reverted the IP, no one posted warnings on the IP's Talk page, which I've now done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work. Am I correct in assuming that posting something on an IP's page is NOT something that I could do? Carptrash (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You can absolutely post on an IP's Talk page when appropriate. Here, it would have been appropriate to post warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping for something involving pain or . ............. or simething. Next time I bring the IP Address with me. Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Review my 1RR restriction

Withdrawn

I was put under a 1RR restriction on 29th October 2009; the restriction was made indefiniteon 24 February 2010. I was blocked one last time on 14 November 2010. I then took a seven month wikibreak, which ended this past June.

I'm wondering if this restriction is still necessary. I've changed my approach to editing here, which sometimes unfortunately means leaving the "wrong" version in placed if there's no support for a change. I'm also more involved in discussions in content disputes.

I'm alright with the restriction staying in place if that's what consensus is, but I'd rather just get it behind me, like leaving prison after one's time has been served. Radiopathy •talk• 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So... you're telling us you'd like to be able to revert multiple times - something which has frequently gotten you into trouble? Man, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree. Rklawton (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Woof woof. Radiopathy •talk• 01:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton hit it spot on and moreover, it's very wise for any editor not to breach 1R to begin with, never mind that the music genre editing you do is highly prone to back and forths anyway. It's been about a year since you were last blocked for straying beyond 1RR (by me, as it happens), so I think it's fair to say the 1RR restriction, as such, has gone stale. Even WP:Standard offer most often has to do with a six month span. So, you can think of this as a bridge crossed, but please stick to 1RR anyway and if you do find yourself about to do a 2nd R, ask someone else for input, or try the tips in WP:DR. You won't get much shrift if you do backslide. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Radiopathy has withdrawn his request it would be uncouth to supply diffs in opposition. But if Gwen wants to see the 1RR restriction undone I hope that she will start a new thread and allow analysis of some edit warring in his last month's contributions. It is possible that six months of no problems could be a reason to lift the restriction, but recent events are not trouble-free, so the standard offer clock has not started. It is my impression that community sanctions require consensus to undo. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if Rp's edits have been worrisome lately, the restriction hasn't gone stale and shouldn't be undone. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I'm a little bit concerned with your willingness to declare that indefinite remedies have 'gone stale'. This is the second such declaration you've made with respect to this editor, and I'm a little bit concerned that you haven't been fully aware of the circumstances in either case. When editor conduct issues become serious enough that indefinite remedies need to be applied, generally it's not wise to unilatererally overturn them without consulting the community—even if you were the admin who first proposed the restriction.

In November 2010, Radiopathy was blocked by Gwen Gale for two weeks for repeated violations of his extant 1RR restriction. As part of the ensuing AN/I discussion, a 0RR restriction was imposed by Gwen Gale, and endorsed by the community: [94]. At that time, Radiopathy ceased editing. He did not return for approximately 7 months, beginning to edit again in June 2011. His third edit – sixteen minutes after resumption of editing – was a revert of a non-vandalism edit. About a month (and many reverts) later, someone noticed that Radiopathy had been consistently and regularly violating the (as far as he knew) still-extant 0RR restriction, and raised the issue with Gwen Gale: [95]. Gwen Gale declared the 0RR 'stale' and without effect. I fear that Gwen Gale was unaware at the time that Radiopathy had only been editing for a month at that point, and also that Radiopathy had never adhered to the 0RR restriction for any part of his active editing career.

Moving forward to today, Radiopathy has been engaged in editing for roughly five months; that editing still seems to be very revert-heavy (though I don't know of any violations of the 1RR restriction). I haven't seen a persuasive argument that the project is harmed by a continuing 1RR restriction on this editor, concerns about "wrong" versions – which sound far too much like 'kidding on the square' – notwithstanding. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, yes. Consensus always has sway. Sounds to me as though I was rash in saying Rp might think of this as a "bridge crossed." Although I'm not thrilled to hear that Rp's edits may be too revert-heavy, I think this kind of input is helpful. Please do keep in mind, I did tell him to stick to 1RR anyway, that he'll get short shrift if there's any backsliding. What I hope to see here now, if editors are willing, is input as to whether Rp should edit under 1RR, or 0RR. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Absurd, Disruptive Editing by Haphaestus123

Resolved: Blocked. m.o.p 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've given this guy multiple warnings for what he's been doing to Far-left politics and Far-right politics, but someone really needs to step in now. He's adding all kinds of ludicrous, unsourced, and un-Wikified nonsense, claiming that the Nazis were "Left-Wing," in defiance of all academic scholarship.

Examples: [96], [97], [98].

He has been given 3 disruptive editing warnings in the past few hours.

-- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. m.o.p 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, can't hear things

User:BruceWHain just came off a 24-hr block, imposed by C.Fred for all the right reasons: edit-warring on Luchow's, for starters; messing up that article's talk page after being explained how those things work; taking ownership of the article and generally wiping their behind with the whole "collaborative" idea; etc. After the block was already over (if I can tell time correctly) they went back to re-messing the place up from an IP address, 70.107.161.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), rearranging the talk page as if it were the article or their private possession. You should look at the history to see what poor old Beyond My Ken is having to deal with--with the patience of a saint. Bruce clearly doesn't get it, but I do not wish to block them myself, since I might slip on my trackpad and hit "indefinite" (of course, you are free to slip thusly). Besides, I am involved, since I have great appreciation for what BMK is doing here and little respect for an editor who shows no respect for anyone else. At the very least I'd like to see an uninvolved admin utter a few stern words and a week-long block--or tell me that BMK and I are crazy, that the project is not collaborative, that someone who couldn't tell the MOS from a hole in the ground can own an article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not impose either block; Tiptoety and Bwilkins did. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Fred, you are correct--I saw that and meant to correct myself but forgot. Saturday morning at the Drmies is far from quiet, so my apologies for falsely accusing you of making a great block. ;) Roll tide, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just imposed the brand-new 72hr one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bwilkins. I am inclined, though, to say 'good start', since I don't have faith that this will be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a pleasant WP:AGF mood :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm also in a pleasant mood this morning. So pleasant that I'm asking myself the question, was this latest block put on BruceWHain to prevent further disruption to an article, or was it put on him to punish him for his previous conduct and for the comments in User talk:BruceWHain/sandbox where he's drafting an "Appeal for Mediation"? If we're going to block him, then I think a discussion needs to be opened on his talk page, where he can participate, about the Manual of Style, collaboration and consensus, ownership of articles, and the like—in the hopes that he's a good but misguided editor and can be turned into an outright good one. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • BruceWHain clearly has the potential to be a net positive for the project. He knows how to research, and his writing is satisfactory (if a bit too personal), so I think a reclamation effort would be worthwhile. The core problem is that he hasn't shown, as of yet, an inkling of understanding the project's core values -- and what's worse, doesn't (at this point) seem inclined to try. If someone can break through that barrier, the rest should be easy. I tried a couple of times, but at this point he clearly sees me as his antagonist, so it would be counter-productive for me to try again. I urge others to give it a go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In a message today, he asked "I would also ask that you make no further edits or disply [sic] of the article on your servers until you have consulted me - in a civil manner - about it."[99] I have replied that we do not need his further consent; he already give it when he added the text to the article. I then pointed him back to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and GFDL. His reply will be telling: if he continues to assert his ownership/control of the article, then he might just not get it—and he should probably take the advice I gave at the end of my comment, to find another site to post at if he can't/won't abide by Wikipedia's rules. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

...and although I know it's "his" talkpage, he's continuing the same refactoring job there that was disruptive on the article talkpage in the first place. WP:COMPETENCE is starting to creep in jump in headfirst. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. For better or worse, we have a framework for collaboration which has worked reasonably well for the creation of over three million articles spanning a decade of work. Editors are obliged to work within that framework, which means amongst other things obeying our conventions on article layout and talk page use and understanding the consequences of our licensing upon the future of their contributions. Things have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot with BruceWHain, but we are nonetheless obliged to prevent him from inadvertently disrupting the project as he gets to grips with it. The ball is in his court; the next block, should one be forthcoming for the same behaviour, should be indefinite and lifting it predicated on some firm evidence of his having increased his understanding of how collaboration is expected to work here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Block needed...

Resolved

 – blocked by Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), recommend you to file a SPI case if non already exists. _→AzaToth 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

...for The Norns Condemn Homosexuality (talk · contribs) and any similar new socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Norns? A lot of otaku are going to be very dissapointed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonstoner1993 legal threat

User:Jonstoner1993 apparently took offense at my reversion of some of his edits and has left a legal threat on his user page. He also doled out a few personal attacks on my talk page for the gross transgression of reverting his edits. Could someone take a look at this please? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 07:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Combined with his sudden turn to a VOA (and the edits before which were, all along, very questionable (thinking "life" vs "death" was a typo? c'monnn..)) and obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bushranger beat me to it. Good block. --John (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler

I'm quite overwhelmed at the behaviour of Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs). Yesterday he did this series of edits on Saif Ali Khan, removing perfectly relevant and sourced info (calling it "garbage") and adding a "multiple issues" tag to the article with as many as 7 problems, which, from what I see, are nowhere to be seen. He did not start any discussion before or after doing it. I reverted him, writing in the edit summary, "I can't see how you were removing "garbage". This info is perfectly relevant and sourced. Before adding such huge template blocks, please discuss, as I can't see these problems unless you can point them out".

In turn, the user rollbacked me as if I was a vandal, which is unacceptable. He did turn to the talk page now, where he said the addition of "Nawab of Pataudi" is incorrect and "defunct" despite being sourced to a reliable source (?), and without backing his assertion up with any other source. He did not bother to explain why he added the "multiple issues" tag though. That is my reply to him. I request your intervention. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notified the user [100].  Chzz  ►  14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh what the apologists will say. Please see the thread I have opened on the India-project, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#The_10th_and_Present_Nawab and also on Talk:Saif Ali Khan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have started this thread before making such drastic changes and labelling the info "garbage". As you see, another user agrees with me on the matter and opposes to the removal. You also seem to ignore my request for explanation regarding the "multiple issues" tag you'd added (and then re-added). Above all, I think the fact that you used a rollback for reverting me is just insulting and plain unacceptable. I still wait for an admin's take on this. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is mainly a content dispute, which belongs on the article's talk page — where, by the way, a discussion is already going on —; I note, however, that Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) did in fact misuse rollback. Assuming this was just a one-off incident, I'd be inclined to let you go with a warning, in this case, Fowler&fowler; please remember that rollback should never be used to revert good-faith edits, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My apologies to Shahid and Salvio. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the delights of Wikipedia is that it leads you to unexpected places. So, I discovered a few minutes ago, that the actor does not consider himself a Nawab. Here he is from a news report, Saif Ali Khan happy about being an ex-Nawab from the same newspaper which user Shahid has used to anoint him Nawab! To the question: "On October 31, you will become the next Nawab of Pataudi?" the actor says,

Royal titles ceased to be recognised by the Indian government in 1971. The title of Nawab and Maharaja are not recognised by the Indian government anymore. And rightfully so. We are a democracy and I am not under any misconception about me ruling any state or body of people. It's just a sense of tradition. As far as receiving the title and the ceremony from the villagers go, they are sentimental about tying the pagdi. Perhaps it is is something symbolic. And yes, I will be there for that. I have a lot of connection to Pataudi. I have spent a lot of time there and I love the place very much, but at no point, do I consider myself a Nawab.

I rest my case, with apologies again for my misuse of revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Just wanted to add my voice in saying that, while Fowler should have been more careful with his use of rollback, I don't think any other actions he took were inappropriate. The changes he made to the article were hardly drastic enough to dictate a mandatory talk page discussion first, WP:BOLD edits are what this encyclopaedia is all about. Someone should point Shahid to WP:BRD. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced information and calling it "garbage" without specifying any concrete reason is not acceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really worthy of an ANI report, either. As we've already ascertained that Fowler had good reasons to remove the content, what you're effectively doing is starting an ANI discussion over an inappropriate edit summary. If I made a report every time I discovered an inappropriate edit summary we'd have to open up a whole new noticeboard just to deal with minor disputes...oh wait. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this report seems to be more about the inappropriate use of rollback, which is arguably a suitable ANI topic. Silverseren^C 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Touché, mon ami, touché...Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Salvio's assumption is wrong. This is not a one-off incident. A simple warning will only mean continuing problems. This user is in the habit of rolling back other users. It does not matter if the target is an IP address or a veteran Wikipedia user. The only criterion for this user to use the revert button is that the person produce a news article or book with an opposing view or that the user is losing the argument. In the last 2 to 3 weeks itself, he has showed this kind of behaviour about 25 times. The user also does this to the discussion tab and even inside the text signed by other people. This is unfair and looks like harassment. Some examples:

1. Using revert button for removing and editing Nikkul's comments
2. Using revert button for removing MangoWong's comment
3. Using revert button to mute opposing view point
4. Using revert button by ignoring edit summary of "Discussion is on.You just cant remove cited text as per your whims.Wait for editor to respond and discussion to get over"
5. Using revert button for expressing views favouring Pakistan over India
6. Using revert button without communication
7. Using revert button without communication
8. Using revert button without communication
9. Using revert button without communication
10. Using revert button for anti-India and pro-Pakistan views
11. Using revert button without communication
12. Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (1st time)
13. Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (2nd time)
14. Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (3rd time)
15. Misusing revert for showing only bad pictures of Gurgaon (4th time)
16. Misusing revert for using revert button for preferred image
17. Misusing revert button to ignore consensus or a discussion

The user acts in a disruptive way by adding inaccurate "multiple issues" note to articles where he has disagreements:

1. Multiple issues (Saif Ali Khan) [101]
2. Multiple issues (Gurgaon) [102]
3. Multiple issues (Kunbi) [103]

This has not gone unnoticed. An administrator participating in this ANI asked the user to remove the multiple issues note from one article. [104]

The user indulges in inappropriate canvassing. See the 13 October 2011 example where notices are pasted to about 20 users.

1. Ravichandar84 - [105]
2. SpacemanSpiff - [106]
3. Sodabottle - [107]
4. Ncmvocalist - [108]
5. Chipmunkdavis - [109]
6. MikeLynch - [110]
7. AshLin - [111]
8. Abhishek191288 - [112]
9. Sitush - [113]
10. Qwyrxian - [114]
11. MatthewVanitas - [115]
12. AnimeshKulkarni - [116]
13. Zuggernaut - [117]
14. MangoWong - [118]
15. JanetteDoe - [119]
16. Redtigerxyz - [120]
17. RegentsPark - [121]
18. Pfly - [122]
19. Nikkul - [123]

Swift, stern and long term action is required to solve these ongoing problems. 173.164.222.106 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The last time I studied Fowler's edits, I saw excellent work to support encyclopedic articles from misguided changes. Would you mind noting whether any of the above links show Fowler causing a problem for an article? Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Insect

Over at Insect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) there is a rather garden variety edit war going on concerning the addition of particular material to the lead section. New user(s) Pszczola-osa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Getbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have consistently reverted to their preferred version and have not been willing to engage in substantive discussions rather than casting aspersions on other editors and Wikipedia process. Since I have been involved I am not comfortable taking action myself so I have brought the issue here to ANI. In particular are the style and contributions of the two accounts sufficiently similar that the duck test applies and does anyone have suggestions for getting through to them so that they can make contributions in a style and form Wikipedia can accept.? Eluchil404 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens often between new editors and administrators, and there's usually a way of taking care of these issues by meeting half-way or discussing in attempt to appease the editors involved. Which I have done, and It is to my opinion that the problem has been solved and the need for any further conflict, evaded. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope so, but this dif [124] is the one that bothers me. You made an effort to meet him halfway and he simply reverts. Maybe, I'm too far removed from being a new user, though I certainly remember that Wikipedia processes and rules can seem byzantine and irrational. Nevertheless, reverting every day for 4 days in unacceptable and I would have issued a final warning, stop or be blocked, if I wasn't involved in the dispute in an editorial capacity. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked both accounts as socks of Serafin (talk · contribs); typical edit-warring at Johann Dzierzon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

College course?

Not sure if this is where to bring this, but some one can always point a finger if it isn't. This users contribs 71.58.94.186 and more specifically their edit summary have me curious. "Added to this piece that the fort walton mound is the largest mound on salt water. adding to the validity of this article for a particular college course assignment." This IP is one of what must be 25 or 30 ( and recently several named accts ) at least in the last year or so which edit from the general vicinity of State College, Pennsylvania. They all edit in Native American subjects and display similar editing habits (this why I include the several named accts). This editor or more likely editors never answer edits summaries or talk page messages, and very, very, very, very, rarely attempt to cite any addition. The few that have attempted a cite, have turned out to be copyvios. Is there anything specific that could be done about this if it is a college class instructing its students to edit here? Or do I just continue to play whack-a-mole and leave messages that have never been acknowleged? Heiro 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep trying to refer them to WP:SUP and WP:WOA, and continue to revert the edits they make. If it is a college course, said students are going to need to get their professor to do this by the book. My suspicion is that the professor is probably doing things correctly, and the students are merely half-assing it. In nearly every case I have run into where this sort of thing happens, once we contact the professor, it becomes clear that they are fully aware of and/or are already doing things properly, but the students are screwing up individually. College students half-assing an assignment and attempting to weasel out of it is hardly an unheard-of behavior. --Jayron32 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to leave them those links in future, but as I said, so far haven't had one actual conversation with any of them, so don't know if they even know what the orange message banner means. Plus, each seems to make 4 to 8 edits at the most, then they go dead, altho some return a few months later for one or 2 more edits. And so many IPs are involved, ugh. I was keeping a list for awhile, got up to about 20, but that was a year ago, it died down and I let it go without saying anything. But recently it has started back up, and this is the first one to actual let slip it may be part of a course. Heiro 04:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth emailing the Department of Anthropology to inquire about which professors may be involved and then contacting them to ensure that they're aware of the guidelines on university projects and the resources available for them. Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

King James whatever-it-is

The close was good, even though it might not have been done by the best editor for the task. No admin intervention is needed here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone have a look at the RM here: Talk:James_VI_and_I#Compromise_Suggestion_to_Requested_Move:_James_VI_and_I. I don't know what the most appropriate close is for this, but I think that a sudden move of the page by an involved admin without closing the RM discussion (which is what has just happened) is considerably wide of proper. Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Hi, yes I have just moved the page, because I was asked to (see here User:Brendandh#Would you change title?). If my bad, then apologies. Yet there is consensus for the move, and the discussion has gone on long over time. Brendandh (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I think it needs an uninvolved editor to make a judgement as to whether or not there is consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I don't think a WP:BOLD move is out of place here, given that the quite reasonable talk page discussion so far seemed to be diverting into unnecessary accusations of nationalism. As regards the move itself there is a clear coherent argument in its favour. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Nor do I. There is a clear consensus by editors from at least four different english-speaking countries. The discussion has gone almost twice as long as the suggested time. It is obvious to all. It is done all the time. Cannot think of a less important reason to open an ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC) It is not done all the time that someone (whether an admin or not) who has a clearly expressed opinion on the move enacts that move. Particularly so when the exact same request failed only a couple of months ago [125]. The move has also been done badly as it has now broken the archive links. There is no reason to 'Be Bold' in closing this sort of discussion, particularly so when it has a long and acrimonious history. A simple request at WP:AN would have been sufficient to get an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. If the consensus is as clear as people seem to believe then it is an easy job for someone uninvolved to carry out. The way it has been done however makes it more likely to be challenged. Edit to add - it is not unsurprising that those who support the move commenting here think they have the better argument, but it is not up to them to judge that. Polequant (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC) The difference is that this time the Founder has asked to try to find a solution which "..would either satisfy or cause the least dissatisfaction". You can read his words on James VI and I Talk Page. Another big difference is that as the discussion evolved, the various editors have found this to be a the most satisfactory title. It is boldy apparent in their words. I repeat, a careful scruitiny of these are editors will show that there are many editors who came around by good discussion, good research, good facts. The purpose of the discussions were met, the WP:Guidelines were met, the research was done by British, Scottish and American editors and the title clearly fits the criteria. There is a time to move on and bow gracefully to defeat. This discussion and the consensus was made HONORABLY and followed all the guidelines. Articles changes are done all the time and it is disengenuous to continue with this. It is also really quite unfair to attack an Administrator for doing her job. It is time to move on subjects worthy of ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Pretty poor form for an involved editor (and not even an admin) to step in with a close after it's been taken to ANI, and a contentious close should generally be accompanied by an explanation (rather than an exclamation of triumph). Still, the arguments seem to favour the move. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I asked Brendandh to change the title. I also posted it on User:JimboWales and you may direct your remarks to me. You know very well it was all done properly. I cannot understand this discussion. This is the very thing that wastes everyone's time and causes the loss of editors that has been described in the newsletters. Mugginsx (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Why did you ask someone you knew agreed with your position to change it? The whole purpose of these sort of discussions is that someone uninvolved closes them. Read WP:RMCI. This close was wrong on two counts - firstly it was by someone very involved in the discussion, and secondly it was by a non-admin where it clearly does not fall under the non-admin close business. If you want this move to 'stick' then your best bet is that everything is done as above board as possible, because at the moment it looks dodgy. Polequant (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) And by the way, appeals to Jimbo mean next to nothing. And you also look like you have completely ignored the advice given to you there. Yet you wonder why someone has objected?? Polequant (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I asked the Bot as well. Really did not know who to ask. Please do not look for conspiracies where they do not exist. The time is appropriate and the consensus is there for all to see. If there is a WP:guideline that was not followed than please show it or let us close this ANI. Mugginsx (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC) WP:FORUMSHOPPING on your part, and WP:NAC#Inappropriate closures on Brendandh's. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) (EC) And from the discussion on your talkpage [126], it seems that both you and Brendandh knew the close would cause problems, and even seem to be relishing it. So let me ask, why didn't you just ask an uninvolved admin to close it? It really is not difficult. I have already shown you the guidance which says why it was a bad idea to do it like you (or rather Brendandh) has done. And like I say above, the move has been badly done technically, because the archives have now been lost. What I suggest should be done is that the move is undone, and someone genuinely uninvolved, who can also do the move properly, closes it. If the consensus is as you say then it doesn't change anything except it means that it will be less likely to be challenged in the future (and people will be able to find the archives easily). Polequant (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Not WP:FORUMSHOPPING Shopping since a) all discussions were on the same page. b) The issue was changed by the different titles proposed. c) One same title was earlier proposed but it was clear by the newest discussion that editors were not so opposed to it and following the desire of the Founder, I proposed it. Of course we anticipated there might be trouble because we know that there was resistance to compromise until now. Also this is the first time I have ever had discussion with the above editor. She "volunteered to send me some medieval documentation years ago, but other than a "thank you" we have never had discussion of the type you mean. Since she is not an administrator, we did not break that rule. I went to a Bot first because I did not really know where to go. Will look for the other guidelines you mentioned and get back to you but WP:FORUMSHOPPING, according to the exact words of the guidelines, does not apply in this case. Mugginsx (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Well, I am an uninvolved administrator and this close is correct on its face. — Coren (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really having a problem here

At Advaita Vedanta's talk page somehow I am left to defend Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy against a fundamentalist. The user is openly citing fundamentalist books, and not even a single academic work. An analogy would be an anti-semite removing all references to Jewish roots in the Christianity wikipedia pages, citing neo-Nazi crap. This is not a content dispute. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Some diff's would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the talk page.72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's one interesting link: Talkpage contributions: none.

That being said, @IP you need to go back to the article's talkpage as well. This is way too early to escalate it here at ANI. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats another issue. How did I get dragged into this? I just reported these incidents as an impartial oberver. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox has fully protected the article for three days. If User:Ramanatruth does not modify his attitude to Wikipedia editing soon he is likely to be making future visits to the admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're the one reverting right? That means you're involved and not just an 'impartial oberver'. I'm not saying you've done anything wrong but you should be aware it's natural your conduct in any dispute will come under scrutiny as well. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• See also this above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed even HERE on this noticeboard, they linked to "sriramanamaharshi.org". This is a pretty blatant behavior. 72.92.11.182 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think should be done, that hasn't been done already? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 20:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What would you do to someone who keeps inserting Mormon founder Joseph Smith into the Jewish articles?72.92.11.182 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not answer a question with a question? Inform us what you think should be done, and we'll go from there. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 22:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously block / ban them. 72.92.121.144 (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading and practicing Advaita Vedanta for 6 years now. I can quote verses from Rig Veda if you want and I have read a lot of books on the subject. I want to present valid content in the page.--Ramanatruth (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why call me names like fundamentalist? There is a talk page on Advaita Vedanta lets discuss in a calm way.--Ramanatruth (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Before you shout vandalism, fundamentalist etc please note a simple error i am pointing out.

In page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

In Section Mahakavya

1 प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म (Prajñānam brahma) Consciousness is Brahman aitareya Rig Veda--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now all you need to do compare when Rig Veda was written and when was Buddha born.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rig Veda 1700–1100 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Buddha 563 BCE to 483 BCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adi Sankara an Advaita teacher may have used Buddhist examples in his teachings. Modern Advaita teachers quote freely from other religions. I am not debating Buddhist influence on Advaita teachings.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am only debating Buddhism as the source of Advaita.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I am practicing Advaita for 6 years now. I came to update the content in Advaita page and got caught in the Buddha controversy. To be frank, I am willing to leave out the section and edit other sections of the page while this argument is being ironed out.--Ramanatruth (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Can another editor review the recent attempts by the original contributor to blank the article at Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

The initial article was tagged for AfD, after which the article was tagged for rescue. Several editors then worked on attempting to cleanup the article. At this point, the original editor (Katya Foster (talk · contribs)) began displaying ownership issues, and proceeded to attempt the blank the article here and here. Sadly, I then proceeded to make a comment worthy of bean stuffing, when I mentioned that they couldn't use {{db-g7}} at that point as several editors have been involved with adding sources and making content changes to the page [127]. There next edits were then to state that "I never asked or invited anyone to edit anything. So this does not apply." [128], and to begin applying the db-g7 tag here and here.

I've removed the CSD tag, and attempted to explain the issues on their talk page. However, I would appreciate having someone else review the activity here, as the editor is now accusing me of vandalism on their talk page by my removal of their CsD tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: When I went to notify the editor of this ANI, I found their most recent post emphasized their ownership issues and failure to understand the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence when they stated "I still own all rights to this page."[129]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I created all of the information on the page. Other editors simply moved things aroung. Now it makes no sence, has citations which dont apply, and looks like a promotion. I think its time to end the debate and delete the page as the majority wants (including the author). I never vandalised anything. However,I was threatened by Barek. He said I was the one vandalising and he said he will try to block me off wikipedia. I am sorry to waste your time with these childish complaints. As you can see, I didnt start this debate. I thank you for your time aand consideration. --Katya Foster (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, a comparison of the version from Katya Foster's last constructive edit to the point where they attempted to blank content can be see in this link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor Katya Foster is being somewhat disruptive on the AfD, attempting to delete her previous comments – making the discussion disjointed and difficult to follow – !voting multiple time (once logged out, as an IP), and basically demonstrating IDHT-type behavior. I've undone their shenanigans on the AfD, and left a couple of messages on their talk page, but I have serious doubts whether it's going to do any good -- the editor clearly wants to own the article, and since she cannot, now wants it deleted. I have no particular opinion about the subject of the article (notability could go either way, as a far as I can see), but Katya Foster really needs to control her behavior before she gets herself into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I looked more closely at the referencing, so I have expressed an opinion in the AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the name of the article and the name of the editor in question, WP:COI rears its head as well here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Three Four SPA accounts arrived this morning (all within the past half hour) at the AfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yummy. Enough quacking going on there to make several servings of delicious confit de canard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All the accounts are blocked and the master has been blocked 1 week per results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katya Foster. Alexandria (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:OliviaBlond : ongoing attack/disruption

Resolved

 – For now.Racconish ^Tk 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

PA (here) in a context of COI and suspected sockpuppetry. The article has been neutralized and correctly sourced, a consensus has been found on that basis to remove {{COI}}. It would be beneficial to the project to avoid such further disruption. Racconish ^Tk 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're referring to "This is malicious, intolerable behaviour and is tantamount to deliberate sabotage," right? Strictly speaking, the editor is talking about your behavior, not you. You've already slapped a PA warning on their talk page, and I don't think you'll get much more traction here. Olivia hasn't edited the article in a week, and so I don't see much evidence of real, block-worthy disruption either. There is, of course, the possibility of meating, as you have already noted on the talk page, but that's not necessarily a matter for here. How about ignoring the talk page comments? Drmies (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a good advice. I agree a block would be too much for this. In view of the history of the article, I was concerned it would not stop here without, at least, a booster shot on AGF but my PA warning may be enough. Racconish ^Tk 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly is a mess, but there are eyes on it now. Protection won't help much, given the smell of meat, but fortunately these kinds of disruptions have a limited shelf life and end with a block (or two) or with the editor losing interest. And a flurry of edits may prompt a new SPI, which may reveal something more solid than the last one. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for now. I just hope the previous suspects will behave at this AfD. Racconish ^Tk 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd happenings at Aaron Burr

This is very strange, but it cannot be coincidence that 10+ brand new accounts have edited this page in the past hour independently. Check out the edit history. Most likely the same person. Whats strange is that none of it appears to be vandalism, so I'm hesitant to simply revert the edits and I'm not sure if this is exactly a violation of WP:SOCK, although it is very very strange.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be a school project; i.e. multiple students working together to improve an article. It's sketchy, but the malicious explanation isn't necessarily the only one. Sometimes it is innocent, per WP:AGF. Some of the accounts are saying "we", which may mean all of these are working together. I'm inclined to AGF here and say this is a group of independent editors, likely students, who are doing this work as part of a classroom project. Maybe pick on at random and ask them directly if that is the case. Say something like "Hey, I noticed this strange situation, and I was wondering if this is some sort of class project". If it is, ask who the teacher/professor is and refer them to WP:SUP or WP:WOA. --Jayron32 18:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A school project did cross my mind. Yet none of what is changed appears to be cited or verified. I began a thread at the talk page, but have yet gotten a response.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Try pinging the accounts with a request to discuss the matter on the talk page; your concerns are valid, and the best way to figure out what is going on is to directly communicate with these accounts. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• One of the issues I see with the edits is that they are removing anything negative about Burr's actions, stances, or opinions. And, if there is something negative that is crucial to his history, they are re-writing it to make it seem like it wasn't his fault and other people were attacking him. This sort of editing is very close to, if not outright, POV editing and whitewashing of details from the article about the subject. Silverseren^C 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that particularly, but that is a major concern. We can assume Good Faith only so far before it becomes time to just revert the whole day, back to an earlier version.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, they removed the paragraph under Marriage and family that was about his illegitimate children,

Recently, the Aaron Burr Association has recognized two illegitimate children of Burr with Mary Emmons, his servant. Louisa Charlotte was born in 1788, and John Pierre Burr in 1792. At that time, Burr was still married to Theodosia, but most of the time was in Albany while serving in the state assembly. DNA testing, which might verify these claims, is not possible due to the lack of a male descendant in this line.

And then there's a lot of added wording that seems POV-ish and not neutral. Silverseren^C 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One of them explained, "We added information about Burr's intellectual dependence on his daughter Theodosia, after reading Isenberg's novel for our college honors course."[130] Historical novels are probably poor sources, especially for controversial historical figures. NuclearWarfare has reverted much of the contributions from today.  Will Beback  talk  20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As an aside: According to Amazon, "This definitive biography of the revolutionary era villain overturns every myth and image we have of him". It may well be a fine source but if it sets out to disagree with others on many points, it should be used with great caution. We have the luxury of comparing a variety of different sources on various points; we should enjoy that luxury. It's not possible for many other historical articles. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Help urgently needed on unblock-en-l - barnstars available

Who wants to earn some barnstars?

The unblock request mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org , is around for blocked users to appeal blocks when they do not know how or are unable to do so on-wiki. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that there are over 100 people subscribed to this list and receiving email from it, I am handling the vast majority of the requests this list receives completely by myself. It's been this way for a few weeks, before which User:DeltaQuad was the only one actively reviewing appeals. In short, we really really really need some help!

If you are not subscribed to this list and would like to assist with reviewing block appeals, please go to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l and sign up. Why should you do so? Many of the people emailing us are trying to edit Wikipedia for the first time, but are unable to due to a rangeblock or autoblock on their IP address. By reviewing these appeals in a timely manner, you're helping new editors get started on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's an added incentive for you...

For the remainder of the month of November, I am offering an Admin's Barnstar to anyone who handles at least 15 appeals send to this list. It may sound like a lot, but this list often receives more than a dozen appeals each day, so you're sure to get there quickly if you check your email regularly. Furthermore, the three admins other than myself who respond to the most appeals for the remainder of November will receive Bronze, Silver, and Gold Wiki Awards for their exceptional service. Fine print follows my signature.

If you want to help but aren't sure how, don't worry - subscribe and stick around for a bit. You'll find a lot of the emails we send are boilerplate text that you can copy from previous responses and then edit as needed. So sign up and help today! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine print: In order to receive credit towards either award, any response you send must be cc'd to the unblock mailing list per standard procedure. Each admin may only get credit once per appealing user; i.e., if you respond to an appeal asking for more information, you don't get credit for two appeals by responding again when they user sends the information you need. Also, except where replies are sent within a few minutes of each other, only the first admin to respond to a given stage of an appeal gets credit; i.e., if Admin A responds to a user's request, then Admin B sends another response an hour later, only Admin A is going to get credit because it had already been dealt with. List-only emails do not receive credit. You receive credit just for sending a useful response; you need not unblock (or decline to unblock) a user. Currently subscribed users are also eligible provided they actually start helping like DQ and I have been asking them to do for weeks :-P.

Email is so quaint. There should be a hashtag for this instead. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think you can get IP address, username, blocking admin's name, and a meaningful appeal in less than 144 characters, feel free to set one up. :-) (only half joking) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to toy around with that Twitter idea, but, given the average user's knowledge of our policy, I feel like 99% of the unblock requests would be "HELP WHY AM I BLOCKED #unblock-en-wp". Also, signing up for that mailing list. m.o.p 07:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note the cross-thread @ AN

I actually have to echo this request, because the situation hasn't gotten better since I started to go on wikibreak. (And I don't have the tools anymore, so my help is sometimes not enough) I see unblock requests on wiki dealt with in hours, where as just later yesterday (and no pressure on Hersfold here) I saw a backlog of about 15-20 emails that had not been responded to in 4 days. This is really shocking personally that there is such a backlog. As Newyorkbard echoed just a while ago on ANI, this list needs attention, and we have gotten new members, but very few have stepped up for the few emails that have been handled by others. I have a statistical document that I have upload that shows just how bad things are getting. This file is not 100% accurate, but add or subtract a bit of salt to these numbers and they should be fine. Also note the last page is not specifically unblock-en-l requests, but all emails (not that the numbers would be affected much without). Some of the ridiculous statistics include:

• In october, there were 34 requests that took over a week to respond to. (That's from when I started to take a break from the list)
• ~21% of requests are taking over 3 days to get responses.
• Since May 19th, 157 requests have been left not responded to.

Please any admins who can help at this time, we need you! Not sure how to start replying to emails? use the templates. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You could just unblock the backlog and everything will be fine. If they really deserve it they will be banned again by the same admins. Anyway, keep up the good work! 84.107.153.57 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an option, it still takes time to go through and unblock them. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why we have this mailing list at all, apart of for the rare cases of locked talk pages or private information? The {{unblock}} method works pretty fast, and if somebody really can't figure out how to use {{unblock}}, they probably aren't competent enough to edit Wikipedia in any event. Wouldn't it be better to deprecate the mailing list and just tell people to use the template except in the abovementioned cases?  Sandstein  09:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree that people who do not have the 'knowledge' on how to use a template should be not allowed to edit the wiki. I mean we are already inconveniencing them (like I said a lot of collateral damage goes through the list) by blocking them, so we should be trying to help them, not have them jumping through loopholes. It does not take a person that knows how to deal with WP templates to edit and article. So it would not really be better to get rid of the mailing list. Also as I realized while typing below, people would have to give out their email addresses for us to create accounts on wiki for them, so they would have to be posted publicly which is inappropriate in my view. Note there is also an interface in development so we can keep track of the unhanded requests and hopefully deal with them in a more timely manner. (which would also allow admins not to reveal there email) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and follow the "There are no stupid questions" maxim that my teachers taught me, and thus open myself up to ridicule when 5 people tell me how easily I could have answered my own question. Could someone please point a (relatively) new admin like myself to the relevant policy/procedure pages we would need to understand in order to handle unblock requests generated because of autoblock and rangeblock problems? I see requests of this type using the unblock template, but have really no idea how to handle them, and for the life of me can't figure out what I even need to be looking at in order to determine what to do in these cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Request seconded. The instructions on WP:Autoblock don't work. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are talked about here. But your right, the documentation is currently insufficient. Rangeblocks are put out for usually handling the blocked editors, but the most common examples I see with rangeblocks are {{anonblock}} and {{checkuserblock}}. Now generally if they email the list for anon blocks, are checking to make sure the block is what it is, and then asking them for a username they wish, and creating an account for them allowing them to override the softblock (also known as anon. only block). We create the account via Special:UserLogin, not entering a password, but creating it "by email". And let them know that they will get something by email. Now since this requires an email, for privacy reasons it's normally (from onwiki) sent to the account creation project. Now with {{checkuserblock}}s, even on the list, we send them right to the account creation project linked above, where then a checkuser looks over the private information (IP and useragent data) and tries to determine if it's the same user, if not, an account is created for them.

For autoblocks, since they last 24 hours they are very volatile time wise in nature. If you think that the IP that has the autoblock is dynamic enough in nature, it should be unblocked, by using the Autoblock number (which the user has to give to you) and unblocking that (instead of an actual IP). I would check using the Special:BlockList to make sure it's not a major sockpuppet that your unblocking the IP for. I should probably create a documentation page and might be able to get to that this weekend, but I hope this explains it for you. If it is the affected person, decline them, point them to the user talk page, tell them to log back in, but also try and help them understand the block before they are sent to an unblock request. Let me know if you guys need further clarification. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse by User:Jeremychen1

Just wanted to draw attention to the newly created article Jeremery which was created by User:Jeremychen1. This seems highly likely to be a sockpuppet account of Fornevermore, see evidence at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fornevermore. Given the behavior of the other accounts operated by Fornevermore and the lack of sources for the article, I suspect Jeremery is a hoax. I've tagged it as a Prod, but I'd like a second opinion. Many thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks fairly obvious to me, given the prior sock User:Jeremychen. I've added it to SPI. The article is up for a well deserved speedy. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This may also be a case of identity theft. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be a compromised account becuase, it may be known to others. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mailinator addresses

Over the past week, I have received about 150 offensively racist messages via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered with Mailinator addresses. Other editors have reported such abuse from the same accounts.[131] These accounts appear to have made no actual edits to Wikipedia, only to have misused the mailing facility. Is there any way to block autoregistration from such accounts, or at least to prevent them using Wikipedia email to send such filth to other editors? RolandR (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All the editors listed in the sockpuppet investigation you linked had their IP blocked and had their e-mail privilege removed, so they can't send you e-mails anymore (unless you e-mailed them back and disclosed your e-mail address). If there are additional sockpuppets sending you e-mails, you may want to list them on that report for investigating. — Moe ε 13:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe; but this was after they had sent 150 emails to me, and a further 150 to another editor. There may well be other targets, about whom we haven't yet heard. And further such accounts can easily be created. It is obvious that the only purpose of using a Mailinator address to create an account which makes no edits to Wikipedia but immediately starts sending large numbers of emails, is to misuse the mailing facility. There should be some sort of filter to monitor and prevent this. RolandR (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just received another 100 offensive emails from a mailinator account. It's evident that this abuse will continue until a way is found to prevent it. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RolandR makes a valid point. There's no reason for us to allow accounts to set a Mailinator email address (or any of the Mailinator alternate domains). Even if a legitimate editor wanted to do so, it shouldn't be allowed, as Mailinator accounts and messages aren't password protected. (Meaning that anyone could reset the password on a Mailinator user's Wikipedia account.) Does a blacklist exist for email domains, or is this going to have to go to Bugzilla? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I agree I would note it may not be easy. AFAIK mailinator purposely doesn't post a list of their domains to make blacklisting more difficult, although they don't stop scraping [132] [133]. (I also wonder if WHOIS info could reveal most alternative domains.) And there are plenty of mailnator alternatives. Having used such services in the past (not for wikipedia) I can say it's usually fairly trivial to block them. Treating them like we treat Tor and open proxies, blocking them when they are used will probably work in making difficult enough that many will give up but I wonder how long before we get there. It was suggested in the past to limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users or some other status, I don't know if a suggestion was ever added to bugzilla. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

After 6 years on wikipedia, I have now just switched off my email -enabling. This after having received some 130-150 emails these last few days, telling me how much the sender is looking forward to killing/exterminating "my kind". See here, & here. I am not very technical, but I truly do not understand why wikipedia empower such people? Discussion/bulletin-boards that I know off, normally have a rule that you have to have posted x number of posts, before you can contact other members directly. This of course does not protect other members fully, but at least raises the threshold for sending the kind of threats Roland, I, and others have experienced. Why cannot wikipedia do something similar? To limit the ability to send emails to autoconfirmed users: I would have thought that should be a minimum. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia already limits mail access to autoconfirmed accounts. The problem is that this still a deliberately low barrier, set only high enough to prevent the simplest mass destruction. It's not clear that there's a simple fix here, unless we want to declare that throwaway email accounts are no longer valid for registration (and then you've opened a fresh can of worms based on where the threshold between "permanent" and "throwaway" lies). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought that you had to make a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia in order to become autoconfirmed. But the accounts sending these abusive emails to me and Huldra, and earlier to other editors,[134][135] have not made any edits. As I comment above, a new account making no edits, but sending huge quantities of emails (over 100 to each of us) is obviously here only to abuse the system, not to edit constructively. It ought to be simple to filter this out. RolandR (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Or rangeblock the underlying IPs if possible, assuming they aren't open proxies, and run a CU to catch any more potential sleeper accounts. Log actions (such as creating a new account) can and do leave a paper trail for Checkusers. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Several IPs made abusive edits to an article, identical in content to the emails I received. So it is possible to identify them, for purposes of checking and blocking.[136] NB we are talking about JarlaxleArtemis here.RolandR (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression from previous discussions autoconfirmed was not required for email access and if we wanted that, we needed a developer to implement it (i.e. it wasn't something that could simple be turned on and off at the current time). Although I may be remembering wrong about the developer part, perhaps that was the CAPTCHA requirement proposal. In any case, if an autoconfirmed requirement for mail is supposed to have been implemented since then or was implemented before then, it's broken, so someone should definitely file a bugzilla in that case. I just created User:lastwhileTA348522 (if your lastwhile was the captcha, TA stands for test account and the number was typed 'randomly'), confirmed my email address and sent a mail to myself (i.e. this account) and it worked. All done in about 3 minutes. BTW, remember an email address is not required for registration, it's only required for password recovery (i.e. to help protect an account), to send emails and if you want to receive emails like when your user page is updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, then. It certainly seems sensible to require it, if only because experience has shown that Grawp will continue to escalate known attacks until technical measures are put in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink; ongoing incivility / abuse issues

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

---

Resolved

 – Looks like the issue has been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink. Further discussion on ANI is unlikely to do anything but make everyone more cranky. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have literally only come across Badger Drink in the past couple of days; but see these comments in an ongoing RfA, where he refers to another editor's comments as a "stream of histrionic bullshit", comparing the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", comment struck by author and then going on to comment "I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA".

I see from Badger's talk page and contributions that his challenges with civility are a long-term and ongoing issue, and that prior attempts to address this this have apparently made little or no impact. I regretfully think that, at this stage, an incivility block may be in order. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a collated response to 5 threads challenging his oppose !vote. To me it looks like a bit of collective brow beating because he has highlighted a concern about a very popular but non-straightforward candidate. In the circs., I'm not sure his response is so unreasonable and I'm surprised to see it brought up here. Leaky Caldron 11:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFA's are usually a free-for-all. Incivility reigns. But maybe that's necessary. We're not talking about article improvements here. We're talking about handing power to someone. The process of bringing in new admin's is highly flawed, but it's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary here. Badger Drink used a lot of bad language, but didn't seem to make any personal attacks (except for questioning other users' maturity, but that's hardly rare at RfA). Epbr123 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, incivility at RFA's is useful, as it can demonstrate how, or if, a potential admin will respond to provocative behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"If anything"? No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful. Nice, no. Useful, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A suitable candidate should already have demonstrated that they can deal with assholes in the course of their previous edits. The negatives to nastiness in RfAs themselves outweigh the positives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's no question the RFA process is flawed. It amounts to a popularity contest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an irony in such an oppose coming from a self-appointed attack dog, a caste of Wikipedians whose repeated incivility is primarily overlooked because either they're friends with the right people or enemies of the right people. Nevertheless it's a valid argument (RfA is all about politics, and a bad candidate can easily pass if he hangs around the right areas), albeit one likely to be less effective because of its presentation. Nor was it an especially nasty one, at least not in terms of being directed at the candidate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, if I thought this was a one-off occurrence, I would never have brought it here. I'm not into drama-mongering, and have never brought anything here before. I did check to see whether, maybe, an editor was just "having a bad day" (and that can happen to any and all of us), but it seems it's a much deeper-rooted problem than this. It's not "today's problem" I have concerns with, it's an ongoing history of apparently getting away with too much nastiness. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I alluded to, that's simply a niche which our weird little ecology has created for itself. We have not yet, and probably never will, come up with an effective and widely-deployable solution to long-term incivility. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire them out of a cannon and be done with them. I'd support and indefinite block.--Crossmr (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the cannon option may be a bit on the side of overkill! Sadly, far too many people have the illusion / delusion that civility isn't required at RfA; to the best of my knowledge there has never been consensus for this view (nor can I see any "exemptions from civility requirements" in the appropriate place!) However, again, this is clearly not just an RfA issue. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as overkill, I'd also support an indef block. Right or wrong, some people get away with gross incivility because they are excellent contributors and do a lot of useful work on the project. Looking over this user's contributions, he's both uncivil and his contributions don't come close to justifying his disruption. That makes him a net-negative. Keeping him on the project is only a detriment to others. I know it sounds very harsh, but people need to stop treating Wikipedia as though disruptive editors have divine right to edit here. They really don't. Someone's presence here should be tolerated only as long as they serve a worthwhile function... after that they are a liability. Trusilver 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I used a cuss word. Our first grade teacher is going to be so pissed. Grow up. Badger Drink (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems less of an issue compared to the Ludwigs2 issue above. I don't see any admin outrage over that though; is it because it doesn't involve the sacred RFA cow? (And by the way, I voted support in that RFA, but the badgering of opponents did not leave a good impression on me.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I try not to get outraged about anything these days. However, it's at least easier to see the whole picture for a relatively minor thing like this than for some multi-megabyte saga like the one which apparently dissatisfies you. And it's nothing to do with this thread. If we're done here then we might as well close this, as it doesn't appear any immediate admin action is forthcoming. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Badger Drink: The issue here is not the use of the cuss-word, it is the insulting tone of your comments. You seem to be under the strange illusion that because you use cusswords, you are then allowed to be insulting towards other editors. That is a very strange belief, and I would suggest that you stop being insulting, whether or not you choose to use cuss-words. Just because you say "bullshit" doesn't mean that you then get to be insulting without being called to task for it. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "grow up" part is more offensive than the vulgarities. And its occasional use (by whichever user) is almost always ironic, since that's a comment typically made by adolescents. Adults don't talk to each other that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the use of a strange defense by Badger Drink. He's being asked to answer for his behavior. The charge is that he is incivil and personally attacks other editors unneccessarily, and his sole defense seems to be "It's OK, because I used cusswords to do so!" Its not the first time such a defense has been mounted, but it is always a completely rediculous defense. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you can't then say "But it isn't illegal to drive a blue car!" Bringing up an irrelevent fact as a defense for your actions doesn't make any sense at all. I would rather that Badger Drink confronted the issue he is being accused of. --Jayron32 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Confront the issue... like... like... a grownup would? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that this editor has a long track record of abrasive behavior. It is equally clear that there exists an unwritten consensus that nothing ought be done about persistent bad behavior, so bringing this here serves only to poke the badger with a spoon. PS. I thought it was "rat's ass" not "rat's shit"? Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's trying to be original? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Two comments. The post refered to as a "stream of histrionic bullshit" was at least as insulting as Badger Drinks reply, and the OP's presentation of the armless goaltender comment without context grossly distorts it's meaning. Not exactly civil behavior.Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a controversial RfA, and some of the discussion has become heated. I think just about the worst thing we could do is to start tossing out civility blocks. (Especially one-sided ones.) Warn if necessary but blocking an opposer on the request of a supporter when the supporters are also engaging in heated rhetoric is just going to escalate this unnecessarily. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I personally engaged in "heated" rhetoric, at all. Getting heated is not usually my style. And I can quite easily handle the odd cussword in conversation. It's not the cusswords, it's the generally uncivil attitude, over apparently alengthy period of time. And I did actually find the "grow up" comment rather funny - it's the sort of thing that my youngest son - now a dad himself - used to say to people! Forget that it's anything to do with an RfA - it's not about RfA, it's about incivility and lack of respect. And it's been going on, and got away with, for a very long time, it seems. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly don't think we should be even going down the line of any civility block. Badger Drink is a well established editor and his abrasive tone is well known - and I put myself in the same boat of having an abrasive manner. Telling people to "grow up" is pretty bloody rude however, and Badger would do well to strike that bit - it's a smidge over the top. Nevertheless it is a heated RFA as 28bytes points out (sadly, as one of the noms) and rhetoric is not an uncommon event at these types of things. I'd urge closure of this thread, whilst noting Pesky had nothing but good intentions in filing this at ANI, and Badger Drink would be courteous if he would kindly remove the "grow up" throwaway comment above. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• If his abrasive tone is well known then it is all the more reason to issue the block until we're assured it will become scarce. That kind of tone is entirely inappropriate for working with a community. If he doesn't want to work with a community he knows where the door is or he can be shown to it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur with this. The attitude you are describing basically amounts to "They're not being uncivil because they have a long and well-understood history of being uncivil." (It's a recurring theme on ANI, sadly.) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the OP rereads the post he objects to - Badger Drink does not, by my reading compare the candidate to "someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper", he uses that as an extreme example. The "histrionic bullshit" comment may be cussing (whatever that is) in grade school (whatever that is) but out here in the grownup's world it is a fairly inconsequential turn of phrase. This looks more like "waa waa waa he's a nasty man" than a serious issue. Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cussing = swearing, profanity = not WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might also take the trouble to explain to User:Pesky why "incivility blocks" are contrary to Wikipedia policy? Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In my book deliberately misrepresenting what someone else has written is far more serious than using 'cuss' words. Greglocock (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for my mistake there - I have struck that comment out. It was not a deliberate attempt, simply my misreading of the comment, for which, again, I apologise. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Have not people noticed the very few RfAs in the last months? In the last few weeks, I've had two excellent candidates decline to be nominated because they do not wish to be discussed in the current environment. That the environment is so toxic is the fault of a very few repetitive editors. This is actually, not just potentially, harming the encyclopedia, and should not be tolerated. It is very possible -- and more effective --to oppose someone as strongly as necessary by simply pointing out the reasons calmly. RfA should be a zone for especially polite behavior. I am in principle willing to block for gross violations of NPA anywhere in Wikipedia after sufficient warnings, as I would for any harmful behavior, but i have not done so because it would seem like selective enforcement. Perhaps I should think of it instead as an example to be started in the hope that those admins who similarly care will be able to make it consistent enforcement. If it is necessary to choose where to start, I think the place to begin is with the people who have been here the longest and have the most reason to know better. I've heard it said that content contributors should be immune, but I think it's all the more important to prevent them from wasting their efforts on unconstructive activities. Blocks are preventative, after all--though I know this is an usual way or using the term. I am prepared for the usual opposition from those who will find their preferred activities here hampered, but I'm only wary of the people who know how to say how wrong they think I am in more measured terms: someone might take them seriously. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you. Too many people seem to think "I'm here to contribute content - I can get away with it". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There have been many more potential candidates of the right calibre who have respectfully declined to run for adminship due to the environment of the voting page, and nominations have now all but completely stagnated. I believe it is time to begin implementing any reasonable measures to protect the process from any editors who appear to be repeatedly be disruptive to the system, or who come to it in the knowledge that they can be rude with impunity. There is no reason why RfA should be a safe haven from our core policies of NPA and civility, even if tradition seems to demonstrate otherwise. Blocking may cause collateral damage to the project, but a topic ban from RfA could certainly be considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The obvious solution is to have only admins make the selections of other admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that, very possibly, one of my biggest concerns here - and it's related to the "long-term" aspect, is that Badger (for whatever reason, and I know we all have Real Life issues which affect us), seems completely unable to admit that there is anything at all wrong with his attitude and (apparently) cavalier disregard for other people's feelings, or to change in any way at all. It's a question of "addressing his offending behaviour" - and he just doesn't seem able to do this. This, for me, rings warning bells of various kinds. WP:CIVIL is one of the foundation stones of this project - the Five Pillars - or at least it is supposed to be. "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree." This is not a newbie who hasn't yet learned acceptable manners - it's someone who really should be setting an example, and clearly isn't. "Old enough to know better." It would seem, just from what I read here, that there are people who think they either they or others are exempt from the requirement to be polite, respectful and civil; this is wrong. We shouldn't ever have the "all Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others" attitude. Rules should apply equally to all of us. Nobody should be left feeling that someone else can get away with rule-violation (or even extreme bending) with impunity. It's disheartening to those of us who go out of our way to be civil and respectful even when we are in disagreement with someone, or dealing with a problematic editor. If the attitude here in Wikepedia is running along the lines of "Oh, well, he's Mr X, Mr X can get away with it", then this needs to be nipped in the bud. At a bare minumim, some acceptance by Badger that he is, in all truth, at fault here, and that he is prepared to consider changing in the right direction - possibly even that he is prepared to consider some kind of buddying or mentoring from someone who may be able to bring out some self-discipline in this area, and in the mean time to avoid areas of conflict until he is able to control the aggression of conflict ... those things would be good. But, all said and done - it's one of the Five Pillars. We shouldn't be treating this lightly. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm just going to add this direct quote from WP:CIVIL here: "Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks." (emphasis mine) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be flippant here, but are we really trying to have yet another meta-discussion about WP:CIVIL on ANI itself? Has that ever worked? It doesn't look like Badger Drink is going to be blocked here, or any other admin action carried out, so better that this go to the archive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I understand your comment here; however, just because something hasn't worked in the past is no real reason to give up on it. One of the things that can put editors off is any type of behaviour - particularly from longer-term, experienced editors - which is aggressive, demeaning, belittling, humiliating, and so on. It's precisely why civility is one of the Five Pillars, and our collective attitude towards insisting on / enforcing an acceptable standard of behaviour between editors, even when they find themselves on opposite sides of any fence, needs a brush-up. The longer the attitude of "It'll never fly" carries on, the more our standards will slip, and the more we are likely to put off potentially good editors. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

... and a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, Badger made a thoughtful point in his oppose, which was then validated by several replies. I didn't find that comment incivil, just exasperated. Concerns about a "not what you know but who you know" culture have been voiced over several years here and there. RfA is difficult and this particular one was always going to be a tricky one given the past. I'd say this thread can be closed too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Caliber, sure, I can understand that. As I've mentioned earlier, though, it's not a one-off incident which has concerned me here (I;ve come across plenty of one-off incidents all over the place). When I do come across potential issues like this, I always take the time to try and find out if it was a minor and temporary glitch, or something more long-term and more of an issue, and I think this comes into that category. If RfC/U is a much better place for issues like this, then that may well be the way to go, in which case may apologies for bringing it here. I do think, when all's said and done, that ongoing and long-term incivility issues shouldn't just get brushed under the carpet, wherever they end up. It's really not difficult to remain courteous and civil, it just requires a bit of self-awareness and self-discipline. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Havengore

• Havengore (talk · contribs) is Refactoring other's comments about his unblock request on his talk page [137][138] then making snarky comments when I warn him about it [139]. I would remove talk page access but I feel involved and would prefer another admin's review. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How odd. Personally I'd be reluctant to step in and modify the block since there are a half-dozen admins already interacting with him there, but his behavior is clearly disruptive (and baffling.) 28bytes (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just too much; he even refactored the {{uw-tpv3}} template message. I've removed talk page access, and I've also left messages on the talk pages of admins who have been interacting with him, saying essentially that they should restore talk page access without asking me if they feel that it will help. The same goes for anyone else who's reading this. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the situation, and baffling doesn't begin to describe the meltdown my brain is having. That aside, this user has only been around for a few days. I'm leaving an offer for mentorship on his talk page. He is still new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. He seems to want to contribute, and we shouldn't throw that away. Ishdarian 07:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog for 8 November

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared causa sui (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV is getting awfully busy, if anyone has a few moments to pitch in. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User Schiavello keeps removing AfD tags and discussions

User Schiavello removed the AfD tags from anything related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination) twice. He also blanked the AfD discussion and removed it from the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts. When I saw it the first time I put a message on his talk page (which he has since blanked) asking him not to do it and then I restored all the pages. He has now done it all again. These are the only edits by that user, so I suspect he's a puppet (sock or meat). Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, hopefully will be blocked soon. Tarc (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

After doing a related check, the following are  Confirmed as indefinitely blocked user Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs) and have been indefinitely blocked:

• Terminahp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swungtrade1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ilondt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

More to come, as there may be additional socks. –MuZemike 23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed as each other (but not as Cyperuspapyrus):

• Minowafan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WölffReik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Schiavello (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 00:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sooo...should these last three be blocked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The first three are a "gimme"; I'll leave for the community as to what to do with the other contingent, i.e. block the socks, warn/block the sockmaster, how long, etc. –MuZemike 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but Minowafan currently has a long list of subpages that are mostly backups of pages deleted through deletion review. Since they are all still categorized, they show up when browsing categories. It seems like the user is trying to avoid being charged with recreating deleted pages by hosting them as userpages instead. What is the relevant policy here? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES seems to come closest. — Edokter (talk) — 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppets should be blocked indefinitely and the sockmaster should be blocked for some period of time. I have no idea what the usual punishment is for this. Astudent0 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Astudent0. I'm surprised that even the sockpuppets haven't been blocked yet. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For the ones that aren`t blocked, normally at WP:SPI they would block all but the master, warn the master in this case. I'll get a clerk to block and tag these. (If this isn't dealt with in 12 hours, someone please file an WP:SPI...becuase I don't want this to disappear without blocks. (I would block now, but i've put my admin tools aside for now) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged both confirmed socks, and blocked WölffReik for 3 days for sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Very old AfD's

Resolved

 – All the AfDs are listed in a current log and should be assessed for closing within a week. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a bunch of AfD's which were all started well over a week ago (in some cases over a month ago) by User:Koavf, and have not yet been closed or relisted. They were probably not added to the log. Could someone take a look and close these?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Plus Grand Français
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsere Besten
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Chilean
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le plus grand Belge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velikite Balgari
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Greatest Ukrainians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Like a Girl (Emilie Autumn album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memories of a Time to Come
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Triple Album Project (working title)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars and Stories

Thanks. —SW— ^express 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle error, me error All were made by WP:TWINKLE. I seemed to recall that a bot came by and added them to the days' logs, so I didn't think that I would have to manually add them. I guess I was wrong...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check if they had been added to any logs, but if they haven't been closed after a month I think it's safe to say they weren't added. I used to have similar troubles with Twinkle, although I thought that got fixed. I usually just double-check that Twinkle did everything it was supposed to do whenever I start an AfD. —SW— ^talk 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Once an AfD hits a month old it starts popping up in various reports, and if it is not in a current log it will usually be listed. There are no bots that automatically list them, but twinkle is *supposed* to list them if you use it to create the AfD. It is usually a good idea to check to make sure twinkle did it right when it comes to actions that require twinkle to edit multiple pages such as with AfD listings. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a known problem that also effects FfDs. Fastily created a tool that helps track the FfDs, which is at User:Fastily/FfD. His bot updates the page daily. Could a similar thing be developed for AfDs? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, User:DumbBOT used to fix the listings. See User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD (last updated July 2011) and User talk:DumbBOT#User:DumbBOT/IncompleteAfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I find them at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old, though I suspect some editors have additional ways of identifying them. Monty₈₄₅ 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Robert Moore

Looks like this user has had an AN/I in the past (in October 2010), but from what I can tell, it didn't help any. This is basically to bring up the same things that were done back then, but I'll repeat them anyway. User also refuses to format references correctly, even after my request on his talk page, and it's getting extremely tedious to go through and correct them all. There are also no edit summaries to provide any explanation (a quick search reveals that the only edit summaries he has ever used are when moving a page, using the summary "Title change"). It looks to me like these have been continuous things (as evident here), and the user doesn't seem to ever respond to anyone (except one notable case when he was blocked for two weeks). I hate that it had to come to this, but it's clear that talk page messages will not get through, so I'm not exactly sure how to proceed. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with using <ref>...</ref> ... that's what I use. Of course, using Twitter as a ref, that's far more offensive in my mind, but it's not just him doing that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The {{cite web}} template is what I was referring to. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But what exactly is the problem? That he won't use {{cite web}} as per your insistence? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes (though I just now found out here that it's not required, as I previously thought it was). However, my other problems still remain: the user has never responded to anyone and refuses to use edit summaries. When other users attempt to make contact, we are simply ignored. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not much an admin can do for an editor who refuses to discuss unless he's being disruptive which this guy doesn't appear to be doing. N^oformation ^Talk 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Kumkwat

Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding information concerning the relationship between Phil Collins and Dana Tyler and an RfC was filed (see request for comment). Today, after being given a final warning on his talk page four days ago by Srobak (talk · contribs) and Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the user has continued to readd the same information. ([140], [141]). I am alerting the community of what has happened, and I hope this is not excessive. What is the best way to handle this situation? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been warned about edit-warring and this issue a dozen times - given their continued perseverance, I've rewarded them with an indefinite block. There are some good contributions in there, but they're effectively voided by the disruption. They've still got talk page access if they want to appeal. m.o.p 04:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User Barsoomian

I really don't have the time to spend on this, but Barsoomian is getting a little out of hand. I think I need someone with more experience than I give the guy/gal a heads up as to what passes for civility in Wikipedia, because I've been dealing with repeated personal attacks, bad faith accusations and tendentious OWNership issues. I've been keeping my cool, but the user has been repeatedly posting on my user talk page after asking me to stay off his. Quick backstory (sans content issues): I started editing New Amsterdam (TV series), removing some points of OR and SYN (1). Another user, MJBurrage reverted, and I thinking that the user had made a mistake, contacted him about it a few days later(2). For whatever reason, he didn't get back to me, so I went ahead and reverted it back, 2 days later(3). Barsoomian then reverted, suggesting that I use the talk page to convince people, which I did.
This is where everything went downhill. Almost from the get-go, Barsoomian presumed I was out to gut "his" article, and went on the attack:

• 4 - "pedantry", "If you can't be bothered to work through the details", "pushy", "I will revert any wholesale deletion you make on the trivial grounds you have raised"
• 5 - "could you be more dismissive, and rude if you tried?"
• 6 - "your screeds", ""

The list goes on and on, but it's more of a complete skewing of my words and an overwhelming trollish behavior on the part of Barsoomian than any given comment. Its all a snide grouping of sniping attacks, and it presents a toxic environment to work within. I have remained pretty damn civil, considering(7, 8, 9, 10) without even a hint of effect. If anything, Barsoomian's behavior has ballooned out of control.
Anyhoo, I initiated an RfC on the content issues, so as to bring in more editors and thus remove the clear anger being shown me by Barsoomian. If he wasn't going to listen to me, maybe he'd listen to others telling him the same thing.
I also sought to follow DR, addressing the conflict at DRN, but Transporter Man closed it, noting on his talk page that conduct issues aren't within the scope of DRN. I really tried to avoid posting the matter here, naively believing that if Barsoomian saw that I was serious enough about his uncivil behavior to take it to DRN, he might calm down. I was of course wrong. He has posted personal attacks on my usertalk, dropping the f-bomb when it suits him (11, 12, "Respond here on your actions or I will find another venue".

I'm tired of this user thinking that he can treat other users this way, simply because they have come to "gut" his private article. MJBurrage has invested more edits in the article, but his behavior has been pretty darn polite, a pleasure to discuss, even if we disagree. Barsoomian has been a nightmare. Maybe I am the bad guy here, but I am not seeing how that's possible. I am thinkig this user decided that the best defense is a good offense. And boy, he's been offensive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I dispute every word of the above. If anyone takes any of it seriously, after reviewing the actual context rather than Sebastian's snippets, please specify below which if any points require a response or explanation and I will do so. I have work to do in real life, so please do not expect an immediate response. Thanks. PS: I had already posted at Wikiquette assistance on a related issue (that was the "another venue" I resorted to after trying to discuss it on his talk page). Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, discovered it had been filed immediately after posting here. Barsoomian's and my respective complaints appear to have been filed within 20 minutes of each other (mine was the latter, though in my defense, I was crafting the complaint here and missed the wikiquette complaint by Barsoomian about something relatively unrelated to this complaint). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LMFTFY: "something DIRECTLY RELATED to this complaint". Barsoomian (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My first recommendation would be that you two discontinue all communication with each other for the time being. I'll talk to you individually and work as a mediator to settle this issue. If one of you says something the other does not agree with, please do not reply to the offending statement. Just let me know if you think your words or actions are being misrepresented and I'll do the rest. Also, please do not make any edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to, especially not to the articles you've already clashed on.

I know it seems a bit much to completely separate you two, but, given that you're both well-spoken and have your wits about yourselves, I feel like any writing one of you produces will serve as a seed for the other's rebuttal.

If you can both agree to this, then we can get started with resolution. If not, I'll take more-traditional avenues of sanctioning. Let me know on my talk page - this thread isn't in the best location for dispute resolution. m.o.p 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

German (or any language) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The burden (of providing RS) lies with the editor who adds material.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC) untimestamped as not really ongoing anymore. Fram - Talk User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC) No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC) One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC) No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC) I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC) I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC) In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC) I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC) When an apparently reliable source is cited in a nonEnglish Wikipedia or even in a different article in the English Wikipedia, is verifiability satisfied just by copying the information and listing the cited work as the reference, if the present editor has not seen the source himself, to verify that it supports the statement? Is there any way of citing it as having been copied but not accessed by the present editor? Many print references have little or no content viewable online, and many newspaper and journals are behind paywall and not readily accessible to the present editor who needs it as a reference for some statement. Can Wikipedia editors legitimately translate foreign Wikipedia articles and just copy the references, without having checked the content of the references? Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it says "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2." Is it legit to do this and say "German Wikipedia, article XXX" where the example says "Name of encyclopedia I have seen?" Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) A short and sweet answer: no. A Wikipedia (any Wikipedia, including this one) isn't a reliable source. What you are proposing is a route to circular referencing. If you haven't seen something, you shouldn't cite it, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC) So what is {{Translation/Ref}} for? It's used on a very large number of pages. If the discussion above were actually correct, all of these would need to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I believe that is for when you have copied and translated material from a different-language Wikipedia, in order to prevent plagarism or copyvio claims. I don't see how it has anything to do with finding sources for the content copied and translated.--Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Of course one shouldn't cite it directly. But I AGF on the part of people who add references to WP articles, on any language WP. If references have been added to the xxWP, and I translate the article into English, I copy the references as a first step. (The next step is trying to find references that may be more appropriate here if they exist, although of course references in any language are acceptable if they are the best or the most accessible.) Removing references when doing such a translation is singularly unproductive. Not copying such references over would be akin to moving a page here and removing the references because one had not verified them. In both cases, the references are checkable by those who want to check them. The requirement is Verifiability, and that means not adding new material without knowing that it can be references; it doesn't apply to such routine things as copying with attribution or translation. Of course we don't cite the other WPs as sources, but we can and should use their references; I don't think there's a burden on the translator to reconfirm them. We are an encyclopedia, not a scholarly publication, and we do not do source-checking in the sense a scholarly publisher would. Anyone who thinks we do is misunderstanding. The problem, rather, is material that is present but uncited on another WP. The deWP has the well-known practice of not specifically citing material which they consider any user can find in an ordinary library in standard sources (I doubt its their formal policy, but it seems to be their practice). I try to find at least one usable reference when translating these, even if I cannot fully reference the material at the timer. Again, I AGF for the contributors there. This is particularly applicable to at least the de and fr WPs , where I know by experience they have a very low frequency of containing unverifiable material--a frequency much lower than ours. I'd even say a frequency much lower than ours even when our articles purport to have references and theirs do not. Removing uncontroversial material because of a temporary inability to reference it is not in my opinion constructive in any context--with the obvious exceptions of certain sorts of material in BLPs, etc. We will have quite enough to do if we all concentrate on removing the controversial or unlikely or POV or clearly outdated or apparently dubious material, and checking any references they might seem to have, which in my experience are rather likely to be unreliable. After we've all worked on this and solved the problem several years down the road, we can work on the remainder. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC) No, the problem is precisely in doing what DGG is saying to do-- copying text from a Wiki, translating it, and then copying in the citations without reading the sources. You can't translate an article without reading the sources to see if they're correctly represented. The whole notion that you can just translate an article and then copy over the sources is beyond belief. No, the German Wiki is not a reliable source, and any article that is translated should be done by someone who is actually reading the sources from the article they are translating. Otherwise, they are adding content to en.wiki without knowing if it meets WP:V-- merely assuming the text was correct on the other Wiki (and not a copyvio). I don't understand why anyone would encourage editors to translate articles without consulting the sources. Sources carried over from another Wiki by a translator without reading those sources is as good as nothing; our core policies on neutrality and sourcing should trump the desire for content (I know they don't always, but anyway ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Activity at Teen Mania Ministries

There's been some frantic editing by anons, an SPA, and various others at Teen Mania Ministries today. What seems to have happened is that MSNBC made a documentary about the organization, and ran it last Sunday. Teen Mania Ministries is not pleased. Ron Luce, the leader, is engaged in spin control efforts, which may have spilled over into Wikipedia. I rolled back some of the changes, but the article could use a few more eyes on it until things quiet down. See Talk:Teen Mania Ministries for links to recent press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge . . .

No objection having been raised to a merge atTalk:Rick_J._Caruso, could it kindly be accomplished? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging articles does not require administrator action; any editor can do it. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger. Bencherlite^Talk 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Ryan kirkpatrick

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

Due to the discussion below, Ryan kirkpatrick is henceforth site banned from Wikipedia per the banning policy. This policy makes it very clear that we, as a community, have the ability to revoke an individual's editor status in order to preserve the site's integrity. Given the near-unanimous consensus below, I think the community's decision is clear. m.o.p 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

---

• Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) and his merry socks.

Long-term sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick has stepped up his activity lately. This user has - so far - had 53 confirmed sock accounts and IP addresses, with at least another 7 being extremely likely. In addition, he has popped up yesterday and today vandalising his SPI page [142] [143] with WP:OWNish behavior and promises to "not [go] anywere until all my past work is gone". Given all this, I would like to propose a formal and official WP:BAN of this user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See also this edit summary, says it all really. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Another quality comment from him. Apparently he thinks it's OK to set ultimatums. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there is practically zero collateral damage, I'll rangeblock the college he's editing from, as a start (and will mention why on the block log). Black Kite (t) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with that many socks Ryan is de-facto banned anyway, so we may as well formalise the ban to speed up the process of blocking further socks. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously intentionally disruptive to the project. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Obviously. HurricaneFan25 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obviously. He already is defacto banned and I've always treated him accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, provided we are allowed to actually enforce this ban (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:G5 Discussion); if not, then I see no purpose of even keeping him blocked. –MuZemike 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he is adding good images which enhance the project. Chesdovi (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you referring to [144]? If so AFAICT he has nothing to do with the image other then putting it in the article. He has had so many accounts I guess it's possible he's uploaded images but I'm not seeing in his main accounts listed above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He has uploaded images - about 10 IIRC; every single one was a copyvio. YSSYguy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Socking above and beyond the norm. MarnetteD | Talk 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Report says it all. --NellieBly (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need that sort of behavior. LadyofShalott 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support His behavior and "threats" are convincing enough for me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per socking, threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is long past due. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per every support reason above, way past due. Heiro 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Dumb question: Who is the sock and who is the master? Ryan kirkpatrick is listed as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay/Archive#24 June 2010, but then about two weeks later an SPI is opened listing Ryan kirkpatrick as the master. This is confusing, shouldn't the ban be for User:Jersay instead of kirkpatrick, and shouldn't the SPIs be combined? Apologies if this is needlessly confusing the matter. Rgrds. --64.85.216.178 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The relationship of User:Ryan kirkpatrick and User:Jersay appears to be unclear. From what I can tell, Rk appeared right after a confirmed Jersaysock was blocked and picked up where that sock left off - but Ryan appears to be from an entirely different country (Canada vs UK). Move or meatpuppetry? Unknown - hence the seperate SPIs. The Rk socks after that, however, are all definitively linked to Rk and his brigade of sockpuppets. The link between User:Jersay and User:Ryan kirkpatrick was strictly behaviorial; the links between Rk and his 54+ socks are either CU confirmed or quacking much louder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a mildly irrelevant question. We haven't tagged any socks for Jersay since Jan 2010, whereas we block a RK sock at least once a month. As far as I'm concerned Jersay is out of the picture. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Especially as it appears that Ryan has changed from merely being a nuisance to threatening to harrass other editors - perhaps someone should contact the college to which the ip which Ryan appears to have used to make the latest posts?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - if this user is has disruptive behavior in this encyclopedia, he is no longer welcome Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - With several sock puppets and severe disruption by the user, this has gone far enough. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Appears to be feeding on the attention and creating socks faster than the SPIs can be closed and opened. Has moved from being a nusiance to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I reviewed whats going on and concur with all of the above. -OberRanks (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I'm highly surprised that we didn't have a ban in place already. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, it would be absurd to think that such a prolific sockpuppetteer didn't deserve banning. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Mostly for socking, but also for lack of competence, disruption, threats, etc etc. --Blackmane (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Found something on an Arbcom diff

Resolved

I'm not sure this is really where it should be, and I'm not sure who's behind it, but I was going through the history on the new BCD ArbComm case's evidence (trying to catch up on it), and found what looks like some sort of weird-ass template vandalism on this diff. I'm sure Masem wasn't involved in making it, and the diffs around it are just fine, but given what I'm getting on my screen when I opened that diff, I thought I should notify somebody. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's caused by someone (i.e Masem) using {{User:Username}} when they should link with square brackets instead. Using the curly jobbies transcludes the userpage into the page being edited. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• He fixed it next edit by changing the : to a |. DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Guess I learn something new about WP every day! Even when I'm trying to avoid it... rdfox 76 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the certified idiot gif is on Hammersoft's userpage. He also managed to transclude Tristessa's userpage. That's the sort of thing I would do :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a great example of why the "show preview" button is such a Good Thing. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See also: That's why we preview, kids. Not that I haven't done the same damn thing, myself... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP mess

Resolved

 – Solipsism block levied after abuse of email and talk page. Nothing more to see here.

• Cazedessus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Bruce Cockburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first noticed this issue today on WP:BLPN here. User Cazedessus, who is apparently also Camille Cazedessus, Jr., has some sort of vendetta against Bruce Cockburn. The BLP violation was properly removed from the Cockburn article here. However, I decided to add a warning about the insertion of the material to Cazedessus's Talk page (which is an unholy mess). After doing so, I realized there is a huge diatribe against Cockburn on the Talk page interspersed with other editors' comments and warnings, making it difficult to remove. Also, there are personal attacks as well on editors (calling them Nazis, among other things). This isn't just an article issue, it's an editor issue. What's the best way to handle this?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's an editor issue. I tried to engage the editor in discussion when it first transpired at the beginning of the month but didn't get anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Whack the motherf***** already. This sounds like a competence issue compounded by a seething hatred for this guy; Cazedessus has no business being here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. After reading through all that, I've concluded he's WP:NOTHERE and, accordingly, I've blocked him indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger, that's an interesting little bouillabaisse of self-promotion and paranoia. It's best we just seal the vault on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the BLP violations from the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed almost all of the page; only the last two sections of it remain. (The rest of it was BLP vios and personal screeds.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is a competence issue. Caz is not a net benefit to WP. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy, I noticed your removal, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, happy to see a "competence" block, we should see them more often, for example, in cases that aren't quite as easy as this one, and may take more time and research to understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read a new definition of "hate crime" today. [145] Cazedessus may have a good reason to criticize Cockburn song's lyrics, and even cite his own book for that criticism, but he's doing it in a totally tabloid fashion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After doing some searches, Cazedessus' books on Carson are unheard of in Worldcat. They're either self-published or printed by a totally obscure publisher. They don't even seem to have ISBNs. I've removed them from the Carson article. [146] The may belong in Cazedessus' bio though, although at this point I cant even verify their existence. As for the Cockburn song, no secondary source is cited with respect to it being a significant view/presentation of Carson. I propose removal on that grounds, unless reliable secondary sources can be found to testify for the importance of that song for Carson's image. [147] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat is mostly academic libraries and as such might very well not have Cazedessus's books, which sound targeted toward a different audience. Try loc.gov or some kind of science fiction reference. Also, ISBN's were invented in the 1970's or so, and didn't become really widespread til much later than that. So lack of ISBN's on books from the 1970's doesn't by itself indicate obscurity. I have no opinion on the Cazedessus-Cockburn battle but if Cazedessus's books are being excerpted without proper citations, we should fix that (perhaps by removing the material). (Added: Oh wait, I see now that the Carson books were much more recent (2000's), so the ISBN issue is a bit more bothersome). 71.141.89.4 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Worldcat is mostly academic libraries..." Oh really? I don't think that is accurate. LadyofShalott 03:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Worldcat is mostly academic libraries... Er, no, at least their own website suggests otherwise: "WorldCat.org lets you search the collections of libraries in your community and thousands more around the world. WorldCat grows every day thanks to the efforts of librarians and other information professionals." And a quick search using a random book from my shelf and my old ZIP Code gets 10 public libraries and 9 university libraries with the first edition of the book. I suspected it's weighted towards academic libraries and because they're more likely to have computerized and Internet-accessible catalogs than many small city libraries. Yes, . Also, if "academic libraries" are not the target of Cazedessus's book, that pretty much denigrates it as a reliable source, doesn't it? --Calton | Talk 12:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, it does look like they (Worldcat) have absorbed a lot more catalogs in the last few years (see OCLC for some background and some now-out-of-date statistics that I may try to fix), and here for some criticism). I haven't looked at Cazedessus's stuff but some googling shows one of his books is a bibliography of other Carson-related publications. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT surprisingly says it's ok to use such sources without crediting them, which is not the way I was taught to do things. I'd say Cazedessus' bibliography is perfectly ok to use as a research aid in writing the article even if it's not an RS in its own right; and if it was used that way without credit, I can understand why Cazedessus got upset. 71.141.89.4 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• And today, I found an email from our friend Cazadessus sent through Wiki's mail in my inbox:

What exactly is your problem? First I am THREATENED with being blocked (by somebody named Goetz?), then i AM BLOCKED by you. And now I see that all the comic book and movie information that comes from my publications is still included, but no longer referenced to my publications. But Bruce Cockburn's hate speech song lyrics are included in the Kit Carson section, where someone says "(it) that does not present Carson in a positive light." Really? That sounds like "original research" to me. Since I am using my real name, I'd like to have your real name.

(On that last, I don't think so.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks BlackKite. (Funny that he decided to use email seeing as he isn't blocked from using his talk page...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Crikey; a song is fiction. I'm now starting to get real pissed off at the Crash Test Dummies because I don't think Superman ever used "dirty old phone booths" like they claim in Superman's Song. Should I sue? </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Love his assertion that misspelling text avoids the copyright implications; if only we'd realised that before, all the fine folk at CCI could have been editing productively, too. </second batch of sarcasm> Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see he finally turned up at the talk page, essentially accusing us of being out to get him. I'll leave it to another to respond further to him there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert shut him down at the talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Prolonged Pattern of Disruptive Editing by User:Hoops gza

I believe a serious situation has been going for sometime with Hoops gza (talk · contribs) which at this point violates WP:DISRUPT and requires administrative action. Since joining this site two years ago, Hoops has experienced a string of disruptive editing practices beginning with vandalism and edit warring and eventually moving into disruptive page moves and violations of Wikipedia's policies on categories. Most recently, and perhaps the most serious of all, Hoops has engaged in the uploading of several images to Wikipedia with questionable copyright status and seemingly deliberate false licensing tags. Up to now, Hoops has escaped any real attention from administrators since the user (when confronted) does back down and has up to now steered clear of any WP:NPA or WP:CIV violations. However, Hoops patterns of disruptive editing have been going on now for well over a year and a half, causing the attention, intervention, and frustration of numerous editors. I spent some time going back through the user's edit history and what I found was very alarming. I strongly urge some kind of administrative action against this account in order to stop this obvious pattern of disruption.

Previous admin board discussions
November 2010, May 2011

Disruptive Editing History

Account appears to have been created in November 2009. There was an eight month edit gap between January and August 2010. The first signs of disruptive editing began a month later in September 2010. Many of the early disruptions can perhaps be attributed to "Newbie" errors and a misunderstanding of policies. However, acts of edit warring and vandalism appear to have continued into April 2011. The next month, the user began uploading questionable images to Wikipedia, a pattern which continues to the present day. In the summer of 2011, the user began to draw attention from others due to improper page moves and category creations. The most recent disruption appears to be a new wave of improper image uploads both this month and last.

• Article edit warring [148] (Sep 2010)
• Talk page vandalism warning [149] (Sep 2010)
• Page move without consensus [150] (Oct 2010)
• Article edit warring leading to a block [151] (Nov 2010)
• Article edit warring shortly after being unblocked [152] (Nov 2010)
• Images tagged for possible copyright infringement [153] (Jan 2011)
• Vandalism warning [154] (Jan 2011)
• Removing speedy deletion templates from article [155] [156] (Feb 2011)
• Article edit warring [157] (Mar 2011)
• Images tagged for possible copyright infringement [158] [159] (Apr 2011)
• Improper talk page usage [160] (Apr 2011)
• Multiple image uploads with follow-on re uploads, all with seemingly fraudulent licensing tags [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] (May 2011)
• Discussion about removing deletion tags [179] (May 2011)
• Discussion on disruptive editing [180] (May 2011)
• Article edit warring [181] (Jun 2011)
• Improper page moves without consensus [182] (Jun 2011)
• Category edit warring [183] (Jun 2011)
• Category edit warring [184] (Jul 2011)
• Article edit warring [185] (Jul 2011)
• Mass category blanking and attempted deletion without discussion [186] [187]
• Seemingly uploading an image with a false licensing tag [188] (Oct 2011)
• Re-adding speedy delete template to redirected article [189] (Oct 2011)
• Creating a branch category without consensus or discussion (subsequently deleted) - (Nov 2011)
• Seemingly uploading an image with a false licensing tag [190] (Nov 2011)

-OberRanks (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this seems to be a disruptive editor suffering from a lack of competence. I'm partial to a temporary block - I'm not an advocate of issuing blocks as punishment, but it's clear that warnings aren't doing anything in this case. m.o.p 04:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a final, final warning here. Thanks a thousandfold for your effort and for reporting this to us, OberRanks - we'll handle it from here. If you have any concerns at all, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 04:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They would also benefit from some encouragement to use the talk pages more. I perused the last 3000 edits and there are barely a handful of edits to talk pages and some are just notices of page moves, so real talk page discussion is probably countable on one hand. --Blackmane (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Main issue is that the user doesn't appear to know or care that what they are doing is disruptive to the site. Hoops has been offered a mentor on more than one occasion and has never shown any interest in this - in fact has never even responded to inquiries about it. Certainly willing to entertain a final chance, though, but chances are probably nothing will improve due to the editor's own lack of interest in the whole situation and a refusal to even acknowledge that a situation even exists. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there usually a case to indef block an editor if they're refusing to communicate with others if only to get their attention that their behaviour is unacceptable? --Blackmane (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But I like giving final warnings beforehand. I'll be watching the user for a while - if their behaviour doesn't change, they'll be blocked. m.o.p 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jwmarriottjkt

Resolved: Indefinitely blocked. m.o.p 18:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please could an admin have a friendly word with Special:Contributions/Jwmarriottjkt about COI (already done), minor edits, the username policy and most of all, creatively re-imagining history to detach a company from the attacks on its facilities. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Given their vehemence over removing any mention of that hotel from articles mentioning the suicide bombing (and coupled with the username), I've indefinitely blocked them for username violation. I'll leave a note on their page explaining why. m.o.p 18:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I struggle to get my head around what kind of marketing strategy that was meant to be. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has now three separate times removed comments from a section he has opened at NPOV/N on the basis that he feels that it almost explicitly compares Israelis to Nazis. Forgetting for a second that the comments do not compare Israelis, or anyone else, to Nazis but rather makes a mockery of Hearfourmewesique argument that because somebody "disputes" something that it is not true, Hearfourmewesique feels that he or she has the authority to regulate who may comment and the content of those comments. To combine the disruption of removing another person's comments with edit-warring makes this that much more obvious of an issue requiring admin intervention. nableezy - 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Warned here. m.o.p 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost, article Bön, and WP:3RR

SudoGhost (talk · contribs) has violated 3RR on article Bön having reverted my move of the article to the name most commonly reflected by the English sources here, and by twice reverting my updating of the body of the article to change the name within the article from "Bön" to "Bon", to remove excess dead links, and to update the incorrectly cited sources (where publication titles spelled "Bon" were misspelled in the citations as "Bön") here and here, all within a 19 hour period.
The user was notified of this ANI here.  — Who R you? Talk 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, there was no 3RR violation, even taking into account the move revert (which I clean forgot about) although it could be argued that there was edit warring between both parties, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this content, and I have no intention of editing the page further, despite the fact that the most recent edit has broken the article subject's category. The appropriate board for 3RR is WP:3RRNB, not WP:ANI. Second, the talk page discussion has the content / article title discussion, so there's no need to rehash that here. I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit (keeping the category and some lede stuff) when the user reverted the content, ironically after pointing the "edit warring" finger my way. - SudoGhost 06:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that you're both edit-warring, there's not much to be said here. Take it to the talk page and discuss - call an RfC if you must. But, unless you've both agreed on an acceptable action, I'd like it if you didn't make contested edits or reverted each other. Continued warring will result in a block. m.o.p 07:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting to see a claim that "I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit ", when, between the time that I read and responded to the comments on the talk page insinuating that repeated revisions of me were acceptable because he was under the '4 count', and my posting notification on his talk page and posting this notice here, SudoGhost posted this notice warning me of edit warring for my single reversion; but then accusation is often the easiest path.

It's a shame there's no edit history of this partial self revision that was apparently happening; one would have thought, give that there was time to post all these comments on the talk page's two different sections, to revert me, and to comment on my talk page that there would have been time to include in one of the talk page comments some mention of even a willingness to look at the revisions that had been made; obviously that would have completely changed the tone of the conversations from it's previous course.  Up to that point, I had just seen that my edit had been reverted within 4 minutes of my making it (which, incidentally, I'd say had taken me a good 4 hours [on my dead slow system] to check all the linked sources, all the external links, and to review every reference in the article spelled "Bön" [there were I believe 4 and 1 checked out as correct], let alone updating the 100+ misspellings of "Bön" within the article itself).  All in all, I'm at a loss as to why there appears to be such dedication to ensuring that every reference to this is systematically misspelled in Wikipedia; baffling; and, of course, like everyone, I dislike being reverted, particularly in a situation where I've invested substantial time and effort to try to ensure that I've dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's, and with the move reversion, I could at least see a plausible reasoning, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but as for intentionally misspelling something throughout an article... as I said, baffling.

As to whether this should rightly have been posted at WP:AN3, hind-sight being 20/20, obviously I should have; but then seeing as how Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'll leave it for someone (other than SudoGhost) to let me know if they'd like me to copy and paste this conversation over to there (and of course post another user talk page notice for that, since that is the proper bureaucratic procedure); just LMK here.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 07:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Master of Puppets' comments, I'll keep in mind for future edits that proper WP protocol is to repeatedly revert any change made by another user as quickly as possible up the 3 times a day.  Meanwhile, I'll spend the hour adding the RfC and RM templates tomorrow as this has already been a big enough pain in the ass for today. — Who R you? Talk 07:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

...and you'll likely find yourself blocked quickly if you do revert "up to the 3 times a day" ... twice can be considered edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well that is what I thought, but then I can always just link to this conversation where I've been told by a not-just-new-to-this admin that 3 reverts is just fine and I should go work it out for myself on the talk page and waste my time with RfCs and RMs, which of course I'll do; but I'd say I've got pretty good precedent here to say that 3 intentional reverts to prevent correction of things which are clearly shown and explained to be contrary to cited, verifiable RS is deemed acceptable; so why not repeatedly revert someone and just say, I don't agree with your facts, when it means you get to piss the other guy off and force him to waste his time talking to people about something that they aren't going to do anything about (the definition of bureaucracy).  Cheers. — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So your accusation is that I couldn't have been trying to self-revert and instead was edit-warring, because I was too busy discussing? For someone who claims that "accusation is often the easiest path", I'm seeing a lot of rather ironic claims being thrown my way. I'm accused of having an agenda by someone whose editing history and talk page both shows a clear agenda to remove any diacritics from articles for no other reason than that they are present, and I'm being accused of edit-warring by someone who then follows up this claim by edit-warring. - SudoGhost 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• As said on the talk page, I follow the (English) RS; if the (English) RS has diacritics, then I type diacritics, if not, then I'll fight to have them removed.  I do have a problem with the surprisingly large number of Wikipedians who apparently seem to think they're cool or something and think that they should be added because they used them in a foreign language, but I'm looking for the English WP to be in English (you're obviously not).  And wasting someone's time, basically stalling, is not the same as actually saying something intelligent; by repeatedly saying things like, 'the ghits don't mean anything just because there are 300 times as many in the other spelling', or, 'the 3RR rule doesn't say you can't revert three times in a row and what you're quoting is from the WP:EW (edit warring) section' (but of course it is in fact from the 3RR section).  Any a-hole can fart around and waste peoples time with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother; we call them lawyers and politicians (I personally call them the scum of our society). — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you say one thing, then do another, ignoring the fact that reliable sources spell something a certain way because you have an issue with diacritics. Don't like the policy I refer to? Just call into question my intellect, and of wasting peoples time "with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother". That way you can just skirt around that pesky article title policy consensus, right? And here I am bothering you with yet another "lawyering" policy. - SudoGhost 12:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just stumbled across this subpage which pretty much sums up the status of the article (even if the page is 3-years-old). — Who R you? Talk 12:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's so nice that you two are finally having a discussion that should have taken place long before bringing this to ANI. Go; edit; be nice; follow dispute resolution if needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is civil? - SudoGhost 12:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I was just coming back here to add to my previous post to say that the 'scum' comment was very much directed at lawyers, and not personally at you SudoGhost, and that I wouldn't want you to think that I was directing that at you; but I'm apparently way to late for that, so for that alone, which it appears you (understandably) thought I was directing at you, I sincerely apologize.  As I said, the term was not meant for or directed at you, regardless of how I can understand it would have appears so.  That's not to say that you haven't pissed me off in terms of your responses during out talk page conversations and I think that you're intentionally manipulating things to find any excuse around the arguments, but if I were going to call you a bad name I'd come right out and say it (no innuendo or implication involved).  And as I said on the talk page (which I don't know if you've added more to or not; either way), we'll just leave it to the RfC/RM and let others decide.  And since this is obviously a waste of time, I'll just ignore this page unless someone wants to leave a message on my talk page. — Who R you? Talk 13:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The "scum" comment is far from the only personal attack there, I don't see anything there that isn't a personal attack. As for my intentionally manipulating (which again, is a personal attack), do you mean using Wikipedia policy to back up my comments? I'm sorry if that "pisses you off", but if something is backed up by Wikipedia policy, which is a consensus of Wikipedia editors, I'm going to state that. - SudoGhost 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you guys could stop focusing on each others' perceived faults and work on the article instead. As in, discuss content, not the other editor. If anybody's looking for more detail on what that means, please feel free to ask on my talk page. m.o.p 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve added a post on the article’s talk page (∆ edit here) asking the combatants to just get on with the task of presenting evidence for how the RSs handle the spelling, which is how those two should have resolved it in the first place. Questioning whether the other has ever seen the inside of a classroom just results in wasted time at ANIs. Debating How Wikipedia Can Best Lead The Way To A New English Language Of the Future®™© is verboten. Bring on hard evidence of what the preponderance of most-reliable RSs are doing with regard to spelling the word, debate (civilly), be patient so others have an opportunity to weigh in if you can’t agree as to the basic facts, and let the community arrive at a consensus. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, calling editors "combatants" and comparing us to this image isn't exactly helping. - SudoGhost 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, I’m sorry, SudoGhos. The image was intended as a humorous reference to us all—not just you. That’s why it was linked to “as mere wikipedians.” I too clearly am a wikipedian. The intent of the image was to humorously (at least try to) drive home the fact that as mere wikipedians (an all-volunteer army of non-experts in a collaborative writing environment), we can’t possibly pretend that it is within our purview to flout the RSs. Instead, we look to reliable sources for guidance and follow them. How do the preponderance of most-reliable, English-language sources spell “Bon”?

  After seeing your latest rant over there, you seem to have driven the nail in the coffin that the practices of the RSs are sufficiently clear; even The Bon Foundation themselves spell it without the diacritic when communicating in English.

  You seem overly anxious to take offense here now that you are embroiled at an ANI and the combativeness you exhibited here on the talk page shows you might best consider a taking some time to cool off. My message point there was plain as day but you didn’t like the message point. I suggested you two stop acting combative and stop attacking each other. I stated that the dispute is best decided one way: by bringing forth evidence of what the RSs are doing and settle it that way. Your response? To attack me. Your taking a stand in defiance of the RSs calls into question the manner in which you are going about trying to achieve your ends. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you may want to consider than text as read is not the same as words as spoken, because your "suggestion" mixed with your "humor" came across as passive-agressive, belittling the two of us, which was unhelpful, to say the least. It seems you're not reading the talk page, because there is no "defiance of the RSs". There are two different discussions on the talk page, one about Bon as used as the common name (which I am not disagreeing with, something you seem to be confused about), and then there is the discussion about natural versus parenthetical disambiguation, something WP:PRECISE is very clear about, yet there seems to be a communication issue because these two discussions are getting crossed. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be quickly getting embroiled with every editor who disagrees with you on points of fact. You might look into cause & effect. And please take the time to properly sign your posts and properly indent them. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a vague statement that doesn't reflect the talk page, which is perhaps just because the talk page has a lot going on, which understandably makes it tedious to read. There's nothing here for an admin to do, so anything related to the article's subject should be directed there, and anything regarding myself should be presented at my talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, good. I’m glad you changed your mind and refactored your previous post. When editors you have never previously encountered come here to offer constructive criticism, and you quote their critical commentary and append This appears to be something you wrote for yourself to read. I'll take it as such, it comes across strikingly similar to “I know you are but what am I?” I thought you could do better than that. To start with, you need not be so combative whenever people disagree with you. I also strongly suggest you refrain from 3RR violations in the future or you will keep on finding yourself the subject of ANIs. 3RR violations are the source of serious discord on Wikipedia and are borne out of a lack of good-faith discussion on talk pages and are often a harbinger that an editor is unwilling to abide by consensus. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you intended well, but your execution missed the mark somewhat. Also, as you'll notice, there was no 3RR violation, and unless you can provide diffs to show otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you looked into things more fully before you commented. There was also no lack of discussion on the talk page at any point of time, something you've yet again seemed to overlook. The original diff you provide above was referencing the fact that you entered the talk page without reading fully what was going on (which seems to be a recurring pattern here), and started arguing without reading, thus your statement ironically seemed to apply to you as much as anyone else. - SudoGhost 18:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I intended well: to get something through to you about properly not getting into editwars with other editors and assuming good faith instead of getting combative beyond all comprehension. You seem to not be listening and reverting back to your same habits. The evidence for your 3RR violation is in the complainant’s post at the start (with three diffs). Your arguing that you forgot about the first one and—even if you hadn’t forgotten about it—it was a different sort of edit and doesn’t count, just doesn’t cut it. The editwarring is all over the same issue and you were intent on battling it out in articlespace rather than discuss and arrive at a community consensus. When I jumped in on the talk page and asked that you two merely provide evidence as to what the preponderance of most-reliable English-language RSs were doing so we can follow the RSs, you immediately got hostile and combative with me. You apparently are intent on doing what SudoGhost wants rather than abide by fundamental policies guiding how Wikipedia works. User: Who R you? was clearly trying to get that article into conformance. And when you try to justify your positions with links to guidelines and policy pages, a reading of what is actually there doesn’t support your position. We don’t need that sort of attitude in a collaborative writing environment. You best start listening more and engaging in editwarring less. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion to act or close Further discussions with SudoGhost seem unlikely to get much of anything accomplished given this editor’s propensity to taunt editors this way. (This appears to be something you wrote for yourself to read. I'll take it as such.) I request that an admin merely look at the complainant’s first post, examine the diffs to see if there is merit to the allegation of a 3RR violation, and take it from there. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're saying a whole lot of things that seem very dire, but providing diffs for none of them, and none of them appear to be even close to the mark. As for assuming good faith, I suggest you assume the assumption of good faith, especially because I said right above your response that I did so. There is no evidence for 3RR, and three diffs is not a 3RR violation, and never was. I also never said it was a different sort of edit and doesn't count. I was edit warring, and never denied it, but that issue was solved before it ever got to ANI, the only real issue was two editors frustrated with one another, something that has been resolved, and yet here we are still, and I think I figured out why. You seem to have an extensive history of combatative behavior and incivility, and I appear to have walked right into it, through my own fault. Thank you for the warnings and advice, they have been heeded and will be taken into consideration in the future. Unless anyone can provide a diff of anything that requires an administrator's attention, I apologize for my behavior which was uncalled for. I also would kindly request that this thread be closed, and that any discussions about myself that do not require immediate administrator's attention be directed to my talk page, and that any discussions related to the editing of Bön be directed to Talk:Bön. Thank you. - SudoGhost 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As stated, I was going to just ignore this, but a thread of a thread brought me back, so simply a comment: it seems crystal clear, from SudoGhost's comments here and here, here, here, and here, that he believes it is completely acceptable, and presumably will continue, to revert 3 times / day in expectation of complete immunity; however if, as I believe BWilkins' first comment (above) supports my understanding, 4 reverts indisputably demands a block as punishment, and less than 4 would invite a range of responses from mere admonishment to a block (length based upon considered judgment of all other factors), would anyone care to explain why admins' responses here have ranged from 'too bad, so sad, work it out for yourself' to warning me of a potential block (I having made 1 reversion in this case and, I believe, a total of three [not directly resultant of obvious vandalism] in my entire time on WP).  While I have no need for a pound of flesh over any of this, particularly in light of SudoGhost's recent effort at reconciliation, the question must still be asked: Was anyone planning on doing / saying anything to attempt to ensure that SudoGhost doesn't, in future situations, pursue a similar pattern of repeated (less than 4/day) reversions? — Who R you? Talk 01:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped this was resolved. Those comments were not my trying to say that edit warring was acceptable, and there's nothing in those edits that suggest otherwise. The point I was trying to make was that 3RR is a type of edit warring, and that the terms are not interchangeable. This diff you gave above (just as an example), was in response to these accusations of a 3RR violation, something that did not occur. These were accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, as there was no evidence provided that shows any 3RR violation. The diff you gave does not in any way suggest that edit warring is acceptable, only that there was no 3RR violation. This diff you gave above I believe makes my point clear: that I was not technically edit warring, I was edit warring, pure and simple. As were you (which is a different number of reversions than you suggested above). This diff was in response to the "see you in WP:ANI for WP:3RR" above it, which again was the point I was trying to make, that there was no 3RR violation, and that the terms 3RR and edit warring are not interchangeable. The other two diffs you provided are the same thing, I was trying to say that 3RR and edit warring are not interchangeable.

None of these suggest that edit warring is acceptable, only that I was not in violation of 3RR. That edit warring happened and a talk page discussion resolved it with no other action required is not evidence of intent to edit war further. Otherwise, your question would otherwise need to be answered for yourself as well, as you declared an intent to report me for edit warring, and your very next edit was to continue to edit war. However, I'm not suggesting that this shows any intent on your part to edit war in the future, only that the pendulum swings both ways. Fortunately, this is not a pendulum that needs to do anything. However, to ease any concerns that there was no discussion about this, m.o.p. and I discussed this on IRC, and I clearly acknowledged that I was in the wrong and had no intention of doing so again. I'll gladly repeat this here: I completely understand that I was edit warring, and never contested that fact. I completely understand that edit warring is not acceptable and is disruptive, and have never contested that fact. I have no intention of edit warring further, and have never made any indication that one may edit war "up to" a certain number of times. This was rather something Who R you? himself said, and I'm unsure how this declaration was then applied to myself as if I said or suggested anything of the sort.

The only thing that is "crystal clear" by those diffs is the fact that I believe that 3RR is more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, and that anything less than that is not a 3RR violation. There is no suggestion of the acceptability of edit warring found in those diffs, and any assertion otherwise is speculation based on an editor's opinion. Please assume good faith in regards to my editing, as I fully intend to do the same with others. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• My obvious (and stupid) mistake for thinking that I had only reverted once; the second time having (at the time) been in response to what I took as SudoGhost's asserting that 3 reverts were just fine.  But, I certainly don't condone my edit warring as being any more acceptable than anyone else's.

My concern, at the time of my post here earlier today, was that SudoGhost believed that reverting 3 times was ok so long as it didn't involve a 4th; (coupled with my perception of the totality of responses to the matter here).  Given SudoGhost's confirmation above that he doesn't view 3 reverts as acceptable (which was obviously how I had incorrectly taken his comments), I think it's appropriate to close this discussion as resolved.  I'm satisfied SudoGhost doesn't perceive this as proper conduct which he intends to continue pursuing, which was my concern.  And I'll certainly also attempt to live up to my own standards in this regard.

Thank you all (particularly m.o.p.) for your time and attention. — Who R you? Talk 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas

User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User blocked for a week I'll try and keep this brief. The other day, I noted a nomination by Lihaas (talk · contribs) at WP:ITNC was posted on the wrong date [191]. So to get back at me, he undid one of my revisions on the page marking a seperate nomination as ready [192] (it was eventually posted by an admin). Later on, another editor moved the nomination to the right day [193] but Lihaas later red-added it [194] and decided to take a shot at me unnecessarily [195]. So I warned him not to do it and explained that he was wrong in assuming I moved it [196]. In response, he made this somewhat threatening response [197] and now he's comparing me to deposed dictators [198]. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) hot stop whos vengeance mongering started eons ago takes it upon himself to REFACTOR other comments without any authority whatsoever. Thats not his prerorgative. And the issue is the same of the Nigeria attakcs (something he did before before because he did not like yet he has whis cake and eat it too with the current ITN on JOe Frazier) Umm he did remove it! not MOVE IT! Anyways hes quite pov in assuming notoriety...Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This isn't Lihaas' first time at ANI. Sigh. I've issued a final warning. m.o.p 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC) and youre authourity like his? Furthermore the subject title here is CLEARLY an NPA to make prejudgements where he has no authority at allLihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I should clarify that I've changed the section title here; Lihass is objecting to a previous section title, not "Lihass". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I wish you'd both dial it back a few notches. I realize this kind of spiraled out of control, and I hesitate to criticize only the person who went the furthest over the line, but Lihass, this is too far over the line. If this conflict is a single instance, can't you disengage and go back to your corners? And if this is a long-simmering dispute between the two of you, then I guess you should say so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Off the top of my head, I've also noted other instances when items he posted are "stale" (too old be posted), but it's never devolved to this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) If there's a relatively harmless pattern of posting stale items, then I'd ignore it. If there's a pattern of posting stale items that you think is disruptive (being careful not to let your current antagonism cloud your judgement), then that sounds like a job for WT:ITN. I meant, a history of you two arguing unproductively with each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) this is not something beyond AN incident...not a recalling of all thing that pissed people off. His "current antagonism DOES cloud [his] judgement." I dont cry to ANI or elsewhere when things dont go my way...thas whymy complaints dont appear here! Lets note he inclides a history f bitchinginstead of productive additionsLihaas (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) but fine i agree to tone it down if its MUTUAL...his accusation above that i maliciously posted stale posts is also "over th line" and Not AGF...i cant keep sitting back and takiong nsanctioned NPAs just ebcause i dont complain!Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar. This is a double standard. Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost, article Bön, and WP:3RR

SudoGhost (talk · contribs) has violated 3RR on article Bön having reverted my move of the article to the name most commonly reflected by the English sources here, and by twice reverting my updating of the body of the article to change the name within the article from "Bön" to "Bon", to remove excess dead links, and to update the incorrectly cited sources (where publication titles spelled "Bon" were misspelled in the citations as "Bön") here and here, all within a 19 hour period.
The user was notified of this ANI here.  — Who R you? Talk 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first, there was no 3RR violation, even taking into account the move revert (which I clean forgot about) although it could be argued that there was edit warring between both parties, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this content, and I have no intention of editing the page further, despite the fact that the most recent edit has broken the article subject's category. The appropriate board for 3RR is WP:3RRNB, not WP:ANI. Second, the talk page discussion has the content / article title discussion, so there's no need to rehash that here. I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit (keeping the category and some lede stuff) when the user reverted the content, ironically after pointing the "edit warring" finger my way. - SudoGhost 06:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that you're both edit-warring, there's not much to be said here. Take it to the talk page and discuss - call an RfC if you must. But, unless you've both agreed on an acceptable action, I'd like it if you didn't make contested edits or reverted each other. Continued warring will result in a block. m.o.p 07:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting to see a claim that "I was in the process of partially reverting my last edit ", when, between the time that I read and responded to the comments on the talk page insinuating that repeated revisions of me were acceptable because he was under the '4 count', and my posting notification on his talk page and posting this notice here, SudoGhost posted this notice warning me of edit warring for my single reversion; but then accusation is often the easiest path.

It's a shame there's no edit history of this partial self revision that was apparently happening; one would have thought, give that there was time to post all these comments on the talk page's two different sections, to revert me, and to comment on my talk page that there would have been time to include in one of the talk page comments some mention of even a willingness to look at the revisions that had been made; obviously that would have completely changed the tone of the conversations from it's previous course.  Up to that point, I had just seen that my edit had been reverted within 4 minutes of my making it (which, incidentally, I'd say had taken me a good 4 hours [on my dead slow system] to check all the linked sources, all the external links, and to review every reference in the article spelled "Bön" [there were I believe 4 and 1 checked out as correct], let alone updating the 100+ misspellings of "Bön" within the article itself).  All in all, I'm at a loss as to why there appears to be such dedication to ensuring that every reference to this is systematically misspelled in Wikipedia; baffling; and, of course, like everyone, I dislike being reverted, particularly in a situation where I've invested substantial time and effort to try to ensure that I've dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's, and with the move reversion, I could at least see a plausible reasoning, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but as for intentionally misspelling something throughout an article... as I said, baffling.

As to whether this should rightly have been posted at WP:AN3, hind-sight being 20/20, obviously I should have; but then seeing as how Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'll leave it for someone (other than SudoGhost) to let me know if they'd like me to copy and paste this conversation over to there (and of course post another user talk page notice for that, since that is the proper bureaucratic procedure); just LMK here.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 07:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given Master of Puppets' comments, I'll keep in mind for future edits that proper WP protocol is to repeatedly revert any change made by another user as quickly as possible up the 3 times a day.  Meanwhile, I'll spend the hour adding the RfC and RM templates tomorrow as this has already been a big enough pain in the ass for today. — Who R you? Talk 07:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

...and you'll likely find yourself blocked quickly if you do revert "up to the 3 times a day" ... twice can be considered edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well that is what I thought, but then I can always just link to this conversation where I've been told by a not-just-new-to-this admin that 3 reverts is just fine and I should go work it out for myself on the talk page and waste my time with RfCs and RMs, which of course I'll do; but I'd say I've got pretty good precedent here to say that 3 intentional reverts to prevent correction of things which are clearly shown and explained to be contrary to cited, verifiable RS is deemed acceptable; so why not repeatedly revert someone and just say, I don't agree with your facts, when it means you get to piss the other guy off and force him to waste his time talking to people about something that they aren't going to do anything about (the definition of bureaucracy).  Cheers. — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So your accusation is that I couldn't have been trying to self-revert and instead was edit-warring, because I was too busy discussing? For someone who claims that "accusation is often the easiest path", I'm seeing a lot of rather ironic claims being thrown my way. I'm accused of having an agenda by someone whose editing history and talk page both shows a clear agenda to remove any diacritics from articles for no other reason than that they are present, and I'm being accused of edit-warring by someone who then follows up this claim by edit-warring. - SudoGhost 11:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• As said on the talk page, I follow the (English) RS; if the (English) RS has diacritics, then I type diacritics, if not, then I'll fight to have them removed.  I do have a problem with the surprisingly large number of Wikipedians who apparently seem to think they're cool or something and think that they should be added because they used them in a foreign language, but I'm looking for the English WP to be in English (you're obviously not).  And wasting someone's time, basically stalling, is not the same as actually saying something intelligent; by repeatedly saying things like, 'the ghits don't mean anything just because there are 300 times as many in the other spelling', or, 'the 3RR rule doesn't say you can't revert three times in a row and what you're quoting is from the WP:EW (edit warring) section' (but of course it is in fact from the 3RR section).  Any a-hole can fart around and waste peoples time with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother; we call them lawyers and politicians (I personally call them the scum of our society). — Who R you? Talk 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you say one thing, then do another, ignoring the fact that reliable sources spell something a certain way because you have an issue with diacritics. Don't like the policy I refer to? Just call into question my intellect, and of wasting peoples time "with stupid and illogical arguments intented to piss people off so much that they won't even bother". That way you can just skirt around that pesky article title policy consensus, right? And here I am bothering you with yet another "lawyering" policy. - SudoGhost 12:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just stumbled across this subpage which pretty much sums up the status of the article (even if the page is 3-years-old). — Who R you? Talk 12:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's so nice that you two are finally having a discussion that should have taken place long before bringing this to ANI. Go; edit; be nice; follow dispute resolution if needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is civil? - SudoGhost 12:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I was just coming back here to add to my previous post to say that the 'scum' comment was very much directed at lawyers, and not personally at you SudoGhost, and that I wouldn't want you to think that I was directing that at you; but I'm apparently way to late for that, so for that alone, which it appears you (understandably) thought I was directing at you, I sincerely apologize.  As I said, the term was not meant for or directed at you, regardless of how I can understand it would have appears so.  That's not to say that you haven't pissed me off in terms of your responses during out talk page conversations and I think that you're intentionally manipulating things to find any excuse around the arguments, but if I were going to call you a bad name I'd come right out and say it (no innuendo or implication involved).  And as I said on the talk page (which I don't know if you've added more to or not; either way), we'll just leave it to the RfC/RM and let others decide.  And since this is obviously a waste of time, I'll just ignore this page unless someone wants to leave a message on my talk page. — Who R you? Talk 13:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The "scum" comment is far from the only personal attack there, I don't see anything there that isn't a personal attack. As for my intentionally manipulating (which again, is a personal attack), do you mean using Wikipedia policy to back up my comments? I'm sorry if that "pisses you off", but if something is backed up by Wikipedia policy, which is a consensus of Wikipedia editors, I'm going to state that. - SudoGhost 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you guys could stop focusing on each others' perceived faults and work on the article instead. As in, discuss content, not the other editor. If anybody's looking for more detail on what that means, please feel free to ask on my talk page. m.o.p 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve added a post on the article’s talk page (∆ edit here) asking the combatants to just get on with the task of presenting evidence for how the RSs handle the spelling, which is how those two should have resolved it in the first place. Questioning whether the other has ever seen the inside of a classroom just results in wasted time at ANIs. Debating How Wikipedia Can Best Lead The Way To A New English Language Of the Future®™© is verboten. Bring on hard evidence of what the preponderance of most-reliable RSs are doing with regard to spelling the word, debate (civilly), be patient so others have an opportunity to weigh in if you can’t agree as to the basic facts, and let the community arrive at a consensus. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, calling editors "combatants" and comparing us to this image isn't exactly helping. - SudoGhost 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gee, I’m sorry, SudoGhos. The image was intended as a humorous reference to us all—not just you. That’s why it was linked to “as mere wikipedians.” I too clearly am a wikipedian. The intent of the image was to humorously (at least try to) drive home the fact that as mere wikipedians (an all-volunteer army of non-experts in a collaborative writing environment), we can’t possibly pretend that it is within our purview to flout the RSs. Instead, we look to reliable sources for guidance and follow them. How do the preponderance of most-reliable, English-language sources spell “Bon”?

  After seeing your latest rant over there, you seem to have driven the nail in the coffin that the practices of the RSs are sufficiently clear; even The Bon Foundation themselves spell it without the diacritic when communicating in English.

  You seem overly anxious to take offense here now that you are embroiled at an ANI and the combativeness you exhibited here on the talk page shows you might best consider a taking some time to cool off. My message point there was plain as day but you didn’t like the message point. I suggested you two stop acting combative and stop attacking each other. I stated that the dispute is best decided one way: by bringing forth evidence of what the RSs are doing and settle it that way. Your response? To attack me. Your taking a stand in defiance of the RSs calls into question the manner in which you are going about trying to achieve your ends. Greg L (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you may want to consider than text as read is not the same as words as spoken, because your "suggestion" mixed with your "humor" came across as passive-agressive, belittling the two of us, which was unhelpful, to say the least. It seems you're not reading the talk page, because there is no "defiance of the RSs". There are two different discussions on the talk page, one about Bon as used as the common name (which I am not disagreeing with, something you seem to be confused about), and then there is the discussion about natural versus parenthetical disambiguation, something WP:PRECISE is very clear about, yet there seems to be a communication issue because these two discussions are getting crossed. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be quickly getting embroiled with every editor who disagrees with you on points of fact. You might look into cause & effect. And please take the time to properly sign your posts and properly indent them. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a vague statement that doesn't reflect the talk page, which is perhaps just because the talk page has a lot going on, which understandably makes it tedious to read. There's nothing here for an admin to do, so anything related to the article's subject should be directed there, and anything regarding myself should be presented at my talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, good. I’m glad you changed your mind and refactored your previous post. When editors you have never previously encountered come here to offer constructive criticism, and you quote their critical commentary and append This appears to be something you wrote for yourself to read. I'll take it as such, it comes across strikingly similar to “I know you are but what am I?” I thought you could do better than that. To start with, you need not be so combative whenever people disagree with you. I also strongly suggest you refrain from 3RR violations in the future or you will keep on finding yourself the subject of ANIs. 3RR violations are the source of serious discord on Wikipedia and are borne out of a lack of good-faith discussion on talk pages and are often a harbinger that an editor is unwilling to abide by consensus. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you intended well, but your execution missed the mark somewhat. Also, as you'll notice, there was no 3RR violation, and unless you can provide diffs to show otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you looked into things more fully before you commented. There was also no lack of discussion on the talk page at any point of time, something you've yet again seemed to overlook. The original diff you provide above was referencing the fact that you entered the talk page without reading fully what was going on (which seems to be a recurring pattern here), and started arguing without reading, thus your statement ironically seemed to apply to you as much as anyone else. - SudoGhost 18:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I intended well: to get something through to you about properly not getting into editwars with other editors and assuming good faith instead of getting combative beyond all comprehension. You seem to not be listening and reverting back to your same habits. The evidence for your 3RR violation is in the complainant’s post at the start (with three diffs). Your arguing that you forgot about the first one and—even if you hadn’t forgotten about it—it was a different sort of edit and doesn’t count, just doesn’t cut it. The editwarring is all over the same issue and you were intent on battling it out in articlespace rather than discuss and arrive at a community consensus. When I jumped in on the talk page and asked that you two merely provide evidence as to what the preponderance of most-reliable English-language RSs were doing so we can follow the RSs, you immediately got hostile and combative with me. You apparently are intent on doing what SudoGhost wants rather than abide by fundamental policies guiding how Wikipedia works. User: Who R you? was clearly trying to get that article into conformance. And when you try to justify your positions with links to guidelines and policy pages, a reading of what is actually there doesn’t support your position. We don’t need that sort of attitude in a collaborative writing environment. You best start listening more and engaging in editwarring less. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion to act or close Further discussions with SudoGhost seem unlikely to get much of anything accomplished given this editor’s propensity to taunt editors this way. (This appears to be something you wrote for yourself to read. I'll take it as such.) I request that an admin merely look at the complainant’s first post, examine the diffs to see if there is merit to the allegation of a 3RR violation, and take it from there. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're saying a whole lot of things that seem very dire, but providing diffs for none of them, and none of them appear to be even close to the mark. As for assuming good faith, I suggest you assume the assumption of good faith, especially because I said right above your response that I did so. There is no evidence for 3RR, and three diffs is not a 3RR violation, and never was. I also never said it was a different sort of edit and doesn't count. I was edit warring, and never denied it, but that issue was solved before it ever got to ANI, the only real issue was two editors frustrated with one another, something that has been resolved, and yet here we are still, and I think I figured out why. You seem to have an extensive history of combatative behavior and incivility, and I appear to have walked right into it, through my own fault. Thank you for the warnings and advice, they have been heeded and will be taken into consideration in the future. Unless anyone can provide a diff of anything that requires an administrator's attention, I apologize for my behavior which was uncalled for. I also would kindly request that this thread be closed, and that any discussions about myself that do not require immediate administrator's attention be directed to my talk page, and that any discussions related to the editing of Bön be directed to Talk:Bön. Thank you. - SudoGhost 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As stated, I was going to just ignore this, but a thread of a thread brought me back, so simply a comment: it seems crystal clear, from SudoGhost's comments here and here, here, here, and here, that he believes it is completely acceptable, and presumably will continue, to revert 3 times / day in expectation of complete immunity; however if, as I believe BWilkins' first comment (above) supports my understanding, 4 reverts indisputably demands a block as punishment, and less than 4 would invite a range of responses from mere admonishment to a block (length based upon considered judgment of all other factors), would anyone care to explain why admins' responses here have ranged from 'too bad, so sad, work it out for yourself' to warning me of a potential block (I having made 1 reversion in this case and, I believe, a total of three [not directly resultant of obvious vandalism] in my entire time on WP).  While I have no need for a pound of flesh over any of this, particularly in light of SudoGhost's recent effort at reconciliation, the question must still be asked: Was anyone planning on doing / saying anything to attempt to ensure that SudoGhost doesn't, in future situations, pursue a similar pattern of repeated (less than 4/day) reversions? — Who R you? Talk 01:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped this was resolved. Those comments were not my trying to say that edit warring was acceptable, and there's nothing in those edits that suggest otherwise. The point I was trying to make was that 3RR is a type of edit warring, and that the terms are not interchangeable. This diff you gave above (just as an example), was in response to these accusations of a 3RR violation, something that did not occur. These were accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, as there was no evidence provided that shows any 3RR violation. The diff you gave does not in any way suggest that edit warring is acceptable, only that there was no 3RR violation. This diff you gave above I believe makes my point clear: that I was not technically edit warring, I was edit warring, pure and simple. As were you (which is a different number of reversions than you suggested above). This diff was in response to the "see you in WP:ANI for WP:3RR" above it, which again was the point I was trying to make, that there was no 3RR violation, and that the terms 3RR and edit warring are not interchangeable. The other two diffs you provided are the same thing, I was trying to say that 3RR and edit warring are not interchangeable.

None of these suggest that edit warring is acceptable, only that I was not in violation of 3RR. That edit warring happened and a talk page discussion resolved it with no other action required is not evidence of intent to edit war further. Otherwise, your question would otherwise need to be answered for yourself as well, as you declared an intent to report me for edit warring, and your very next edit was to continue to edit war. However, I'm not suggesting that this shows any intent on your part to edit war in the future, only that the pendulum swings both ways. Fortunately, this is not a pendulum that needs to do anything. However, to ease any concerns that there was no discussion about this, m.o.p. and I discussed this on IRC, and I clearly acknowledged that I was in the wrong and had no intention of doing so again. I'll gladly repeat this here: I completely understand that I was edit warring, and never contested that fact. I completely understand that edit warring is not acceptable and is disruptive, and have never contested that fact. I have no intention of edit warring further, and have never made any indication that one may edit war "up to" a certain number of times. This was rather something Who R you? himself said, and I'm unsure how this declaration was then applied to myself as if I said or suggested anything of the sort.

The only thing that is "crystal clear" by those diffs is the fact that I believe that 3RR is more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, and that anything less than that is not a 3RR violation. There is no suggestion of the acceptability of edit warring found in those diffs, and any assertion otherwise is speculation based on an editor's opinion. Please assume good faith in regards to my editing, as I fully intend to do the same with others. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• My obvious (and stupid) mistake for thinking that I had only reverted once; the second time having (at the time) been in response to what I took as SudoGhost's asserting that 3 reverts were just fine.  But, I certainly don't condone my edit warring as being any more acceptable than anyone else's.

My concern, at the time of my post here earlier today, was that SudoGhost believed that reverting 3 times was ok so long as it didn't involve a 4th; (coupled with my perception of the totality of responses to the matter here).  Given SudoGhost's confirmation above that he doesn't view 3 reverts as acceptable (which was obviously how I had incorrectly taken his comments), I think it's appropriate to close this discussion as resolved.  I'm satisfied SudoGhost doesn't perceive this as proper conduct which he intends to continue pursuing, which was my concern.  And I'll certainly also attempt to live up to my own standards in this regard.

Thank you all (particularly m.o.p.) for your time and attention. — Who R you? Talk 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas

User blocked for a week, tangential discussion closed - nothing left to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User blocked for a week I'll try and keep this brief. The other day, I noted a nomination by Lihaas (talk · contribs) at WP:ITNC was posted on the wrong date [199]. So to get back at me, he undid one of my revisions on the page marking a seperate nomination as ready [200] (it was eventually posted by an admin). Later on, another editor moved the nomination to the right day [201] but Lihaas later red-added it [202] and decided to take a shot at me unnecessarily [203]. So I warned him not to do it and explained that he was wrong in assuming I moved it [204]. In response, he made this somewhat threatening response [205] and now he's comparing me to deposed dictators [206]. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC) hot stop whos vengeance mongering started eons ago takes it upon himself to REFACTOR other comments without any authority whatsoever. Thats not his prerorgative. And the issue is the same of the Nigeria attakcs (something he did before before because he did not like yet he has whis cake and eat it too with the current ITN on JOe Frazier) Umm he did remove it! not MOVE IT! Anyways hes quite pov in assuming notoriety...Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This isn't Lihaas' first time at ANI. Sigh. I've issued a final warning. m.o.p 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC) and youre authourity like his? Furthermore the subject title here is CLEARLY an NPA to make prejudgements where he has no authority at allLihaas (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I should clarify that I've changed the section title here; Lihass is objecting to a previous section title, not "Lihass". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I wish you'd both dial it back a few notches. I realize this kind of spiraled out of control, and I hesitate to criticize only the person who went the furthest over the line, but Lihass, this is too far over the line. If this conflict is a single instance, can't you disengage and go back to your corners? And if this is a long-simmering dispute between the two of you, then I guess you should say so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Off the top of my head, I've also noted other instances when items he posted are "stale" (too old be posted), but it's never devolved to this point. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) If there's a relatively harmless pattern of posting stale items, then I'd ignore it. If there's a pattern of posting stale items that you think is disruptive (being careful not to let your current antagonism cloud your judgement), then that sounds like a job for WT:ITN. I meant, a history of you two arguing unproductively with each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) this is not something beyond AN incident...not a recalling of all thing that pissed people off. His "current antagonism DOES cloud [his] judgement." I dont cry to ANI or elsewhere when things dont go my way...thas whymy complaints dont appear here! Lets note he inclides a history f bitchinginstead of productive additionsLihaas (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC) but fine i agree to tone it down if its MUTUAL...his accusation above that i maliciously posted stale posts is also "over th line" and Not AGF...i cant keep sitting back and takiong nsanctioned NPAs just ebcause i dont complain!Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar. This is a double standard. Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Block of Δ by Franamax

Resolved

 – Block lifted by The Bushranger causa sui (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Franamax has blocked Δ for allegedly "Violating ArbCom motion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2". This ArbCom motion bars Δ from "making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed." The supposed violation is here, where Δ had the audacity to inform Hammersoft of changes to he made to a tool that assists with NFCC checking, which Δ maintains. The edit is not enforcing the NFCC policy in any way. All he did was inform a regular user of his tool of changes he made. He did not remove an non-free image, warn a user about NFCC policy, or otherwise editing a non-free image. There is no violation of his restrictions here. I believe this is a bad block, and it should be overturned. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreed, and I have unblocked Δ. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, please tell me you didn't unilaterally overturn an AEBLOCK.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look, at Δ's talk page, there is a significant amount of opposition to the block. I do not believe that is unilateral. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He did. On the other hand, it was not well-marked as such and there were five administrators on Delta's talk page that had already called the block a poor one. It may not have followed proper procedure, but had this discussion taken place here, that easily would have been consensus to unblock. NW (Talk) 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked over the details of the incident and firmly believe that the block should not have been imposed (not that it was imposed in bad faith - merely an (understandable, given Δ's history) overreaction). My opinion was that the consensus, growing, is that Δ did not violate the terms of their enforcement - perhaps it's skirting close to the line, but not over it. If I'm wrong about the consensus, however, I'm open to trouting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"I'm blocking you because you violated an ARBCOM restriction" isn't well-marked, NW? And Bushranger, the instructions are clear that the consensus for unblock needs to be formed on a neutral noticeboard, not the blocked editors talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Excpet he did clearly did not violate it. However, I'll accept a {{trout}}, steer clear of AE in the future, and not admin when sleepy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Not every block that claims to be an AEblock is one. This one wasn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. It may very well have been a mistaken AE block, but it was a block imposed to deal with a perceived violation of an Arbcom restriction. The instructions at WP:AEBLOCK are quite clear on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If it had been {{Uw-aeblock}} properly tagged, I would not have touched it with a 10-foot pole, whether or not it was actually a violation. It was not properly tagged however, and my (admittedly tired) brain didn't completely process that it was anything other than a normal block due to the fact the 'stop sign' of ArbCom wasn't there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no AE enforcement template. I remarked about this at Bushranger's talk. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr.K, that's completely irrelevant as to whether it was an AE block or not. The instructions don't call for a template, just that it be identified as an AE block. The template is a convenience. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The template contains a serious warning to any admin not to overturn an AE enforcement block. As such it is an important disincentive for any admin to overturn the block. In its absence at least accidental overturns can happen. Bushranger has admitted that he would not have overturned the block if the template were there. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have alerted my amittedly-tired brain to stop before hitting the unblock button automatically upon seeing a clearly bad block (bad in terms of the block, not faith). I'm probably going to self-impose a rule of never unblocking, period, after this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Honest mistakes aren't really problems.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(after e/c after e/c's) WTF?? Where wasn't I clear that I was enforcing an ArbCom motion? Where did the unblocking admin discuss the issue with me? Where was the consenus discussion at a noticeboard? Second-mover advantage indeed. Post e/c - Bushranger, when did the red stop sign become the signal? Will you reinstate the block pending discussion? Franamax (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was using the stop sign as metaphor for the AE template. If another admin believes the block should be reimposed pending discussion I will not wheel-war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Face it, Bushranger: you should be de-sysopped forthwith. You made a possible "mistake", which is unacceptable (as admins are perfect incarnations of editors, and naturally incapable of any error). After you are stripped of your adminship, you are free to re-apply and fail RfA for no good reason whatsoever. Doc talk 05:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Franamax, considering that only you and SarekOfVulcan think this block was appropriate, why should he be reblocked? There was no violation of the ArbCom restrictions, even broadly constructed. @Doc9871, Franamax should also be desysopped for making a bad block which clearly didn't violate Beta's restrictions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I _do_ think the block was appropriate, but I don't think it was clearly _in_appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so under the AE rules, he could not be unblocked, which is exactly the problem with claiming that a block is an AE block when in fact it isn't. Count Iblis (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. He can't be unblocked "except...following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So all an admin has to do is block Beta claiming it is because of an ArbCom editing restriction, and presto, Beta stays blocked until the community argues it out. Last time this happened, he served the full 48 hour time period because the discussion took so long to decide it was a bad block. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Even worse, the block would not be overturned, even in this moot way. What Sarek says is true but lookijg at the discussion below, we can see that there isn't the sort of super strong consensus needed to overturn an AE block. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of even discussing whether the block was appropriate? It's been undone, anything else will be a wheel war. Immediate unblocking with no discussion just puts it over on me to plead my case - that's not what an enforcement block is supposed to be about.. If the edit didn't concern enforcement of NFCC, what did it concern? (And Iblis, following my temporary network outage, I stated it ss an AE block, where was the noticeboard discussion? Franamax (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest, what happened was this: I saw the post here with the diff about the questionable edit, went to Δ's user page, scanned the discussion there, saw what appeared to be a bad-block consensus, and unblocked via the requesting-unblock template (which shouldn't be used in AEBLOCK cases I guess, but that's another kettle of trout). Due to the fact the AEBLOCK template was missing, it couldn't catch my eye as I looked over the discussion to say "this is an AEBLOCK", not "this is a block because you're restricted" - IIRC there are restrictions from methods other than AE, if I'm wrong about that I'll take another trout - and thus my action. I'll freely admit I'm tired (I don't get much sleep for a variety of reasons I won't go into here) and if I wasn't tired I would have (and should have) spotted the mention of ArbCom, but I didn't. Hence, no more unblocking for me in order to avoid any future sleepy mistakes, and I'll take the heat - and the trout - here for my hasty action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger, there is an indication here that you are simply working too fast these days. I saw that DYK talk post sandwiched between several of mine, and in checking your diffs in that time period, I see you did have around 50 edits that hour, several of them on issues requiring significant time to review, that does seem to be your pattern, you did apparently spend less than 5 minutes on that DYK review, and the citation for the hook you verified did in fact have a 404 error due to a typo, so it doesn't appear you could have verified the hook from the citation given. This incident, that DYK review, and your references to not getting much sleep is a long way of saying that perhaps you might consider slowing down lest burnout becomes an issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did check the dates there - I'm not sure what happened. But you are right, I do need to take a deep breath and slow down. I should probably unwatch the "admin pages" (AN/I, UAA, AIV) for a couple of days and focus solely on content, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have verified dates from a link that went nowhere because the typo in the citation caused it to return a 404 error, but how about if you unwatch the admin pages to take a breather, and I'll unwatch the DYK pages for same :) Seems that neither is good for either of us ... now to sleep! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the section below as of this time, and the other talk pages etc, I am reasonably convinced that a consensus now exists that the AE block was not good / not consensus supported, though in good faith and with reasonable evidence and judgement at the time.

Though the AEBLOCK protocol requires that admins not unblock until such a consensus exists, given the subsequent discussion and Bushranger's open and cooperative responses, I think that minnow I left on his page is about the extent of the necessary admin response at this time. The rule is IMHO better served by everyone recognizing it and agreeing not to bend it again than anything else anyone could do.

Go to bed, Bushranger 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, I will note in passing that Franamax could have avoided this mess if he had instead gone through WP:AE. This wasn't an emergency situation; the only reason for the block was to firmly slap Delta's wrists and generate a log entry for a (perceived) violation of his editing restrictions, and that purpose could have equally well been served if the block had followed three hours of discussion instead of preceded it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Franamax should have consulted a neutral admin, perhaps one with AE experience, instead of blocking an editor that he/she holds opinions about. If I had just looked at their editing history and seen no comments / neutral comments regarding delta, or extensive AE-related block experience, I would not make the above statement. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Δ violate the restriction

• No Informing an administratoreditor about a change to a report that they have used in the past is not NFCC Enforcement. Even if the topic ban extends to advocacy of of NFCC Enforcement, which no reasonable interpretation of the sanction would suggest, contacting an Admineditor already known for NFCC Enforcement is not even advocacy. This whole discussion is ridiculous and Δ should not have been blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 05:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, do you mean Hammersoft as the ontactee? Hammersoft is not an admin. Franamax (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected my statement, though it doesn't change the equation much. Monty₈₄₅ 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No there was no violation of his restrictions, per my comments above. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No I don't believe so. This seems like a keyword block: Delta mentioned something about NFCC in a post to another user's talk page, and the block came down semi-automatically without any thought apparently given to context. I don't see where anyone could see that he made any attempt or workaround or gamed the system in any way to break his AE restriction. --Jayron32 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a good spit on my last 2 hours here, semi-automatic, no thought to context. Me who has never used a user warning template and has given all messages by hand, and who has been involved in the calm and rational side of this long-running problem. Once again, if the edit was not to do with NFCC enforcement, then what was it about? It provided a list of targets for NFCC enforcement scrutiny, can we agree on that? What was it's other purpose? Franamax (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with Jayron - the block was fully good-faith, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said Franamax did it spitefully or had ill-intent, the block was clearly in good faith. Faith =/= execution, and in this case I think it is clear that this is a poorly executed block. I don't think Franamax meant to make a bad block, so I don't think Franamax acted in bad faith. Acting in good faith is no guarantee of producing good outcome. My reading of this situation is that Delta made no obvious attempt to enforce NFCC or to encourage anyone else to enforce NFCC, and that the only way that I could conceive of Franamax having interpreted the situation that way would be to prevent Delta from even mentioning the concept of NFCC at all, in any way, and I don't think that his editing restrictions go that far. I just don't. You'll not count me as someone in Delta's camp (you can check through the history here, I have never come to his "defense" and am a frequent critic of his behavior). However, in my opinion the facts of this case do not support a block. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Jayron, read the diff: "the check link goes to the removal tool" - in context, how is that not directly related to NFCC enforcement? At current reading, the target page has nb links at all, so you'll just have to interpret I suppose. What elsa do you think a "removal tool" could mean in this context? Review the extensive history, this report had been mentioned extensively on-wiki, not least in Beta's own edits, look for "this page has been identified as having excessive use of non-free images" or the like. A group of editors uses this report to launch NFCC battles, and it looks like currency is still at the top, didn't that one get fought into the ground a while ago? Beta can continue their proxy war off-wiki, but not here where they are topic banned. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At which file and/or article did Betacommand enforce the NFCC policy? Which file did he tell Hammersoft to delete, or article to check? If you can point me to the place where he actually enforces the policy, I'll reconsider my objections to the block. He doesn't tell Hammersoft where to apply the "removal tool", so he makes no actual statements regarding enforcing anything. Again, that is how I read the situation. You are a reasonable person. I am a reasonable person. Reasonable people disagree. It happens, it's not the first time it has happened in my life. I am willing to accept that you and I read the situation differently, I have access to the talk pages, diffs, and whatnot as well as you do, and you're not going to convince me that what has been cited so far amounts to a violation of his restrictions, just as I am not going to convince you that it was not. I'm not particularly interested in convincing you, Franamax, of anything. I am just giving my own, personal understanding of the situation. If you have more evidence that has not been presented yet, I'd love to see it so I can re-evaluate my understanding. But telling me that I can't read the existing evidence how I think it should be read isn't going to get us very far. I'm not telling you to change what you believe, and I don't expect you to tell me the same. --Jayron32 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "A group of editors uses this report to launch NFCC battles"??. If you're that clueless about what that report is for (and clearly assuming bad faith of a number of editors, including myself), not to mention viewing enforcing Foundation policy as WP:BATTLE, you certainly shouldn't be blocking Δ as you're not a neutral admin on an NFCC sanction (just as I wouldn't unblock him). I wonder if this incident shouldn't be rolled into the RFAR? Black Kite (t) 11:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure. The diff cited in the block made it look like he was saying "Hey, I just changed my tool to make it easier to remove non-free content", but a) was that an accurate characterization, and b) did it matter because it was on a different site?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the alternative characterization? Beta clearly publicized his off-site tool which is solely designed to enable NFCC enforcement. The sole purpose of the tool is to enable NFCC enforcement, it doesn't also serve up lolcats. I made the block for the on-wiki edit, not the existence of the offsite tool. The entire point of a topic ban is for the editor to exit the topic area completely, that's why it's called a topic ban. Skirting around the edges never achieves that goal. Note too in that disputed diff, "goes to the removal tool" - that doesn't involve NFCC enforcement? Franamax (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Beta is prohibited from making edits that enforce the NFCC. No where in his restrictions is he prohibited from talking about the NFCC, or simply informing a user of changes to a tool that they use. This is common practice for tool developers. You notify regular users of changes. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is perhaps common practice for tool developers who are not under a topic ban on the very area for which they have developed the tool. They are always free to do whatever they want off-wiki (even though it would work out better if they would actually live up to the spirit of a topic ban too, but that's a personal decision). If a topic-banned editor engages with the topic on-wiki, then they are liable to be sanctioned. What part of the edit was not about NFCC enforcement? Franamax (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, the way most people see it, is that the edit was regarding a tool. The tool itself concerns NFCC enforcement; however the edit itself was simply Δ saying "I have modified the tool that other people use for NFCC enforcement". Nowhere in the edit does Delta make any attempt, or even hint at, NFCC enforcement on his part, not even broadly construed. "I modified this Toolserver tool I maintain, here's how I modified it so now it works this way instead of that way". If there is evidence Δ tested the tool this would be completely different, but I haven't seen that. If Hammersoft - or anybody else - had posted on Δ's page asking "hey, the tool you maintain works differently, did you change it?" the interpretation that makes the edit in question a violation would make even his saying "yes" to such a a question a violation, which I don't think anybody believes was the intent of the restriction.

Now, that said, I need to head off for the night. If there is belief that a block is necessary, I will not wheel war, nor consider it wheel waring, if Δ is re-blocked (or blocked for any other reason), regardless of this or any other circumstances. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, but... ArbCom's restriction is on "enforcement of NFCC". To consider telling Hammersoft a change in the format of a automated Toolserver to generate a list of pages to check that have a large # of NFCC images, a script that would have run otherwise if Delta didn't say anything on Hammersoft's page and that Hammersoft was already away of, is far outside the intent of the ArbCom restriction. That said, since ArbCom is reconsidering the whole Delta case, this needs to be added to that case. --06:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, and it isn't even close. His restriction is clearly worded "from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed.". That edit was enforcing precisely nothing, it was merely informing another user about a change to a toolserver report which he (and I) already use. The restriction doesn't say "from making any edit that features the letters N, F, C and C in that order". Also, as mentioned above there's no problem overturning it even though it's technically an AE block; WP:AEBLOCK clearly says "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy". Since the block wasn't pursuant to any current remedy, reversing it is OK; though I might have waited for a consensus to (inevitably) occur here rather than at Δ's talkpage. Black Kite (t) 11:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Δ is restricted from enforcing NFCC. He is not restricted from the entire NFCC topic. Bushranger was absolutely correct in removing the block, even if he used a little WP:IAR in the process. We all know per WP:Δ that any discussion of Δ must take way too long, must waste far too much time, and must call for desysops of any admins involved. So far we already have all that. Bad block, good unblock, good faith by all parties involved, move on, nothing more to see or do. N419BH 11:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, I thought it was good faith myself until I read Franamax's opinion of the NFCC warning report above. Black Kite (t) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. Modifying a page that lets others enforce NFCC is not enforcing NFCC. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Δ is clearly in the wrong by continuing to work on NFCC enforcement despite the topic ban. But there is an open arbcom case against Δ so they can sort it out. For comparison, if someone says "Don't talk to my daughter ever again", and you start having other people carry notes to her instead, the defense "but I wasn't talking to her" isn't going to work if the notes get discovered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Perhaps the AE sanction should have been worded correctly, then, so that (a) it would have been clear exactly what the boundaries were, and (b) it wouldn't give people excuses to block Δ based on their reading of the sanction. Having said that, consensus does seem to be fairly clear here. Black Kite (t) 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree there is clear consensus here. The wording of the sanction needs to be improved. This is typical of Δ: he relies on ambiguous wording to convince others to enable his edits. But since there is already an arbcom case, hopefully they will resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Works both ways though; if wording is unclear, it gives people the excuse to block Δ on the basis that "I believe the restriction means X", when others may disagree. Black Kite (t) 15:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • NFCC is a major policy here: it's most people's duty to carry notes to said daughter. You could even say that edits on unrelated cleanup tasks are vaguely related to NFCC enforcement, since it frees up other people's time for NFCC enforcement: both the tool and the unrelated cleanup tasks make it easier for other people to enforce NFCC without Delta doing anything directly related to it. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - Good lord, we just had a discussion about his topic ban one or two weeks ago. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 12:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. (Note that I was one of the admins who commented on Delta's talk page in support of an unblock.) Franamax's interpretation of the ArbCom's remedy is mistaken, though I'm sure it is entirely in good faith. In a number of places in these discussions (here, on Delta's talk page, and on his own talk page) he has alluded to a 'topic ban on NFCC enforcement' or some similar formulation. If that were the motion passed by ArbCom, Delta would likely be in violation of a broadly construed remedy. However, the actual remedy passed by the ArbCom is rather different, specifically barring Delta from "...making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed". I'm somewhat disappointed that Franamax keeps repeating his misstatement of Delta's actual restriction, because Franamax's inadvertent rewording appreciably broadens the scope of Delta's sanction and carries it beyond the limitations imposed by the ArbCom. If the ArbCom had intended Delta to be barred from uttering the words 'NFCC' on-wiki, they could easily have done so with a simple topic ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. If Δ is being blocked for mentioning the NFCC, then it's a bad block - he did nothing to enforce the NFCC, and thus did not violate the restriction. If Δ is being blocked because he made changes to the tool on the toolserver, then it's a bad block - nothing occured on-wiki, and the block does nothing whatsoever to prevent harm to the project. Note also that this block does not extend to Toolserver. No question about good faith on the part of the blocking admin (or the unblocking one), but I'm surprised to see it here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  We have precedent that says otherwise, in the form of handling process that are disrupted via off-wiki activity, like canvassing and the such. Someone caught repeatedly off-site canvassing would be blocked for the disruption caused here. If his work off-site is contributing to enforcement on-wiki, well it's not a great stretch. That said, as long as he's not driving the tools directly, I don't have an issue with him building it off-site. I'm just saying that one could easily making a connection there.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. And had the block been specifically for the off-wiki activity, that's a different can of worms. But the block here specifically and clearly noted that the off-wiki actions were out-of-bounds in so far as these restrictions were concerned. What we're left with was the single on-wiki comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  In the end this could all have been avoided if Franamax had brought the issue here, and asked whether people thought it was a breach of sanctions. Given the same response as we have here, Δ wouldn't have been blocked and there wouldn't have been this dramah. Fine, if it's an unambiguous breach of sanctions, block first - I would myself, and my position on Δ is well known - and ask questions later, but this clearly wasn't if you read the wording of the sanction and don't try to read in to it a meaning that isn't there. Black Kite (t) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No per many of the above. There is no topic ban in place. Franamax had an opportunity to discuss whether the sanctions were violated, but didn't take it. Franamax is well aware of debates that arise when Δ is blocked, and could have avoided that by discussion, first at Δ's talk page and then if not satisfactory to him, here. Franamax failed to do that. The result is instead of bringing benefit to the project, which is the intent of a block, he brought heat to the project. I'm not suggesting that consensus needs to form before Δ is blocked, but a block that is so obviously borderline should have been carefully considered with input from others before being performed. That opportunity was not taken by Franamax, and the burden of this latest debate lies squarely on his shoulders. A review of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Blocks_should_be_preventative is in order. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - Delta has a tool that assists other people in NFCC enforcement, meaning other people are the ones who have to make the call as to whether or not each individual image should or should not be acted upon, and other people have to communicate with editors that object to the removal. Delta himself is removed from the decision process, meaning he isn't the one doing the enforcement. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No I'll add to the pile-on, because the block was ill-considered, and an over-reach. There are a number of admins who should refrain from blocking Δ, because at this point I think they lack a certain level of objectivity. Sorry, Franamax, but I think that you are not objective any more regarding this editor, and would suggest you bring further issues regarding him to AN/I before blocking him. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - over-reaching. The ban is against enforcement (and that may be broadly construed), but it is not against the whole topic of NFCC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Had Franamax used the AE template, would the block have been overturned?

We already have SarekofVulcan, Crossmr and Carl more or less supporting the block. So, it seems to me that according to the usual AE procedures, Delta would not have the necessary strong consensus for the block to be overturned. This strongly suggests that AE needs an extra step. We should make it compulsory for an Admin to first place a notification at the AE board where a consensus has to arise that AE applies.

The Admin can block the editor immediately, but that block won't have an AE status unless it is agreed on the AE board that AE applies. If not, a consensus is needed for the block to remain in place. If AE applies, then a consensus is needed to overturn the block (if AE applies then usually there must already have been an infraction of an ArbCom sanction, but you can still imagine that a consensus could arise that the block is too harsh and that a warning would be better). Count Iblis (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been overturned, based on the literal wording of the present topic ban. At the same time, I find the block justified, as Δ is flouting the purpose of the ban by continuing to do these things. To resolve the contradiction between those sentences, I would say the language of the topic ban needs to be adjusted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it up at the ongoing ArbCom case would be a better idea then trying to tighten/adjust it here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have absolutely no idea how AE appeals actually work. T. Canens (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no block is currently in place, editors who feel that a block is necessary could make a new complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and a discussion could be held there with full ceremony. Though this could be done and would be a proper way of handling the situation, I encourage people to let the matter go unless they are sure that this is a significant instance of an ongoing problem. An AE discussion might lead to more thorough study of the evidence. But if the editors in this thread are representative of the general opinion, it sounds like the most likely outcome at AE would be no action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is idiotic. The block was wrong and it's been overturned. What else is there to talk about? causa sui (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Professionalism

That's what else there is to talk about.

We expect our trusted admins to behave in a responsible manner. Whether it's a "good block", or a block placed in "good faith", or if it over-reaches the definition of "broadly construed" in this context is beside the point.

Admins bickering, and overturning each other without due consultation is disruptive in the extreme. Unless the wiki is on fire, I suggest our admins try to discuss anything controversial before jumping in, please.

The Bushranger, if our current policies weren't so utterly fucked-up, I'd suggest you de-sysop and just ask for a new one via RfA. Sadly, RfA is terribly broken - but, if your current personal circumstances mean you are not able to give due attention to your admin actions, I suggest you ask for a temp de-sysop, and can then get the bit back later with no hassle.  Chzz  ►  00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Chzz has a point here - what kind of image are we cultivating if we overturn each other without discussion first? Even if a block is perceived to be obscenely faulty, it should be discussed first. m.o.p 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking about it first would have been a bit more in-protocol. Suggesting someone de-sysop for this is totally over the top. causa sui (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Only 'coz it's considered a big deal. That's the core problem here.  Chzz  ►  01:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So now we're demanding that an admin, whose action was overwhelmingly endorsed by the community, be desysoped for that action. That's so insane, I don't know if it's wrapped around the other side of the universe to become brilliant again. I'm trying to get my head around such a notion. "Congrats Bushranger, almost everyone agrees that the block you undid should have never been done in the first place. For doing so, you now have to hand back your tools." I'm just... wow... --Jayron32 05:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Although admin catfights are often amusing, this kind of brouhaha can be avoided by communication, as causa sui suggests. What is that admins tell users more often than anything? "Use the talk page." So admins should set an example by talking about it before they undo another admin's action which they don't happen to agree with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Bushranger didn't act unilaterally. He may have jumped the gun a bit, but he did have the input of several people at delta's talk page and the OP of this thread before he unblocked. I will concede it would have been better to have gotten the consensus from the noticeboards (which will attract a broader range of uninvolved people) than the blocked user's talk page, but it isn't like he acted without any input at all. A less than ideal amount of input, to be sure, but not none. I take Chzz's point insofar as the fact that Bushranger was ultimately vindicated doesn't excuse the fact that he probably should have gotten consensus before rather than after unblocking. However, the idea that we should entertain the notion of desysoping him for this is beyond silly. Situations like this is why WP:TROUT exists. There's more than enough crow to go around at dinner tonight, so I'm not sure that much benefits from further discussion here. Causa sui is largely correct above; the reason why we closedown threads once the core problem has been solved is that further discussion afterwards is rarely productive. (example #1: This discussion). --Jayron32 06:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Did he talk to the original blocking admin first? (And I agree this spat is not grounds for de-sysop.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also another pending ArbCom case involving this same issue of an admin unblocking without discussion with the blocking admin. It's a much more complicated case, though, so have fun slogging through it should you dare :> Doc talk 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, you know I respect you, but I've got to agree with Jayron here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, when calling for a desysop, it is usually based on a pattern of abuse not one-offs that aren't clearly abuse. If blocks are preventative and not punitive then so it should be with desysopping. What would be prevented by taking away his tools?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call for desysop; I merely suggested that an admin in good standing, who realised that at this time might, for whatever reason, think they're incapable of making appropriate decisions, may consider asking for temp removal of their status.  Chzz  ►  06:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger said above that they would "unwatch the 'admin pages' (AN/I, UAA, AIV) for a couple of days and focus solely on content". That's a temp removal of their status. They said that they made a judgement when tired, not that they are generally incapable of making appropriate decisions. Doc talk 06:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not just "tired" - xe said, I'm tired (I don't get much sleep for a variety of reasons I won't go into here) and if I wasn't tired I would have (and should have) spotted the mention of ArbCom - which sounds like an ongoing concern. And 'de-watchlisting' != "removal of status".  Chzz  ►  09:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point, Franamax should recognize that he should have brought the issue of the block here not only as a AE-based block but as also an interested admin, and Bushranger the same for undoing an AE-based block without checking here. Trouts all around, but the issue is discussed and closed for its purpose on ANI (the larger matter to ArbCom's current case on Delta). Makes no sense to try to admin actions on two wrong admin decisions that have otherwise nullified each other out. --MASEM (t) 07:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Editor changing another’s post

Resolved: Apologies offered, OP says this is done, so let's let it be done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost is exhibiting a pattern of combativeness and baiting here on this page and elsewhere. He just changed one of my posts here at Talk:Bön by collapsing it. Collapsing is typically done by a third-party editor and, even then, only when pages become so long they are tedious to scroll through or of the discussion has run off on a tangent. How did this happen? He had selectively quoting just part of a policy out of context in a manner that—whether intentional or unintentional—was misleading. So I posted what the policy page at WP:PRECISE actually said, which undermined his selective quoting. Thus, my post was directly topical to the facts and was not tangential. His modifying my post had no valid purpose and was done none other than to bait after his argument had been refuted with the true facts. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume you meant to post the diff before, i.e. this one? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will revise my post:

User:SudoGhost is exhibiting a pattern of combativeness and baiting here on this page and elsewhere. He just changed one of my posts here at Talk:Bön by collapsing it. Collapsing is typically done by a third-party editor and, even then, only when pages either become so long that they become tedious to scroll through or if the discussion has run off on a tangent. How did this happen? He had selectively quoting just part of a policy out of context in a manner that—whether intentional or unintentional—was misleading. So I posted what the policy page at WP:PRECISE actually said, which undermined his selective quoting. Thus, my post was directly topical to the facts and was not tangential. His modifying my post had no valid purpose and was done none other than to bait after his argument had been refuted with the true facts. His stating in the collapse-box header and his edit summary that it was done for “readability” was beyond disingenuous. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if was seen as something it was not meant to be. It was a lengthy section of text that was verbatim copied from WP:PRECISE, so I collapsed it so that anyone reading the section would be able to easily distinguish your text from the policy copied over, because I had difficulty doing so, and only did so because anyone interested in the text could uncollapse it to view the content. It was not done in bad-faith in any way, nor was it done in any attempt at maliciousness or combativeness, and for my part I'm not seeing how it could be used as such, as it removes no content. I'm also not seeing anything that says that collapsing is done by a third-party, if someone would be kind about to point that in my direction, I would be grateful. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly not “lengthy”. It is less than one palm’s height on my iMac’s screen and is distinguished (segregated) from discussion text with horizontal rules top & bottom. It spoke directly to the issue at hand and refuted his selective quoting out of context. So he collapsed the heart of my post. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. It was lengthy on my screen, so I respectfully disagree that it was not "clearly" lengthy, although I can see why it would not be so on many computer monitors. However, it also made it difficult for me personally to distinguish between your words and the policy, which is why I collapsed it. I'm also not seeing where it refuted my selective quoting, if you'd please direct me to that I would appreciate it, because as I said on the talk page, a natural disambiguation is preferred over a parenthetical one, and nothing in your quoted text refuted that, at least not clearly enough to be seen upon any inspection on my part. - SudoGhost 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This editor seems to enjoy taking things to the edge for sport, just as he did with the above ANI he is embroiled in. I joined in on that one as an uninvolved editor to assist the two (User:Who R You? being the other party) and now see what he was facing. SudoGhost’s protestation that on his monitor the post seemed long is not credible. Relatively speaking that post is shorter than many. So if his monitor scales text like that, then many discussion-thread posts are far longer than what he collapsed. Editors don’t go and collapse someone else’s posts. His excuse that he couldn’t distinguish between my words and the policy also is not credible because it was set off with horizontal rules; he was clearly adept at parsing my post because he knew where to put the collapse tags. He is perfectly adept at pushing buttons. I’ve said enough. He knew better but collapsed a direct refutation anyway to provoke. Greg L (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree, and after the resolution of the previous ANI thread above, have made it my effort to be as cordial as possible towards you, as seen here. The above AN/I discussion is resolved (so far as I know), so there are no "embroiled" discussions there. If I have failed to be civil, please provide diffs, otherwise I'm not seeing anything resembling me "exhibiting a pattern of combativeness and baiting". Nor am I seeing anything showing that I "enjoy taking things to the edge for sport". The copy-pasting on the entirety of WP:PRECISE seemed unnecessary, as per the discussion I was clearly aware of its contents, and a simple link to WP:PRECISE would have been equally effective. Therefore I collapsed it, because as I said, I found it difficult to distinguish and tedious to read, in line with WP:TLDR's "This page in a nutshell". I'm also respectfully awaiting clarification on what you quoted that refuted my selective quote, as it was apparently a key point in my being brought to AN/I. Thank you. - SudoGhost 21:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside Comment How about both of you stop talking past each other and try to resolve the problem. Greg L, is it really necessary to put the entirety of a section of policy in a discussion when a simple link with direction as to which paragraph you're pointing at work. SudoGhost, It's probably not appropriate for you to minify discussion that another editor is critical of you in? Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"minify"? Sorry to be pedantic, Hasteur, but didn't you mean to write "minimize"? Or is this another word I've not encountered before? -- llywrch (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do mean minify, as in minification. I could have used collapse, but that doesn't really communicate the right concept I was going for.Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I apologize to Greg L. It wasn't my intention to be inappropriate in any way. It seems I was also ignorant of the ability to do this, which solved the issue I had with the readability. If I could ask for clarification, what talking past are you referring to? On the talk page, I have made it my intention to directly and to the point clarify my points, which I believe I have done to the best of my ability. There's nothing more I could say to clarify my meaning that I have not already said. - SudoGhost 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is a fault on my part, but I also don't see a problem to be solved. I made a mistake by collapsing a section that was copied in full from a policy, which offended Greg L. I had no idea that it would offend him, and he responded by saying "DO NOT MODIFY MY POSTS AGAIN or I will take you to ANI." and then immediately following up by opening this AN/I report. Short of bending space and time to go back and undo that collapsing, I don't know what I can do about it, short of apologizing, which I have done, as I meant nothing malicious by it. - SudoGhost 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I was just going to say something very similar to Hasteur's comments. I've proposed a compromise format at the article talk page; if you're both OK with it, then we move on. If Greg objects, then since it's his comment, he can revert me, and we just ignore the minor lack-of-clarity issue. p.s. Thank you, Hasteur, for a new word. I like "minify" and shall attempt to use it often in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, that’s fine. I considered a divbox but it would have taken an extra 30 seconds for me. This is not about whether there is an even-better format for my post nor is it about the crux of the dispute over there. This is about his behavior towards others and violating rules in order to provoke and bait. He quoted part of a policy way out of context in a misleading fashion. I quoted what it really said. That was perfectly appropriate.

  His protestation that he wasn’t trying to provoke are not in the least bit credible. Quoting him: I'm also respectfully awaiting clarification on what you quoted that refuted my selective quote, as it was apparently a key point in my being brought to AN/I. That’s it, isn’t it? He thought his post was in no need of being refuted. So he collapsed it.

  No, the reason he is embroiled (again) here at this ANI does not hinge on anyone pointing out why another editor considered their post to be a refutation of his; that sort of reasoning would deflect from the fact that he modified another’s post that was not unusually long by any means, spoke directly to an important issue of fact, and was clearly well laid out with horizontal rules (so clear, he had zero problems figuring out where to put his collapse tags).

  Also, his sudden adoption of profuse wikipleasantries in the last half hour (in serious shortage before this) does not impress. It just shows that he considers civility to be an inconvenient rule in an intellectual game of “neener-neener” brinkmanship.

  I am quite done here. Whatever evidence can be presented, has been presented. It is clear from my reading of his interactions with me and others that this editor enjoys taking combativeness with other editors to the edge and considers it great sport. No wonder he gets into 3RR battles with other editors: dealing with him on the talk pages is a real test of patience. I’m done dealing with this guy; someone else can have the pleasure. His getting away with this sort of stuff will just embolden him. The whole point of ANI is to correct behavior to avoid unnecessary discord and foster a collegial collaborative writing environment. It would be a shame if he weaseled out of it by playing a game like this. A 24-hour block will help get him in the right frame of mind when dealing with others once debate and discussion actually starts after the editwarring ends. Greg L (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We all see the world thru our own filters. IMHO, you're currently seeing this collapsing thru your "SG is trying to bait me" filter, so it ends up looking like baiting. As an outside observer, who's never interacted with either of you (to my recollection), I'm looking at it thru my AGF filter, so it ends up looking like an unwise but not ill-intended reformat. It doesn't seem particularly provocative to me (unwise, if he knows you're annoyed with him, but not outright provocative), and since he's apologized, there's not much else to do here. I'm not going to block someone for collapsing a part of someone else's post, especially when he's apologized and said he wouldn't do it again. And for the sake of argument: even if you're right - even if it was done to get your goat - why would you give him the satisfaction of getting riled up? Just revert the change and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, many years ago I experienced a situation where a user was copying over a page of policy information into a talk page and then repeating this verbatim everytime someone responded. In the end, the page was approaching a couple of megs. I did not review the situation here, but back then the procedure was to contact a totally uninvolved administrator and request that the text be modified. As a general rule, ordinary Wiki users should never touch or mess with someone elses's talk page posts. -OberRanks (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again I apologize, I have seen sections of identical copy-pasted material from other pages collapsed before, and I honestly didn't think it would be an issue, but in retrospect I see why it wasn't the best idea. Other than apologizing, I don't know what I can possibly do, except to say that I have no intention of doing it again. However, if I'm to be accused of something like breaking 3RR, I'd appreciate diffs to back that up, as it's already been shown that there was no 3RR violation, and no rules have been broken on my part, save for perhaps a lack of better judgement. - SudoGhost 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very well. Please mark as resolved. Greg L (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic insults?

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

Closing this as not requiring any admin action. While all users are reminded of the need to be sensitive in working with the potentially controversial topic of Balkan ethnicity, demands for retractions and apologies usually cause more disruption than the initial unfortunate comment. Trouts all around but no blocks, bans, protection, formal warnings, or other administrative resolution. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

---

On Talk:Nikola Tesla, a user made a general comment that "Too much is being made of Tesla's background", commenting on conflict between Serbs and Croats on that article. User:Rklawton responded with [207]

"Get used to it. It's an ethnic pride thing (they don't have much else to brag about), so this will remain a lightning rod for the next hundred years or more."

In response to "Your comments are extremely inappropriate, please apologize" Rklawton wrote[208]

"Judging by your block history for edit warring, herr DIREKTOR, I can see why you'd be offended."

So to elaborate, in User:Rklawton's respected opinion, several nations of Europe like to brag about Nikola Tesla - because they do not have much to brag about. And "judging by my history" it seems I'm exactly the type of "Balkans person" he was aiming at with his racial comments. Requesting a brief block. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this did seem like a wrong word by Rklawton, but i don't think that block is necessarily? Maybe just apology, with promise that PA will not happen again. Rklawton should comment on content, not on the contributor, and should not say bad things about entire nations. Apology is necessary. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not involved in this but I must say this report is unwarranted. I belong to one of the nations of Europe Rklawton "offended" and I don't feel particularly insulted by his comment. As for "ethnic insults", see this comment about Americans posted by DIREKTOR. Timbouctou (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou is an editor who's hostility towards me personally has been noted on numerous occasions [209] [210]. His comments on this thread should be taken with a grain of salt and with that in mind. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I, at least, found your comment about Americans offensive, and it would be so regardless of who reported it here. Quite honestly, you're not helping your case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a certain precedent for this exact emotion. The main difference seems to be that NYB expressed his frustration as sadness, but the motivation seems quite similar. --GRuban (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter. My sentiments exaclty. So I asked for an apology - and got attacked myself with comments on my editing history.

Also please note the Nikola Tesla troubles thread by User:Djathinkimacowboy on User talk:DVdm

"Oh, please come over and see the talk page. It has erupted due to the harassment by user DIREKTOR, who I understand is a troublemaker. Good thing it's protected! This stuff on the talk page is frankly garbage. Now two editors are over there dancing round the issue like crazy people."

Now, likely mislead by the offensive post above, User:DVdm is lobbying to for the full protection of Talk:Nikola Tesla [211] - even though there is very little or no conflict on Talk:Nikola Tesla. I am frankly shocked all this is happening - I expected a quick apology for such obvious ethnic insults, certainly not this sort of "counter-offensive". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance seems the more correct place for issues for such as this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And I resent being reported here for trying to stop edit disruptions at Nikola Tesla. Djathinkimacowboy 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have been reported. User:Rklawton has been reported and a small block requested by User:DIREKTOR, but I am not seeing anything worthy of a block, a bit of slightly heated tit for tat only. Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance would reduce the tension between you guys. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It was pretty pathetic of Rklawton to impugn two entire nations on the basis of a trivial dispute on a website, but let's face it, previous experience between editors of those same two nations aren't exactly a poster child for collegial editing. Black Kite (t) 19:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and I agree with you on technical points. But I did get the required warning post from editor DIREKTOR - and all I have done is either enquire or list a few interesting facts on the talk page! Etiquette suggestions really should be made to the other editors. I have requested at the talk page that they please not start anything there. Djathinkimacowboy 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we all just settle down and have a nice cup of tea? Seriously. If you're grasping for things to say during a content dispute and the thought jumps into your head of making jabs at another editor, reconsider. m.o.p 19:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The amazing thing is - there is NO content dispute, there wasn't even a dispute of any kind, I just could not believe what Rklawton wrote on a Wikipedia talkpage and requested he apologized for it. That was our first interaction. The whole purpose of that entire thread seemed to be to satisfy User:Djathinkimacowboy's need to criticize various European nations for engaging in disputes on an article about "his" "American" scientist. I am not involved there in any kind of content dispute and did not even edit the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"The whole purpose of that entire thread seemed to be to satisfy User:Djathinkimacowboy's need to criticize various European nations for engaging in disputes on an article about "his" "American" scientist" - so says user DIREKTOR, but he is starting an edit war on the talk page. Furthermore, this is the 2nd or 3rd time I have been mentioned here. I wish for this to be addressed. DIREKTOR ought to be blocked for this trolling activity. Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you do. You've been here 6 days and posted a total of 30 edits, but you're perfectly happy to go around calling other users names like "troublemaker", "crazy person", and making offensive and baseless accusations of "disruption", "harassment", "trolling" and what not. I advise you to read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TROLL, WP:DE, etc. etc. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is really getting out of control, now I'm being harassed on my talkpage by User:Djathinkimacowboy. First he templates for "disruption" for requesting an apology [212], and after being reverted he's posted this thing on my talk ("You are being extremely erratic and disruptive. I tried to tell you I understand your feelings, but you are simply out of control. I sincerely hope you are blocked.") --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an easy solution. Focus on content. Everyone involved in this thread needs to stop talking about the actions of others. Here's a helpful guide for how not to piss off other people.

Example: "Hey, Master of Puppets: I think your editing of Foo is inappropriate because it isn't properly sourced. I can see why, given your utter ineptitude when it comes to Wikipedia."

• Does your edit's message come across the same way with the pointy material stricken?

"Hey, Master of Puppets: I think your editing of Foo is inappropriate because it isn't properly sourced.I can see why, given your utter ineptitude when it comes to Wikipedia."

• Yes? Awesome. Then don't put the pointy material in. If your message does not make sense with pointy material removed, that's a key indicator that it was too antagonistic to begin with.

This isn't aimed at one person in particular. Rather, everybody who's posted above - if somebody's commenting on you, and not the content at hand, just come and tell me. Or another administrator. Don't start bickering about it on ANI. At the same time, make sure you're ignoring their prodding - if you retaliate in kind, you're not helping your case.

To sum things up, everybody should drop these silly grudges and move on with their lives. I don't want to hear anybody say "but he/she started it" in reply to this edit. If you have any concerns, raise them with me on my talk page. m.o.p 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so I can insult someone's entire nation and, if I get reported, I can expect the folks on ANI will recommend that he "focus on content"? *sigh*.. I agree with you, MoP, of course we should focus on content, the whole issue here is that Rklawton didn't. And this isn't about a grudge, I never even saw the user before I asked him to apologize for his offensive statements. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• This whole ANI is being used in completely the wrong ways IMO. First off, Direktor, for someone drumming up a jab at the Balkans as racism it is hypocritical to be making remarks like this:

!!! Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Have a look at the Intelligent design or Occupy Wall Street articles, just for starters, and get off your high horse. According to Gallup, 40% of Americans (the majority!) believe they were magically poofed into existence [3]. Judging by Tesla, you'd be better off if we all started packing our bags

After making a statement like this do you expect another editor whom you are currently engaged in a dispute with not to look a bit incredulously at your asking for an apology? And after his response on the article's talkpage you left a remark just saying "Reported" with a link to this thread(where's the dispute resolution?). Cowboy posted a comment to all of this stating, "Please, please! Don't start anything here again ... hasn't there been enough trouble here?" to which you replied exceedingly rudely with:

@Djathinkimacowboy. Please stop playing the "peacemaker" - this entire thread of yours seems to have been posted for no other reason than to satisfy your need to criticize various Balkan nations.

Honestly there is clearly nothing actionable here on RKLawton and certainly you need to work towards improving the tone of the discussion as well. Try not to be offended by remarks like these which aren't made with actual ill intent, and if you are still personally offended then express how you feel, do not tell an editor to "consider yourself formally warned" for making "racist or hate-mongering comments", totally inappropriate way to handle this whole situation, completely unnecessary escalation. Recommending an admin close this before WP:DRAMA as there's no admin action to be done.AerobicFox (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with AerobicFox directly above. There is no need for admin action here and this thread should be closed. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Mick Hucknell

Resolved

 – Following more problem edits, it's been semi-protected for 24h [213], and I'm sure several people are now watching it too.  Chzz  ►  00:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you protect his page please? There's an internet rumour going round that he's died. [214] - that page has a link to the offending aarticle but the Wiki spam filter means I can't post it. 86.133.210.78 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We rarely preemptively protect an article before a problem has actually occurred on it, so I'd suggest just watching it (I'll add it to my watch list), and only consider protection if such a problem happens repeatedly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'd already reverted one set of edits before coming here and hopefully there won't be any more. 86.133.210.78 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Activity at Teen Mania Ministries, again

In the last day, there have been 5 edits, each deleting criticism, to Teen Mania Ministries from 12.37.33.3 (talk · contribs). That address, according to its talk page, is assigned to Teen Mania Ministries. It was last blocked for one month from August 22, 2011. See User talk:12.37.33.3 for background.

The recent activity seems to stem from a critical MSNBC documentary on the organization aired last Sunday, and subsequent attempts by the organization at spin control. Wikipedia is on the sidelines in this; the article hasn't changed much in recent months, other than deletions and reverts. Another moderate-term block and/or semi-protection may be indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was semi'd for 1 year by Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). causa sui (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Could someone please protect my user-page? I think it is Grawp who sends me loving messages about "Your skull will be crushed by an aluminum bat, fascist swine!:" Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done talk page protected 24 hrs & nonsense revdel'd Skier Dude (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A big thank you! (And I wouldn´t mind if people kept an eye on my talk-page; I seem to have come to Jarles attention lately. ust a few days ago I had to disable my email after being spammed with "loving" messages from him. Anyway; thanks again! And back to work. Huldra (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Page History, these edits and the summaries were redacted. However, they still appeared on Huldra's talk page. I deleted them, but they are still available through page history. Perhaps someone could redcat them properly. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite^Talk 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal information on Talk page

Resolved

 – Material removed, editor reblocked, other measures in hand. Bencherlite^Talk 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed this table from a users talk page: table In my opinion it contains information about minors which should never be in the public domain. The user has put the information back. Could someone please review this and if you agree then ensure the information is permanently removed. Thanks. Vrenator ^talk 12:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely it should be nuked under WP:NOTAWEBHOST - it's not ecyclopedic content, it's never going to be encyclopedic content and it does not add in user or community communication. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who removed the content and blocked the (already blocked)user from editing his own talkpage.Vrenator ^talk 12:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have revdel so have had to delete and selectively restore the page, but I've got rid of those edits from the page history. fish&karate 13:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

IP 24.23.161.104

Resolved

 – hosiery back in basket--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

This anonynous user keeps spreading his/her "unconventional" original research on hundreds of articles: mostly just re-categorizing and re-classifying politicians, political groups and parties as some sorts of socialist, left-wing, liberal or whatever. It would not be a great deal if he/she would not do it on dozens of pages every day, none of their edits explained or sourced at all (and not self-explanatory either). His/her talk page is full of good advice, warnings and "final warnings" from several other users (starting back in October), but the user has never reacted to any of them, and is obviously not accessible to argumentation. Instead he/she has rather intensified the disruptive editing. More than 90% of their contributions get reverted for being unsourced and/or blatant OR. Serious consequences are necessary. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Briefly reviewing the edits, it looks like the IP is changing a lot of things that weren't cited anyway. The described behavior (not engaging on talk) is definitely problematic, but it should be said that replacing OR with OR is a problem better addressed by finding sources for the disputed content. causa sui (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In many cases you are right, but he/she does not have a problem with removing refs where they stand against his/her personal perceptions and analysis [215], [216] and blanking half articles [217]. And still, the problem how to get this user to reacting on community communication and discussion is not resolved. Like this, it is impossible to co-operate with this user. --RJFF (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Warring, too [218] --RJFF (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of Greekboy12345er6. I suggest an SPI could be in order here. RolandR (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

All right. It's a stretch but the cited diffs may be good faith and they may actually be constructive. But that is impossible to determine if the user won't communicate, so making edits like that and not discussing them is not acceptable. Some short and escalating blocks may be in order. causa sui (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Roland's diagnosis of the profile of Greekboy12345er6, notably

• mis-spellings and weird capitalizations (both improved somewhat from those of previous accounts) and
• obsessive categorization of political figures as members of a leftwing political tradition (often erroneous)
• lack of edit summaries (which declined from irregular to absent) and failure to discuss edits with anybody.

These similarities suggest that a check-user search/Sock-Puppet Investigation would be reasonable.

I just reverted his edit-warring on Max Shachtman, whom he again categorized as a social democrat, despite being reverted before. This IP categorized Shachtman as a member of an organization formed in late December (1972) after Shachtman's November (1972) death.

I would ask that he be given a topic ban from categorizing political figures directly. He should have to propose such categorizations on talk pages and wait at least one week (without hearing any objections) before making any changes. He should be given notice that he needs to discuss his edits with other editors; if he edit wars again or continues to ignore requests for clarifications/discussions, then he should be blocked until he agrees to be mentored.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If, as I suspect, this is a sock of an indefinitely blocked disruptive serial puppeteer, this account should not receive a topic ban; it should be blocked entirely. Despite the concerns raised here, and at SPI, this editor continues to make numerous unsourced POV edits, and refuses to respond on talk pages or noticeboards. RolandR (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Soaring ever higher in her eagle path, Elen of the Roads justly blocked this user as a sock-puppet.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Brunodam

His latest incarnation (that I've noticed) seems to be User:6alban, and his latest article is Rocca Pietro. Judging by the fact that he's active, there are likely more "Brunodams" lurking in the woodwork. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Again? Keep doing the same, DIREKTOR....go on, go on....but at the end: WHO CARES? Sorry, but in the long run there it is nothing you (and your friends) can do against the truth about Italians in Venezia Giulia & Dalmazia. If you are REALLY clever, you should understand this simple reality (ah, finally allow me to remember that until now no one of my friends in Italy has started to support my articles in wikipedia, but I'd like to see how you and your group will label them as "vandals" and erase their writings only because they like to write about that thuth ...).

Furthermore, if you want to see all the articles erased by your group last month, be my guest and go to e-notes (an internet company in little part owned by myself): you'll find -for example- the Italian irredentism in Dalmatia at http://www.enotes.com/topic/Italian_irredentism_in_Dalmatia , or the Italian irredentism in Istria at http://www.enotes.com/topic/Italian_irredentism_in_Istria

So, DIREKTOR, please don't go on with the same....remember my advice of last month about your possible heart problems if you keep going on and on fighting against nearly everybody in the en.wiki.....Wikipedia should be a hobby! Allow others to participate with their writings in a friendly way, even if their opinions are different than yours!!!!! Remember: Wikipedia is not a Balkan or WWII battleground. For me is only a hobby, B.D. --6alban (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The above editor is clearly a sock of a banned user. Can someone please block and run a checkuser for the rest of the sock drawer? Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely as xe basically admits here that he is the same editor. However, I recommend that someone else with more time open up an SPI just to check for sleepers, given the history of sockpuppetry. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Brunodam has really overstepped the mark (again) with what amounts to personal threats here and here. I personally have had enough of dealing with this mentally disturbed person, and I'm sure that DIREKTOR and many other editors feel the same. In view of Brunodam's past and present actions, I now demand more radical action to make it harder for him to interfere with Wikipedia. If possible, block all the IPs from Brunodam's home range and semi-protect all the articles affected by his sockpuppets. Something must be done, Brunodam is the one to be alienated, not the regular editors trying to do a good job. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As a banned user, his edits can be reverted by any editor without worrying about 3rr. Socks should be reported here or to WP:SPI. --Blackmane (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No other socks found, blocked some IPs. TNXMan 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sabarikarthik1991

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

---

Hi, please block this user indefinitely, and erase his edit summaries to the Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam article. He has injected crude insults against the Mangalorean Catholics. See this. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joyson. I've notified the user of this discussion - you need to do this when you post at ANI. This, however, is not an ANI issue; it's simple vandalism, and should be dealt with by reverting (as you have done) and placing a warning template on the user's talkpage (which I have done for you). If he persists, take it to WP:AIV before coming here. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so abusing an entire community is not an ANI issue. At least, delete the edit summaries. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

They have never used any edit summaries, there's nothing to delete ... and they did not abuse an entire community, they inserted childish vandalism (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant, delete his revisions! Inserting that the Mangalorean Christians delivered women to the English is not abusing an entire community? Were he to say something similar about your particular ethnicity, you wouldn't be insulted by it? And he also inserted nonsense like the Mangalorean Catholics got banged by the English during Hyder Ali's reign. Delete these revisions. These are verbal use! Plus, it was one fellow. There is no they. Why are you arguing if you haven't even bothered to look into it properly? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

His edits have been reverted; you did that yourself. Do you mean that you want them suppressed from the edit history? I don't think Oversight are likely to do that; for one thing, if he continues to vandalise then those edits will be needed as evidence for a future block. He vandalised a page, you reverted him, I warned him, he hasn't vandalised since. This happens thousands of times every single day on Wikipedia. Let it go. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

They won't be WP:REVDEL'd either; as Yunshui says, this exact kind of childish vandalism happens by the minute on Wikipedia, and how Joyson has handled (up until the ANI request) it is how it gets handled thousands of times a day. If it happens more, then there will be additional steps. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just answer this one question. Are childish insults to bios, or community related articles subject to revision deletion or not? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This type? No, not usually. Oh, by the way, you neither advised the other editor of this ANI filing (already done by Yunshui) nor provided them a list of the rules via a Welcome template (done by me) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel the need to. I assumed that such an action deserves an indefinite block, and so i reported it here. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Joyson belongs to the community and feels hurt. Can we not suppress the edits as we sometimes do on talk pages? 92.241.168.146 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joyson: advising them of the ANI filing is a necessity, no matter what - you cannot miss that warning. The statements, although puerile, do not appear to meet the criteria threshold. I have had both my faith community AND my ethnicity insulted billions of times - what you're asking to have REVDEL'd is extremely minor in the grand scheme of things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, who cares? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Joyson is quite justifiably upset - this vandalism is quite a bit nastier than just replacing every third word with 'penis', and does appear to be intended to insult the subjects of the article. I'm not sure why quite so much good faith is being extended to the vandal, and quite so little to Joyson. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt the justification of him being upset. That said, historically, the exact actions that are being inserted into the article (although currently unsourced) were the actions that were required of the aggrieved group, and enforced by aggressors. The negative being added in the article are actually against the English aggressors, and not suggesting that the Mangalorean Christians were doing this voluntarily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Any proof that members of the aggrieved group were supposed to supply women to the British soldiers, who by the way, mostly tended to be Indian sepoys? If not, then i suggest that you better shut up! Perhaps, your ancestors supplied women to the British soldiers or the Yankees, but not ours. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joyson, enough! Bwilkins, you have genuinely misread the vandal edits. The vandal is having a go at the Mangalorean Christians. Whether he's just a mindless troll or has an agenda I don't know, it could be either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to this! These are 'genuine' edits:

• This was led by a native major named Francis Pinto who let the English shove their tiny thing into his huge hole for the defense of the fort. brave defence of the fort. He also refers to these troops as the "Native Christian Bastards".
• During Hyder's regime, Roman Catholicism in Mangalore and the Mangalorean Catholic community continued to get banged by the English.

"Historically, the exact actions that are being inserted into the article (although currently unsourced) were the actions that were required of the aggrieved group, and enforced by aggressors." You have seriously lost all credibility. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joyson, pack it in! Bwilkins misunderstood the edits, you appear to have misunderstood what both he and I said, and are certainly failing to agree any good faith with me, who was on your side up to this point. I am going to hat this off, before it descends any further.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Original research edit war at Maxwell's demon

A new user, AlanS333 (talk · contribs), is edit warring at Maxwell's demon to include content sourced to his own Facebook page. He claims it can also be found in the archives at the University of Arizona but does not provide sufficient evidence that it qualifies under WP:RS. Since I am probably considered involved at this point, could someone else please take a look? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 18:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted his addition, left him a note, and I'll block the account for a bit if he re-adds the material. Hopefully it won't come to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He should understand what he did. Now an admin blocked him for a period of time. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What? No, he hasn't been blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Known troll posing as a real person

Please see the edits today by Peter Wynne-Thomas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who claims to be the real Peter Wynne-Thomas. The user has been referred to SPI under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft per WP:DUCK.

Aside from the duck test/SPI issue, does this imposture contravene WP:BLP or other policies in place to safeguard the integrity and reputation of living persons? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

At times, especially if the conduct is suspicious or might bring disrepute upon a real person, such accounts have been blocked for impersonation subject to OTRS confirmation of identity. Nathan ^T 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever it is, it's definitely a sock. The following accounts are  Confirmed as each other:

• Peter Wynne-Thomas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fullersomething (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TheWagonMound (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DonoghuevStevenson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HallvRAC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aecvlatimer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Snowded/GoodNight

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 was willing to let this Rfc sandbox continue. But the last complaint added to it - is a blatent breach of AGF. It has pushed me to bring my concerns here - per WP:HARASSMENT. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has a long term pattern of minor disruption and his behaviour has been brought here before. Given that an RfC is the most likely route if the pattern continues I created a page to collect material. I thought it best to do this where it was visible to GoodDay and others, rather than just keep it off wiki. --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been keeping your list about GoodDay for three months now - enough is enough - either s**t or get off the pot. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Long term to my mind is more than three month, especially with minor disruption. But its not surprising to see you here --Snowded ^TALK 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The last 2 claims of disruption (#10 & #11) at the sandbox, were really OTT. The IP claims weren't much better. It was getting to the point, where I was beginng to think if I said hello to anyone - the post would end up at the sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Re #11 that GoodDay was trolling was endorsed by an Admin. Daicaregos (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

An adminstrator who disagrees with me, over usage/non-usage of diacritics on English Wikipedia. Thus a non-neutral administrator, in this case. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@User Snowded - when are you opening the RFC user? Or is your list speculative and open ended? Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A further request. I wish editors would stop commenting on me and/or my motives, at main space talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of the scene in Rain Man where Raymond pulls out a logbook of every time someone was mean to him since 1958... typically, the way we do this is (a) notice a short-term pattern of bad behavior by a user we're not familiar with, (b) go through contribs to see if it's a long term problem, (c) if it is, build such a narrative retro-actively and file an RFC/U. Following someone around in real-time and keeping an ongoing log on-wiki is alienating stalking behavior and anyone subjected to that kind of deliberate public shaming - right or wrong - is in the right to feel attacked. Keeping such lists off-wiki until you're ready to actually file may be a better way of doing this. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay is involved in long-term low-level disruption over several different genres. Consequently, different editors are involved. Should any of the cases noted turn out to be spurious that would be in GoodDay's favour. Daicaregos (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos is involved in long-term low-level harrassment of GoodDay. But, we'll let the Wiki-community decide on such things. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is non sequitur. Another way of saying "multiple users are doing the documenting" is "GoodDay is being stalked by a gang of hostile editors". Your complaints may or may not be well-founded but harassment and stalking is not a productive way of reaching a resolution in either case: we have RFC/U process for this. File an RFC, have everyone who is involved in the dispute certify it, and then submit your statements for comment by the community. causa sui (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opionion there are two valid concerns here:

• My impression of GoodDay is that he is mostly fooling around, often pouring flammable liquids into open fires, persistently. I first saw him doing that in the Anglo-Irish conflict, where he had no substantial input except for a strong opinion, which he kept repeating. I have since seen him engage in the same behaviour in other conflicts. The behaviour is of a type that is very hard to address. It's not blatant enough to result in any consequences for GoodDay, so the damage is going on and on.
• It is well established though not universally known that we don't allow pages such as the one that Snowded is keeping, except for a very specific legitimate purpose (tick) and for a very short period of time (fail). I believe the rationale for the prohibition is that we can't police whether evidence collected on such a page is sufficiently valid without partially anticipating the very purpose of the page, and it is only natural if the target feels stalked, whether the concerns are valid or not.

Unfortunately there seems to be nothing we can do immediately about the first problem, but based on my prior experience with Snowded I am confident that he will simply keep his list offline from now on until the matter is ripe for RfC/U. Hans Adler 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll share your confidence on the second bit when he agrees and tags the page for WP:CSD#U1. causa sui (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

With no comment on the underlying dispute, such pages aren't generally allowed on-wiki for more time then is needed to put together a case (2-3 weeks in general). Either move it off wiki or start an RfC/U would be my strong advice. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Hobit here. This page, given the length of time it has existed, clearly violates WP:POLEMIC. It appears to be serving the purpose of documenting ongoing objections to GoodDay's editing, which is clearly not allowed in the userspace. Either it becomes an RFC/U post haste or it should be deleted. --Jayron32 05:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the name of the sandbox ("GoodNight") is bad taste. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame on any editor who saw the page and did not request its deletion. Shame on any editor who defends its existence based on the editor on the recieving end maybe deserving it. I could spend 10 minutes detailing how snowded makes a habit of attacking those that disagree with him. I could spend another 5 discussing how poor form it is that his first comment here backed that up. I will instead spend a few seconds requesting deletion of the page. Note that your computer has some sort of program to save text, Snowded. If you have enough evidence to warrant the start of collecting evidence then you have enough evidence to file an RfC already. Cptnono (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and "voted" there accordingly. I've dealt with both of these editors in the past and have no problems with either of them in my experience. But this page either has to go away or be formed into some sort of report. Doc talk 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said before it seems to me more honest to keep the page where anyone (including GoodDay) to see it. With long term disruption the evidence will have to be gathered over a longer period of time than a few weeks. However, if someone can show me the policy which says this sort of thing is not allowed then I will happily take it off line and notify interested editors. And as a side note, Off2riorob and Cptnono, would you please get over the fact that the community did not support your views on the UAF article, or at least have the honesty to admit that you are "involved" editors in any issue involving me. --Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that your intend wasn't to harrass me & I do appreciate that fact. However, the sandbox has morphed into a place for any editors who have a beef with me, to place their complaint. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Involved" can really only be invoked as a possible issue with admins - not non-admins. If GoodDay is not a banned/blocked editor who is allowed to edit here freely and objects to the sub-page: the decision is a no-brainer. Off-wiki or RfC/U. Doc talk 06:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If it goes off wiki the same editors will be involved but GoodDay will not have sight of it. Happy to do that if he wants as this is now becoming a drama. Regardless of what happens I would still like to see policy here Doc9871, you are asserting a position, without that reference its just your opinion. Otherwise I am fully entitled to note that two of the editors making the strongest comments here have a long running dispute with me over their failure to change one article. --Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

From the British Isles naming fiasco I remember the both of you: remember that fun? Snowded, I've created similar evidence pages and currently maintain one for a prolific vandal: but these pages are to be addressed appropriately should they be actually challenged in their existence. No offense to either of you at all, and I hope it is worked out amicably. Doc talk 07:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• List is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowded/GoodNight — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Probably unrelated except through Snowded, but while we are here: Can an admin please indef this idiot for the overt off-wiki threat ("it stands to reason that you will not be getting any contract renewed")? Hans Adler 12:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. That was well beyond the pale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Block review

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

With the patience and kindness of a whack of editors/admins, we have tried to teach User:BruceWHain simple concepts .. like the WP:5P, not to WP:REFACTOR, WP:NPA, and a whole bunch of other things. He continues to refactor comments (for example, recently adding his own comment in the middle of mine, then berating me for removing his insertion).

I have indef-blocked him. This is not a block based on that action, this is a general WP:COMPETENCE and WP:BATTLE block that is readily apparent both on his main article of interest, and on his usertalk. I had considered locking his talkpage to start - knowing where this will plunge to.

This all said, I welcome a review of my block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good block. Ranting diatribes by the user on his talk page tell the story; he doesn't understand how we do things, can't grasp why we do them the way we do, and has no interest in listening or learning. Any efforts to reform his behavior should be done on his talk page and while he's unable to cause further damage elsewhere. causa sui (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, necessary block. Some people just aren't cut for WP. N^oformation ^Talk 22:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agh, sad to see someone who clearly has enthusiasm and ability being so wholly incapable of editing in a collegial manner and steadfastly refusing to listen, but the Talk page makes it abundantly clear that is the case. So with regret, I have to support the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ditto the above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unless/until the light comes on with this editor, I think there's not a lot else to be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong opposition This looks heavy handed. He should be blocked for 1 year. After a year, people mature. Otherwise, you will be branding him a criminal with a life sentence. Jack Paterno (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  The above account was created a mere 30+ minutes ago. How would it he/she know about ANI? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are being very nasty calling me an it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Paterno (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading Wikipedia for years. I know it is a Wikipedia tradition. Call the newbie a sock and then ban user Bruce! Very juvenile. Step back and think. Give the guy an incentive to act productively. Just ban him for a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Paterno (talk • contribs) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He's not banned, he's indefinitely blocked. If he showed any sign of clue he could be unblocked tomorrow. And don't put unblock templates on anyone's pages but your own. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what Elen said. Nobody's called for him to be banned. An indefinite block is, as it says, a block without a definite length. It could be a year, a month, a decade, or a day. To an extent, the blocked user determines the length of the block: if he can demonstrate that he understands why he was blocked, agrees not the repeat the actions in question, and is willing to edit constructively going forward, then he's likely to get unblocked. If he stubbornly repeats the same behaviour, that's when the block run a chance of turning, explicitly or implicitly, into a ban. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. The editor is either extraordinarily dense, or is just a troll. Either way, see ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that no one had notified the editor; I've done so now, and indicated that we would copy or link to any new comments directly relevant to this discussion. And I had earlier notified the user that at this point, he can use his talk page to discuss the block, and that's it--no more demands for recantations, reversions, or obeisances. Any further ranting should result in a talk page being removed. Also, the user currently has a sandbox copy of his preferred version of the article, which should be deleted if the block is upheld (might as well wait a day or two just to be sure). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Now he's practically begging to have his talk page privilege revoked. It would only be polite to accommodate him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's not trolling -- and it seems much too complicated for that -- I'm afraid there's a maasive WP:COMPETENCE problem with this user, and that, for whatever reason, he is incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Per this diff, in which the user explicitly says that he is making a legal threat, I have removed talk page access ("accommodated him", as Baseball Bugs says). He can send Arbcom or the Foundation or whoever he wants his legal threats demanding we remove his content. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame it had to come to it, but clearly the right decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Elen of the Roads deleted his sandbox version of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And per Drmies request at my talk page, I've blanked BruceWHain's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, legal threats

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

CueCat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See here for some background.

Despite some editors' attempts to educate Proofplus (I gave up), she continues to disruptively - and often incoherently - edit the CueCat article and Talk pages, including removal of sourced material she doesn't like and insertion of unsourced material. In my view, she is not an asset to Wikipedia and should be blocked. In addition, she has made at least one legal threat in her edit summary, which independently merits a block. She has also accused me and User:Cullen328 of sockpuppetry here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the situation on the article for a time. She is a bit of a problematic editor, probably moreso with not yet understanding how Wikipedia works. I don't think she made a legal threat there, but she is in the territory of personal attacks for some of her comments to Bbb23 and Cullen238. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Fred is being kind. I don't see how the phrase "Liable is at issue here WARNING Kbb23" can be construed as anything but a legal threat. She misspelled libel or intended to mean that I would be "liable", and she is warning me (she often calls me Kbb23 instead of Bbb23). I personally don't think she will ever understand how Wikipedia works (or wants to, although she sometimes claims she does, but she is clearly passive-aggressive in many of her comments), but even if that were a possibility, she should not be permitted to edit until she shows some sign of having learned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

More evidence of legal threats: "and yes I say Kbb23 Cullens accusations, but I just warned them of liable with the words they attributed to an author, but was with that said" ([219]).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

SORRY Bbb23 I have a child on my knee, feeding them while I try to work and be mommy at the same time. That is not against the rules. I simply pointed out the RULES on wiki about the statementDIRECTLY FROM WIKI that you cannot post inflamatory statments about living persons and the stuff you posted was really offensive and not part of the reference link. You simply cannot attack a living individual on wiki that way, and BESIDES the record is about a DEVICE not a person. YOU NEED TO COOL ITProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

Note that the above edit was made by Proofplus as of 21:15. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ran kurosawa - Proofplus is technically  Unrelated. Meatpuppetry might be a more realistic explanation than sockpuppetry. I also construe those diffs as legal threats. WilliamH (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus, I have not really added any material to the article. I was struggling to maintain the article in its previous state before your edits. In so doing, I may have restored material you consider controversial, I don't know, as it's hard to keep up with your changes (and until the issues raised here have been resolved, I've ceased trying).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I also construe those diffs as legal threats.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the "inflamatory statments"^[sic] that ProofPlus mentioned were direct quotes from a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My typing volume must be turned down too low. I have attempted to convey that Cullen and Bbb23 are not socks, but have been unsuccessful. I think this is crossing the line into personal attack territory. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm engaged in a discussion with her on my talk page (thread FRED can you help me with LINK references???) where, among other things, I'm pointing out that editors are working in good faith but disagreeing. If she can grasp that, I'm hopeful for the situation. If she continues to protest about the conduct of other editors, however… —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to discourage you from trying to help her, but, in the past, she has proved to be alternately intractable/offensive or gushingly grateful (see my passive-aggressive characterization above). I'm no longer willing to assume good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With serious respect to C.Fred for trying, this user lacks the competence to edit here collaboratively. I've blocked the account.--v/r - TP 22:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably too close to the situation to formally endorse the block, but after this talk page comment, I think it's the right call. —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article to a previous state before the latest slew of edits by Proofplus. If anyone disagrees with my reversion, feel free to revert it and go through each of Proofplus's edits one by one, but, honestly, I doubt there's anything of value that was added.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I have removed one of the statements ProofPlus identified as problematic because it was, indeed, a BLP violation. Risker (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with removal of that material, although it was sourced and quoted accurately. The problem lies in the source itself, which reads essentially like an opinion piece, even though it came from what I assume is a reliable newspaper (Dallas Observer). As for Proofplus and her identification of that material, that is a separate issue. When an editor like Proofplus is making wild accusations, it's very hard to look through them all in the hope that one particular accusation turns out to have validity. On a personal note, susbequent to the block, Proofplus continues her misbehavior, including calling me sexist and anti-semitic.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

She's begun an emailing streak, and is now bugging our benevolent dictator. Revoke email access? Danger ^{High voltage!} 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The block keeps becoming more comprehensive. She can no longer edit her own Talk page and has had e-mail access revoked. Is there anything left to block?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am not Bbb23. I do not object to the removal of referenced quotations of the harsh language directed against the inventor of the CueCat by the press in Dallas. I added that material in an attempt to summarize what reliable sources were saying about the collapse of the company in question, resulting in losses of $185 million for investors. If I had found anything favorable in reliable, independent sources regarding this inventor, I certainly would have added that material as well. I never heard of the CueCat or the inventor until recent days.

I agree with WilliamH that meatpuppetry is the most likely explanation for the unusual editing of this group of articles and drafts, as opposed to sockpuppetry. I have wondered why someone would push seeming COI editing regarding a company long out of business and a TV/radio show long off the air? My unproven theory is that it is a promotional attempt to bolster the value of the underlying patents behind the CueCat, but I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now officially open and will run until Monday 21 November at 23:59 UTC.

• If you are interested in running for the Arbitration Committee for 2012 and meet the requirements for candidacy, please go here.
• If any other editors are interested in coordination, please go here.

–MuZemike 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Large backlog cleared but may need repopulating

After finding a copyvio that wasn't picked up in the article wizard creation review process, I raised it with the reviewer (User:Wilhelmina Will) on their talk page and during that discussion realised that they had cleared thousands of articles from various 'new articles created via the Article Wizard' categories. About 7000 apparently. There are at least two where problems were not picked up (see user's talk page) and there are likely more as the reviewer explicitly stated that they 'didn't realize you're supposed to check for copyright when reviewing these pages'. I suggested that the articles be placed back in the queue for reviewing, but the reviewer wants to do it themselves. I think the articles (a list could be generated from the reviewer's contributions) should be placed back in the backlog queue for proper reviewing, as I think 7000 is too much for one person to attempt to do on their own (I realise this is in part because CorenSearchBot has been down for some time). What is the best thing to do here? The discussion so far is here (version at time of writing). Further additions to that user talk page discussion are here (will get archived at some point). I'm posting here, as I think urgent action is needed to at the least have a tag on these articles that didn't get reviewed for potential copyright problems. The article creation review backlogs cleared by Wilhelmina Will can be seen at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I edit conflicted with Wilhelmina Will here while replying and notifying about this thread. She now agrees that it is better to put those articles back in a review queue. Could someone help out from here with what is needed? Carcharoth (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the item that drew my attention to this, articles cleared by this editor need to be checked not just for copyvio but for issues like promotional tone and notability. I guess putting them back in the queue will achieve that, but they shouldn't be treated as a special case to be checked for copyvio only. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Going through her deleted contributions, she also reviewed article that were subsequently speedy deleted as (from a short check) G4 (repost), G10 (attack page), many A7s, and even an A1 for an article that had as text "KASSIM BAHALI is " and a number of external links. How that one could ever get reviewed is far beyond me. I have to admit that I deleted Brendan Monaghan as a copyvio last month, but forgot to follow this up then, which could have given this problem more attention sooner. Anyway, from what I see, it seems as if she is not suited to be an article reviewer and should cease doing this, at least for a while, until a firmer graps of our policies is shown. Fram (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As some tools automatically mark as reviewed any article nominated for deletion, in your examples, were they marked reviewed and then later tagged for deletion by someone else? Monty₈₄₅ 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In all these examples, this involves Wilhelmina Will removing the "new unreviewed article" template, either with or without the edit summary "reviewed", and without nominating it for deletion. Kassim Bahali, Brian O'Kelly (a BLPPROD which she reviewed(!), William J. Gladden (another unsourced BLP she reviewed), ... Articles that still remain and that never should have been tagged as reviewed include e.g. Ricardo Melendez. Fram (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• (1) By 'review' I am referring to the manual removal of the 'needs review' tags put on articles created through the Article Creation Wizard. I'm not referring to patrolling or anything related to the (auto)reviewer/patroller right.
• (2) My initial post here was to try and get some sense of urgency injected into identifying and tagging these articles that were incompletely reviewed. It wasn't intended to say anything about reviewing competency - if someone wants to raise that as a related or separate issue (and given some of the examples above, it might be needed), then please re-notify Wilhelmina Will on her user talk page, as her agreeing that these articles need re-reviewing means she might not be following this thread any more.
• (3) It seems some of the articles reviewed have and are being caught, but it would probably be best if all the articles cleared from those categories (or rather, the ones that still exist) were put back there. Is there a way to identify and re-tag those articles?

A good starting point would be to work out when Wilhelmina Will started to clear these categories (her entry here would be the logical starting point for working that out). I think this edit from March 2011 marks the start of work being done on that backlog. So that is 7000+ articles reviewed in around 8 months. Do the examples above fall towards the end of this period or throughout? As I asked above, is it possible to identify the articles that had their review tags removed during this period by Wilhelmina Will, and put the review tags back? Or do we just have to hope that any problems not yet noticed will eventually be corrected? Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The ones I mentioned are mostly from October and November, I haven't looked at the older ones yet. I don't know if there is an easy to set all this articles back up for review. Fram (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the problem is not just recent. Looking at Wilhelmina's deleted contributions for the first half of May, for edits which removed the "new unreviewed article" template, I see two subsequently deleted as copyvio, two as G11, and eight PRODded, some with reasons like "non-notable student production, can find no sources establishing notability" or "Advertisement for a non-notable behind the scenes business. Article is written entirely in deliberately uninformative sales patter."

If Wilhelmina can tell us when she began reviewing articles, the easiest solution would be for a bot to scan all her edits since then, replacing any "unreviewed" templates she removed. I don't know whether that is too complex a task for a bot.

(I have asked at WP:VPT#Could a bot do this? whether this is possible. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

If it is not possible, I don't think it would be unreasonable to to ask Wilhelmina to do this herself - not to re-review the articles, just to replace the templates to put them back in the queue.

A third alternative would be to set up a special page, on the lines of a CCI investigation, to track the problem and progress towards clearing it, either by re-reviewing pages or replacing the template. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know when I started reviewing the pages in the unreviewed categories, the best I can give is that it was around March - mid to late. I don't remember when exactly, nor can I recall doing it any earlier than that. I hope this helps. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Δ (talk) says that the bot solution "would require a little elbow grease, but doable." Are we agreed that to have a bot replace these "unreviewed" tags is the best way forward? JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are, yes, I have seen no opposition and examples of clear problems (among the good reviews), so repopulating this is the best way forward. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

There is an editor that is insistent on the Michael Jackson article on changing the legal name of Jackson, based on some 'film'(?) called 'Alive! Is Michael Jackson Really Dead?'. The user seems to even uploaded some image from the film here. I don't know enough about these conspiracies, but I'm pretty sure the death certificate issued by the LA County Health Department cites Jackson's real name. In any case, looking at this editors contributions, it seems as if he/she is here only to cause disruption. The 2nd edit from this account requested the users page be protected 'to prevent spam'. The account then went on to make the same requests on several different articles.(1,2,3,4), then made some odd edits(1,2,3) before completely stopping any edits for several months when he started editing the Jackson page. Something is going on, and I suspect the editor is here only for disruption purposes, and could be related to another account who recently vandalized the Jackson article. Help? Dave Dial (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've deleted the drivers license file (it's got to be a copyvio, surely) and the bizarre Talk:Wikipedia Improve Center. I think it's more cluelessness than malevolence, but if he posts the same change to Michael Jackson again, he is over 3RR --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that page too. Definitely strange. Perhaps you're right about the 'cluelessness', but the edits being made seem strange. I stopped reverting his changes because I didn't want to get into an edit war. So I will let someone else change it back. Thanks for the response and help, Elen. Dave Dial (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is another edit war going on concerning whether Jackson "died" or "was manslaughtered" (a term I've never even heard of). One editor is on the verge of a 3RR violation, which I commented on on their Talk page, and which they somehow claim that I'm being pointy, when I am not even involved in the editing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That battle finally quieted down, and the editor seemingly let go after multiple reversions by different editors. It was a very silly discussion, even by Wikipedia standards, as the Jackson lead is remarkably well written and thorough, covering both the medical cause of death and the Murray conviction. Why the editor wanted to change the article is beyond me. As for the word "manslaughter", it is a noun, and even the unusually adaptable English language hasn't yet permitted it to morph into a verb (I remember years ago when I found out, much to my horror, that "party" had become a verb). To get around this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, the editor tried the phrase "involuntarily killed", a dreadful term from a legal perspective. Anyway, it seems to be over.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Probable unauthorised bot, relatively new editor; other contrib looks like machine-translation (bad combination!)

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 contributions for new user (registered 6th October 2011) User:NotWith first contribs; are highly suggestive of an unauthorised bot. I came across one of his new pages whilst on NPP, which also looks suspiciously like a machine-translation (and probably copyvio, therefore). The idea of a user who combines an unauthorised bot with producing machine-translation copyvios makes me shudder! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...which contributions are you referring to? I see a lot of disambiguation edits, but not much else. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the disambiguation edits? Humans can do those pretty quick. Also, there are loads of random edits thrown in there, exactly as a human edits (always getting sidetracked!). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He does appear that he's using WP:AWB or something to add/fix wikilinks. He has created some bizarre disambigs that simply re-link to another disambig (and I removed a bunch as G8). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not listed as an authorised user of AWB. Confirming the creation of dabs that link to other dabs., and appears to be able to do this at a rate of up to 2 a minute (I can't do that - perhaps I'm not human). Creates maps too that look suspiciously from Google maps, but I'm not a copyright expert on imags. Appears to be taking random book, comic, and place names from articles concerned with northern France and/or Belgium/Holland and creating redirects for them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He's now movingLast month he moved dozens of pages like this: (moved Diadora (genus) to Diadora (beetle). i know nothing about taxonomy, but I'm sure this,isn't right. I suggest an emergency block until he has explained what he's doing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a discussion of this on his talkpage, just a one liner about some page move that he did. Someone suggested he try writing an article instead, which he seems to have done --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My real concerns began when I looked at his earliest contributions; within two days of registering, he then did hundreds of search-and-replace type edits on particular keywords. The keyword changes seem to take him two minutes before he's back on changing around one page per minute, in the hundreds. This simply doesn't leave a human being the time to go and search for and open the next tabs for those changes. He can't have hundreds of tabs all open at the same time. Something isn't right here. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked him how it was done! Elen, on On 8th October, for instance, (two days after registering with us), he opened, edited and re-saved nearly 200 pages between 08:02 and 14:28, for the most part at the rate of around one a minute, with apparently no breaks. That's six and a half hours without even a loo break. Adding: I can;t believe that a single human being is capable of this; this leaves us with either a bot or multiple users on one account. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing nefarious, just a misunderstanding of dabs and a lot of relatively unnecessary redirects. I'm not sure about the taxonomic moves.187 redirects, 61 pages created most of which are dabs (some of which are actually quite good), the rest are 1-line stubs about insects. Other edits are normal clean ups. We have other users that work at this rate for very short stubs and have created nearly 1 mio pages. You just create a basic model on your computer with all the page elements and paste it and change a few words. Easy enough if they are all about the same thing. I suggest we wait until he responds on his talk page or makes edits again. Nothing to worry about. I think we can close this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to assume bad faith, but this reminds me somewhat of what User:TigreTiger (later found to be a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi) did within a few days of the account's existence, although that was with geographic issues instead. Not sure if that warrants looking into. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a response on the talk page, to which I've responded. I'm trying to think of a way to explain my gut feelings here, and having trouble. To do all that as an experienced editor, and to say "That's the basic job of correcting links that point to disambiguation pages. I think plenty of people know that!" as an experienced editor, is fine. But to do all that disambig/redirect work within two days of registering, just doesn't feel right. And the response itself has left me with even more concerns in respect of the article Instituto de Resseguros do Brasil. On the talk page, we have an editor who is clearly fluent. But the article isn't, it reads like a machine translation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation redirects are appropriate, and this type of redirect is mentioned in the guidelines (WP:INTDABLINK). There is a template, {{R to disambiguation page}}, for explaining their purpose. Peter E. James (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding: that early stuff was all changing / making wikilinks, not new stub creation. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the page moves, I am not seeing anything problematic with his edits. Nor am I seeing any copyright violations. All he is doing is creating valid redirects and disambiguating articles. Is it possible he has had prior Wikipedia experience, possibly as an IP editor? He shouldn't have moved those pages without discussion, but he doesn't appear to be making anymore moves. All the edits he is making could be made by a human editor. It is possible he is using a script to semi-automate the process, but that is permitted by policy. For all we know, he could just be opening up a large number of tabs and saving everything at once. For now, I think we should assume good faith for now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article Instituto de Resseguros do Brasil mentioned above appears to be a "rough" translation of the Portuguese-language article of the same name. It may have been a machine-translation job that was not properly cleaned up. Hohenloh ⁺ 05:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Tovalu using silly edit summaries

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

Doesn't anyone have anything better to do this Saturday than arguing over what, if anything, constitutes a proper edit summary? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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

This user has a habit of using edit summaries for very silly comments that he considers "jokes". You can see quite a few of them at his contributions page, but they include such rib-tickers as...

• "THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS FUNNY. THIS IS A BUNNY."
• "Wishful thinking is like waterskiing; it starts with a W"
• "My briefcase contains walnuts, a hammer, and a sea lion".

Judging by a couple of barnstars, some people find this amusing, but I find it annoying and disruptive, and I consider it an abuse of the edit summary field - any serious person trying to understand the history of an article is not going to want to see such nonsense. Anyway, I have tried to talk to him on both his Talk page and on my Talk page, but he seems insistent that he will only continue to edit if he can continue including his "jokes" in edit summaries - his latest suggestion is to include both a factual summary (eg "Typo") plus the "joke". So, innocent fun that should be allowed, or disruptive use of edit summaries that should be stopped? I'd appreciate your thoughts on my warning to him - if the consensus is that I am wrong and he be allowed to continue, I will drop this. But if the consensus is that he should stop, I'd appreciate a little support - and if he refuses to stop, then I would request a block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: He has also told me "I have used more than one account and in total I have done well over 80k edits on Wikipedia", so I don't know what else, if anything, might lie behind this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A part of this discussion is on my talkpage, another part is on Boing's talkpage.

I explained Boing already that this is not the right place for this discussion. What may lie behind this is not really a secret, just a weird person who is addicted to Wikipedia and has way too much free time. I've tried to explain Boing that threatening to block good-faith editors is almost always counter-productive. I honestly think this is harmless fun, and I am willing to use a descriptive editsummary but I want to add a small weird joke to it (e.g. "Typofix - Ducks are not your enemy!"). Tovalu (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. The editsummary that contains "THIS IS FUNNY" was a notice that I stopped doing the serious work and continued doing simple typofixes, a couple of edits before that you'll see THIS IS NOT FUNNY. This notice was in all-caps, and a bit spammy because of the repetition, the jokes are not.

(ec)Such "so called funny" edit summaries are a bad idea - they will offend or irritate at least as many people as it amuses and runs the risk that someone will revert what may be a perfectly good edit when they see a rediculous edit summary and assume that the edit is vandalism - please stop doing it.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nigel Ish! Thanks, that is useful feedback. OK, I'll stop. Tovalu (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• First, I appreciate that Boing tried to talk him through this first. However, he appears to have failed to see the problem, and asked you not to bring it to ANI. As I recently added to the conversation on your talkpage, although humour is fine in some cases/locations, Wikipedia as a whole is not a joke or toy. Edit summaries are integral, and permanent - they have a purpose, and for the most part humour or other inappropriate uses when it comes to article are, well, inappropriate. Continuation of the behaviour would likely be considered disruptive. On the subject of his possible sockpuppetry ... additionally problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is quite serious. Are you willing to file a CU request? Would you apologize if I am not a sockpuppet? Tovalu (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. If you would apologize when the CU tells you I am not a sockpuppet, please file a checkuser request.

In conclusion, I think Boing violated WP:DICK, he framed the message above nicely to portray me in the worst light imaginable, and I will retire. Tovalu out. Tovalu (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You yourself in this edit state that "I have used more than one account and in total I have done well over 80k edits on Wikipedia". Your words, not mine. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is the truth. But that does not mean I am a sockpuppet. Tovalu (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. You are an admin, but just in case you are unaware read this: WP:SOCK

Nobody is portraying you in a bad light: you were actually thanked for the work you did, but asked to follow a policy, you declined. If you decline to follow a policy, it needs to be escalated. Here's another one for you to follow: your signature is ALWAYS the last thing, do not p.s. things after it. As adults, we accept constructive criticism, adjust our behaviour, and move on with life...don't lash out at people who try to help you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, you are going a bit too quick. You wrote: "...asked to follow a policy, you declined...". Would you please be so kind to link me to that policy? I am unaware it exists! And no one asked me to follow it with a link to that policy. If you can show me a policy page that requires editsummaries to contain nothing but info about the edit then ofcourse I have to follow that policy. Also, can you give me the link where I declined to follow that policy? Tovalu (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I already linked to it above ... see where I said "Edit summaries are integral, and permanent"...oh, and I see it was a warning on your talkpage here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And if you've been around for 80,000 edits, Tovalu, then you already know how edit summaries are supposed to be used -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of what a policy is. WP:SOCK is a policy. Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline. WP:ES says: "This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies.". So, the questions are:

Please link me to the edits where someone asked me to follow a policy and I declined.

Would you retract your statement about sockpuppetry and apologize if a CU confirmed the fact I am not a sock?

Tovalu (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

...and don't forget, if you simply use the "alternate" account to make minor fixes and try and be funny, it is an improper use of an alternate account, thus making it a WP:SOCK. Holy crap, I did not accuse you of being a sock, I re-quoted your own words, and advised you accordingly. Holy wikilawyering, Batman. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow, Robin. Well, I like to think I am quite aware of the policies, guidelines and informationpages on Wikipedia. I've read 'em all AFAIK. I do not have an alternate account at this moment in space and time, that's why I asked you to file a CU request if you are willing to retract your comment and apologize when the CU confirms I am not a sock. Again, the same question, because you did not answer:

Please link me to the edits where someone asked me to follow a policy and I declined.

Thanks in advance, Tovalu (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think we need the Wikilawyering here. I asked Tovalu to stop making silly edit summaries, based on established practise, and Tovalu declined to do so. So we've come here to seek a consensus - because that's the way we do such things at Wikipedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did I decline to do so? Please link me to that edit. Thanks in advance, Tovalu (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in any more Wikilawyering and will not respond further to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would've been able to find a link that confirmed I declined to use normal editsummaries you would've posted it here. But you did not. Can we conclude no such edit exists? Does that mean you lied? And Bwilkins lied too? Tovalu (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this one? It took me all of 15 seconds to find.--v/r - TP 12:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in that edit did I refuse to follow policy? Where in that edit did I decline to use normal editsummaries? Tovalu (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"manually writing a serious editsummary is way too much work and has just a tiny benefit"--v/r - TP 13:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You almost won the debate, but luckily I mentioned the option of using a piece of Javascript in my vector.js to autofill the useful part of the editsummary. Ergo: it is not required to manually write every editsummary, Javascript can do it automagically. Tovalu (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No it can't. WP:ES "An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit". Unless you can write Javascript to understand the context, purpose, and rationale behind your edits; they need to be manually done. The exception is automated editing which can use automated edit summaries. Also note, Wikipedia is not about winning--v/r - TP 13:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fixing typos is my main "task" here. If I need to do a serie of different edits, not typo-related, I comment the .js out and refresh my browsercache. With a bit more advanced Javascript I can add buttons to my interface. Every button is a different editsummary. Tovalu (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How about WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA? Go improve the entries on Joke and Humour with serious scholar tomes that can bore a grown man to tears, and stop using uninformative edit summaries in articles that someone else has to edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I already said I am willing to use informative editsummaries, that is not the point. Tovalu (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you said you will add a joke too - and the growing opinion here seems to be that you should not do that. What I move for, which is in line with established practice, is an informative edit summary *only* - with no "jokes" or silly comments added -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read my response to Nigel... Established practice is NOT a policy. Tovalu (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There does not need to be a specific policy, as at Wikipedia we make our decisions based on consensus - and consensus usually takes established practice into consideration too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Bwilkins said: "you were actually thanked for the work you did, but asked to follow a policy, you declined."... Are you unable to respond to my comment dated 12:47, 12 November 2011? If not, please do respond. Tovalu (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE. And that is an established guideline.--v/r - TP 13:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You have not read my reply to Nigel Ish. I replied to your edit dated 12:59, 12 November 2011 too. Tovalu (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(many edit conflicts) Please don't add jokes to edit summaries. Please don't make up random jokes just so that other editors would stumble upon them when trying to learn what changes have been made to the articles.

I mean, nobody ever said that editing wikipedia had to be fun. I mean, writing an encyclopedia being fun?. I mean, it can be enjoyable, maybe, if you enjoy hurting your eyes because of reading thick books (I do). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We understand eachother. Tovalu (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment First, a response to Tovalu. Our policies, guidelines, and MOS are there for a reason. We, as editors, use them to help build wikipedia and to help with disputes. They are not and should not be viewed simply as established practice, that can be ignored whenever we wish or it suits us. Too many times have I seen major disputes over whether or not "this or that" is an exception to some guideline or MOS. You should probably follow the rules more closely, especially given your purported inexperience with wikipedia. Next, a response to everyone else. Lighten up. I have seen many an experienced or veteran editor use lighthearted and humorous edit summaries. I use them from time to time as well. It sometimes breaks up the monotony of editing and makes the "hobby of editing wikipedia" more fun. Most likely, Tovalu would have done one of two things. He/she would have either made a few edits (given that he/she only has about 150 edits), and get bored and move on. Or he/she would continue editing, get more experience, and realize that those edit summaries are not helpful. Either way, it doesn't deserve so much drama.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• You should become admin. You have the skills that are required for the job. I am very experienced actually, I have more edits then Boing! said Zebedee and Bwilkins combined. Tovalu (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I'm sure others would disagree. Hopefully you don't get chased off. The others in this thread are only trying to help and hopefully you take the advice and become a great editor.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a perhaps minor correction - Tovalu claims to have 80,000 edits, not 150, and is apparently not a newcomer as you seem to think - and as he has confirmed here. So the "ignore the newcomer, it'll blow over" approach doesn't seem to be applicable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, its more like "super-experienced editor got bored, decided to fight boredom with humor.". Still, it will blow over. Tovalu (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of editors use jokey edit summaries. Others never bother with edit summaries at all. Some always manage to break the section links (little blue arrows). Seems a bit pathetic to pick on just one person. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen a contributions page quite as full as nonsense summaries as Tovalu's - did you actually look? If you can find any others like that, I'll be happy to pick on them too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

When you do, please stick to the facts and don't make stuff up as you did here. Tovalu (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that comment was a fair summary of what happened, but if you think not then it was at worst a misunderstanding of your response, and not a deliberate lie. Whether you intended to decline my request or not, you certainly did not agree to it. And that's why we are here - to seek a consensus. But if you want to clarify, please feel free to tell us whether you agree to my request (which is to omit all the silliness from your edit summaries), decline my request, or something else -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I've just reread it all and have only just seen "Hello Nigel Ish! Thanks, that is useful feedback. OK, I'll stop." above. You have my apologies for my having missed it, and my thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Dude, you are cool. It takes balls to do what you just did. Thanks. I accept your apology and in return I apologize for being the stubborn crazy person that I am (I was born that way). You can safely assume I never outright declined to follow standard practice, no need to search for an edit that does not exist. Please do check the difference between policy, guideline and information pages, that is important in some cases. Thanks again, Tovalu (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I read it again and saw that comment I'd missed, I had one of those "Oh F..." moments ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee hee. Errare humanum est, my friend, and robots suck at writing encyclopaedias. Tovalu (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with these sorts of edit summaries is that it puts a burden on other editors to see what you actually changed. If a proper summary was used, i.e. "fixed a typo in the lead" or "added a bit about a recent controversy", then most won't have to click through to the actual diff to see what it was. Using something like the "this is funny, this is a bunny" string pretty much guarantees that everyone who sees it will be compelled to clickthough to see if it is vandalism. So, please, could you use the edit summary field to reflect what you're actually changing? If you need a humor outlet, I'd say there's some leeway when commenting on article talk pages or on policy pages, but when you're editing articles, that'd be the time to be serious. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  I misread that as "This is a bunny on a string" <-- an awesome edit summary for Tampon. --95.121.219.183 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would concur that these edit summaries are more of a harm than a help to the encyclopaedia. I admire the user's attempt to bring some humorous daylight into our lives, but from a purely practical point of view, I can't make head or tail of his changes to an article without going into each one individually to see what he did, and that overturns the basic reason to have edit summaries in the first place, to see at a glance what has been done to an article. From the most established editor to the most humble beginner, we need to use edit summaries properly, so it doesn't really matter how many edits Tovalu has be it on this account or any other account. The user did say he would stop some time ago in this conversation, as Boing! has correctly highlighted, so unless there are any further issues can this not be resolved? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, sounds good to me. Meanwhile, I'm just off to write some lines ("I *will* read what everybody says more carefully. I *will* read what...") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Don't be to hard on yourself, your intentions were good, that is what counts! @SGGH: Yep, resolved. Tovalu (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved!?! Where's the fun in that?  fg 14:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy misery Batman, there are some dour humour impaired editors/admins round here. I'm all for Tovalu's edit summaries with humour. So long as the contain a proper summary too then I see no harm in adding a slice of humour. This project needs more lightheartedness, there are far too many miserable gits around here making what should be an enjoyable pastime an arduous and soul-destroying task. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• About 50% of the editors here never bother with an edit summary at all. But because Tovalu puts a joke in instead of leaving it blank, he needs to be slapped in the face to show who's an admin and who isn't?. Adminship has really jumped the shark. Tovalu, adding a descriptive edit summary and a joke too was a reasonable compromise, and you can feel free to do it if you want. If some idiot blocks you for it, I'll unblock. If you'd prefer not to, just to avoid the bullies, I understand that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ↑Like. Seriously - it was established ages ago that you can't block someone for refusing to use edit summaries properly (or at least, you can't block Jimbo for his repeated refusal - but of course bullies never take on anyone with more power than themselves, they only ever pick on the weak). DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think its time to move on.I think Tovula probably gets the point and everyone has said there peace.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Kudos to that admin with a sense of humour. Unfortunately sir, you're a dying breed. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • • • (EC) JOJ, if you continue like this I am gonna use my cabal magical powers to make you admin. Boing! said Zebedee is actually a cool guy, he made a mistake but he is brave enough to admit it, and that makes him a good admin. This was a learning experience for all parties involved. Tovalu (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Possible acts of Meatpuppetry

Recently, when I went and reported User: Gunmetal Angel for edit warring, it appears that he and another user User:Jer757 have been committing acts of meat-puppetry - most notably on the article Blood on the Dance Floor, where they had been teaming up with each other to attack another user. Another incident happended with the user Salamibears58, where they yet again did the same thing - badgering another user intemperately. I'm not doing this as result of hatred, I'm just putting this as a point of concern. Abhijay ^{Let's have a chat, my friend.} 05:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is where I get my sister and her girlfriend to add edits for me. I believe you are thinking of WP:TAGTEAM, where two editors team up, usually to keep reverting and avoid 3RR blocks. In this case, Gunmetal Angel just seems to have found a like minded editor to work with, unfortunately not to the overall benefit of the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Striking last statement - Abhijay, you seem to be bringing up an old situation that got talked out a week ago. I thought you meant that he was still arguing about Blood on the Dance Floor. If there is current problematic editing, you need to give diffs, as I can see no edit warring in his current contributions. Also, you must notify both editors of this report. You haven't done so. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of this happened almost 2 weeks ago, I would have understood if it was reported then. But whatever. As for the tag-teaming, I don't have contact with User:Gunmetal Angel outside of wikipedia, and we've only had words through talk pages a few times where everyone can see. I fail to see how the Talk:Blood_on_the_Dance_Floor_(group) incident was even "tag teaming", it had appeared that we all finally agreed on something, but User:Ylightflight decided to go against it again, and even ended up blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry on the same article. The encounter with User:Salamibears58 started here, which again we tried to come to a consensus, and that was the end of that, almost 3 months ago. I have reverted a few of his unsourced genre changes, and told him why I reverted them, which he seemed fine with. Here, and here[220], are the other run its with User:Salamibears58 if you're curious. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User:4567treminater

Resolved

 – Sockpuppets blocked and tagged. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

4567treminater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account seems to have been set up by an experienced edd for the purposes of disruption. The account has only been uses to edit three pages [[221]] The Falklands page (3 disruptive edits, and no more, indicating the user knows about 3RR)

[[222]] [[223]] [[224]]

His own talk page (blanking requests to stop vandalising the Falklands page). [[225]] [[226]]

I have been in danger of badgering and so have stopped posting there.

And my own talk page (where his tone has boarded on PA's, and have not been constructive). [[227]] [[228]] [[229]] [[230]] (this I think shows the user is more then familiar with what constitutes a PA, by the way he just avoids actually making one).

As I have said all this implies a disruption account.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This person is probably the same as Feresias (talk · contribs). This person came in yesterday and got blocked quite quickly for their edits.Dawnseeker2000 17:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks the same, a range block might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely same as Feresias - there's more. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed Feresias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  Confirmed Siluria592 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  Confirmed Telanian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  Confirmed Kyrenator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  Confirmed Elvellian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, and  Confirmed 6339Treminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One of the IPs belongs to the University of Bath, the other has had account creation blocked for a bit to slow him down.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a lot of effort for little gain.Is there a way to track the IP's actions? as it seems to me that anyone making this amount of effort won't stop.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you think I found him? I iz tooled up...Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Telanian is the oldest account, so I've tagged it as the master and the rest as puppets. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser Requested

Resolved

 – Ducks were quackin', blocks were given. Same ol' story, just the names are changed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Some ongoing tendentious editing via 78.106.157.9 (talk · contribs), User:95.29.84.132 and 89.179.25.127 (talk · contribs) is occuring on HJ Mitchell's talk page. Apparently a user, on the three IPs listed, wants to upload either a song or video belonging to The Beatles onto Wikipedia under either Fair Use or CC...or something. Everyone and their brother knows that isn't going to happen, but the user refuses to "get it" and move on. HJ responded once, I have tried to make sense of the rules for the user (didn't work), as did another user. I am beginning to think that this might be more than just tendentious editing, hence the checkuser request.

The IPs are registered to a DSL provider called "Ojsc Vimpelcom" located in Moscow, Russia. Any help that can be given would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatles? Fair Use? This one quacks like Ron Halls (talk · contribs). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a name I am unfamiliar with. Well, he has several ranges to himself, so if there is little collaterial damage, maybe a rangeblock or three might be in order as well as the checkuser. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty ducky - CU is not supposed to link IPs to named accounts, however. Considering Ron Halls' broken English and attempts to include the exact same Russian link that 93.81.184.126 (talk · contribs) and 89.179.105.162 (talk · contribs) did here, it looks pretty likely to all be related to one user or some meatpuppets. Doc talk 20:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I just like to have all my ducks in a row (pun intended) before requesting for blocks, but hey, I will take a quack block any day. I think rangeblocks are still in order. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• {{checking}} AGK [•] 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, these are  Confirmed as having the same operator.  No comment about whether the IPs are operated by Ron Halls. IP range blocks put down, so maybe that will help, but as you will see from the huge variation in the addresses, this guy jumps around a lot. AGK [•] 23:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks AGK. I appreciate the help and blocks. Thanks to everyone else as well for their help. I think we can call this resolved. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

HJ responded once, I have tried to make sense of the rules for the user (didn't work), as did another user. - That was me; I was in the area on other business and, frankly, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. For future reference, where is this guy from? CycloneGU (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

All the IPs are from Russia. As for the named account, there is no official comment on his location. But I would bet Russia's about right (just my opinion only). Doc talk 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, it was CycloneGU who was the "another user". Figured the less people I mentioned, the quicker we could come to a resolution (without waiting for people to comment before doing so). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN behavior by User:Oldsingerman20

New Guinea Singing Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to be a long-standing behavior concerning the article New Guinea Singing Dog. User:Oldsingerman20's reaction to a minor layout edit (regarding his placement of a picture in the lead section) was puzzlingly hostile and displays WP:OWN behavior. A compromise has been reached but I still think someone should explain why his behavior is disruptive, as I don't seem to pass his "requirements" for giving advice or for editing the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He says he is leaving the project here, I would suggest we keep an eye out and see what happens.--Adam in MO Talk 08:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope he doesn't leave. However, his behavior is still quite unacceptable and I don't know how to make him understand that.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent edit war over Alexander Misharin

Recently there was another report on the case. Edit war was stopped for a time, but now it continues. --ssr (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The initiator of edit war is Mr Rublev (user:ssr) who is employed by Alexander Misharin as his "blog secretary". He is payed for attempts of political censorship in Wikipedia. Mr Rublev goal is "to remove his writings and not to allow him to write" (about user Gritzko who is claimed by Mr Rublev as another conflict of interest party). Mr Rublev wrote an article praising his employer - Russian Governor of Sverdlovsk Oblast Alexander Misharin - and reverts any attempt to add information about corruption scandals. This information is backed up by federal and local press publications but obviously Mr Rublev will never be satisfied and is going to guard his version of the article on behalf of his employer.--217.118.91.104 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rublev insists on deleting article's content that is unpleasant to his master but fortunately this information was published by Russian press which means it should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I suggest temporary ban for user Ssr to prevent his vandalism attempts. --213.87.76.119 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

SSR, is it true that you have a close connection with Misharin? Are you being paid to edit his Wikipedia page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, please see details at further discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alexander_Misharin. --ssr (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal stalking me on multiple pages

Recently I was involved in getting Ronald Ryan and talk page blocked due to the attentions of a long term abusive editor. She subsequently went after my talk page (now semi-ed), then started pestering the admins involved in protecting these pages, and is now reverting my contributions all over the place. See Special:Contributions/216.24.206.155 for examples.

Blocking the current IP would be nice but is unlikely to stop her for long - she's previously used open proxies and/or a rerouting service to evade blocks, see her LTA page for details. She's quite obsessive, judging by the time she's spent hammering away at Ronald Ryan and the way she behaves when thwarted. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? --GenericBob (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Various of us know and (a) you're not the only one it seems, (b) I'm just about to AIV it - as soon as it gets one further. So, hang in there... just waiting for that moment. Four is the magic number, and the next such action passes it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And she's back. --GenericBob (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt, pattern of personal attacks

Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) has shown a recent history of personal attacks. A discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Ra_One_-_Response_section, which included warnings by several editors, not to engage in personal attacks was closed when Ankitbhatt stated their intention to leave Wikipedia [231]. User has previously been warned on the their talk page User_talk:Ankitbhatt#October_2011. Most recently, user called another editor "a prick" [232]. Adminstrator User:Stephan Schulz collapsed/closed current Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Incivility_by_User:AnkitBhatt. Had this been a single incident, I would concur, however given the continued pattern of behavior, including Ankitbhatt's responsed at WQA, I'm requesting additional review by the admin community. Gerardw (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn, inadvertent duplicate report. Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Dr. Blofeld: Unprovoked and exceedingly rude attack on administrator trying to maintain principle that articles linked from main page should conform to a minimum standard. Quote: "By failing to link it you are being an irritating little shit". This from someone who has, at the top of his user talk page "Above all I hate negative people and some people are so negative on here that they bring the whole atmosphere of the website down.". Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just link Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi on the "resigns" part of the front page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right now thousands of people are coming here looking for information about this and you are hiding it from them. Yes that is irritating and purposefully being difficult. What exactly is the point of opening an ANI? And I'm supposed to blocked for attempting to help the world getting access to information in the best way possible and showing contempt at those who are ignorant of it? And yes you are contributing to the negative atmopshere I identify by opening an ANI and failing to cooperate over this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Kevin McE - has User:Fox objected to Blofeld's statement? Have you notified Fox of this discussion? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  Certainly do, as noted on Main Page's talk. — Joseph Fox 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• This one is really, really easy to solve. Keven McE, trout yourself for bringing something this trivial to AN/I. Dr. Blofeld, trout yourself for resorting to personal attacks. Next passing admin, make the change Dr. Blofeld is suggesting, it seems like it's a net positive. Now, can we move on? I don't see any semblance of need for admin intervention here, other than making the change to the main page. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have apologised to Fox but have said I think it is counterproductive to not link to an article we have about the topic when thousands are searching for it right now. That's all that needs to be said on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld

• My comments on this - thank you, Kevin, for standing up for me, but this is not the correct venue for something so trivial. Blofeld, I have given my reasoning not to include the article in the discussion thread, and I will not budge from that position (well, not any more, anyway). Whether another admins wishes to is up to them. — Joseph Fox 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn eh? That's an admirable trait from an admin Foxy. You stand your ground and never mind the fact thousands of people are looking for information about this right now and you are hampering them from doing so. Perhaps some admin here will see some light in actually linking to a start class article we have about the subject. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say. I would have linked to it, until you decided to say that. Thanks all the same. — Joseph Fox 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are childishly using what a wikipedian says about you as a valid reason to inhibit the distribution of information to the public. If that isn't admin misconduct I don't know what is. Providing knowledge and making is as accessible as possible should be priority. We have a duty to do this on here. FIne then I'll follow your shining example as an admin and retire from wikipedia until somebody does something about this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Read through this again, and tell me who is childish. — Joseph Fox 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm resorting to your own childish behaviour as admins are leaders on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Is this an outing/attempted outting of someone's IP?

I saw this while keeping an eye on a somewhat problematic editor. Is it what I think it is? I thought we weren't even supposed to ask, especially someone without bad edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mark Marino was blocked for socking in 2009, so no, I don't think it's an outing attempt. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So, if I were to ask you if you were JD Hanson, without preamble, you'd consider that a friendly 'how-do-you-do'? While it might have been well-intentioned, the user could have easily asked if the person was someone else (a non-vandal). It's like a detective asking the suspect if he did it, rather than using other means (in our case, CU or SPI) to find out the truth without the potential fallout of being connected, even by accusation, to someone else? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's quite common for blocked/banned editors to return as IP socks. Sometimes warning them that they have been spotted discourages socking, or encourages them to try asking for an unblock. It's not outing. If I asked you whether you were Jane Smith of 53 Acacia Avenue, that would be outing.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it outing is revaling real worls facts about a person.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Constant addition of unsourced and copy-righted material by editor using an IP address

Someone using this IP address User talk:217.124.240.100 has been cutting and pasting a great deal of unsourced and unattributed copy-righted material from other websites to Wikipedia articles; e.g: Vought F4U Corsair, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - in spite of several warnings and requests to stop. To ferret out and remove these changes will require a lot of work on the part of other editors. A permanent block on this IP address may be needed to stop further "contributions" from this editor. Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see hundreds of edits, many many warnings on the talk page, but not a single edit to article talk pages or user talk pages. Blocked for a week. Clearly the editor needs to discuss their edits. WilliamH (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Good block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, tks for prompt action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Hopefully the block will wake this editor up. Thanks for the quick action ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If the behaviour continues when the block expires, I will block for longer. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

IP hounding

Could somebody deal with the IP 89.165.121.234 (talk)? The IP is hounding two users, reverting edits and comments made without cause. For those interested, my bet is this is Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) nableezy - 17:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Already a 3RR violation at Raheem Kassam. People who start reverting this fast right out of the gate often turn out to be socks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It will be Ledenierhomme as Nableezy says. He often uses anonimizing proxies in Iraqi Kurdistan, now it's Iran (I assume that's what they are). Range blocks have been applied in the past. He's apparently on an important mission...I haven't fully grasped what it is yet other than that he hates database servers. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a recent enough account of Ledenierhomme's to cross-check with, unless there was one that wasn't recorded in the SPI archive. In any case, working without a sock-master in mind, I can't find a link to anybody with the checkuser tool, but that is a given with proxy use. I've blocked the IP for a few days, and will keep an eye out at SPI for similar accounts: if this individual re-appears, please submit an investigation or contact me/another checkuser. Thanks, AGK [•] 20:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-constructive editing actions by User:Scheinwerfermann

So I was looking at Right- and left-hand traffic and saw that an inordinate amount of space was devoted to discussing the situation in various countries. Being a long-time editor, both anonymously and under my autoconfirmed account, I recognized that this may not belong here at all, or at least be split of into a separate article. But anyways, That's a bigger project than I'm willing to undertake at the moment. I did notice the entry for Iraq consisted entirely of "Iraq drives on the right." Clearly there's no point in including Iraq if there's nothing of interest to say. Wikipedia is not a guide book and all that, right? There's plenty of countries that aren't listed, and the ones that are listed have at least something interesting said about them, more than a sentence in any case. So I removed it here, with the edit summary "→Iraq: nothing unique to say - we don;t need to list every country" (sorry for the typo). Clearly a valid contribution to Wikipedia by any standard. Even if you disagree, it's a perfectly reasonable edit for a constructive editor to make. Given that the accepted practice on Wikipedia is Bold, revert, discuss no one would criticize this edit, and if they disagreed, they'd use it as an opportunity to start a discussion, right?

As imminently reasonable as that is, you'd be wrong. User:Scheinwerfermann felt the only reasonable response to revert it without comment, using twinkle of course. Like most editors, I've had enough experience with twinkle users or other "recent change patrollers" to know that they generally don't even look at the edits they're reverting. So I reverted the reversion, pointing out that it "couldn't possibly be considered vandalism, try looking at the edit instead of just doing what Twinkle tells you to". Rather than acknowledging their mistake, User:Scheinwerfermann AGAIN reverted without comment or discussion and then left a disruptive editing warning on my talk page] with the edit summary "Warning: Page blanking, removal of content on Right- and left-hand traffic." Since I didn't blank the page, remove any actual content, nor engage in anything that could be considered disruptive editing I found this baffling. User:Scheinwerfermann isn't even being consistent on whether they consider my edits to be vandalism or disruptive, much less engaging in consensus building or actually providing an explanation for their actions.

So, following the established process of bold, revert, discuss, I started a discussion on the talk page and reinstated the constructive improvement to the article (this was spread out over several days, no 3RR violations on either side) with the edit summary "still not vandalism, see talk page".

User:Scheinwerfermann, still not interested in constructive discussion, again with the same twinkle-generated (false) claim of vandalism and placed a "final warning", again with the false accusation of page blanking. They did, at least, throw a bone to the concept of consensus building by replying on the talk page. Unfortunately, that comment was completely condescending, outright rejected the Bold, revert, consensus process, and more or less boiled down to "I refuse to even consider the possibility that you are capable of making a constructive edit".

As stated above, I don't see how any reasonable editor could consider removing the one pointless sentence on Iraq to be vandalism, nor categorize attempts to generate discussion and build consensus around that topic be considered disruptive. Even if you think this list ought to be exhaustive, there's no reason to leave this one sentence intact while dozens of other countries aren't even mentioned. Yet User:Scheinwerfermann has repeatedly asserted ownership, failed to assume good faith, and have repeatedly demonstrated unwillingness to engage in discussion or consensus building. I don't see how that attitude is compatible with the goals of the project. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What specific administrative action is being sought here? Doc talk 07:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I find this rather funny, even if it is a little pointy. Anyhow, I can't but agree with your account of the story. Herr Scheinwerfermann is clearly reverting reflexively, and thinks that IP addresses are by definition vandals. Ho hum. Slap on the hand and then let's continue as before. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Things are somewhat complicated by the fact that he has had a "retirement" notice on his talkpage for two years, and (while still editing fairly regularly), hasn't been engaging much if at all with other editors there. But in all this seems to be a rather minor infraction. Nothing to lose sleep over. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had a dime for every "retired" or "semi-retired" editor I've seen editing... I'd have a sh!%load of dimes! Doc talk 07:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Le Petomane Thruway? Now, what'll that asshole think of next? –MuZemike 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jbmurray, you're right: I don't have many discussions on my talk page. When discussion with another editor is warranted, I generally take it to his or her talk page. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C09:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"I refuse to even consider the possibility that you are capable of making a constructive edit" You might want to consider again. Wikipedia has fairly strict standards for what connotes vandalism, and the IP editor's edit doesn't even come close to fitting the guidelines. The editor wasn't trying to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia with his edit. Your insistence on calling this vandalism gives the impression of contempt, which is much more troubling than one good-faith edit which you personally disagree with. --NellieBly (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NellieBly, the words you put in quotation marks are the complainant's, not mine. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur that it is not acceptable to label this edit as vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Scheinwerfermann, here's a nice simple note. The Twinkle rollback feature can only be used to revert genuine WP:VANDAL vandalism. If an editor misuses it in a content dispute, disregarding warnings, they can be blocked. This doesn't appear to be WP:VANDAL vandalism, it looks like a content dispute. Therefore you should consider this a warning to be more careful how you use the Twinkle rollback feature in future. If you still object to the IPs edit, please either discuss it on the talkpage as is recommended for a content dispute, or explain it here if you consider there is some villany by the IP that we are not aware of. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advisory; I shall comply. I don't believe there's any villainy, skullduggery, rottenness or evil on the part of the IP. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that closes the matter as far as any administrative action is concerned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

disruptive edits to Geena Davis page

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

Plaintiff has resolved situation themselves. There was no need for ANI intervention in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Nymf removed two images from the Geena Davis page a few months ago with no explanation or discussion on the talk page. One of these pictures was taken by me and I occasionally check the page to see if it is still there. --T1980 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Which images and when? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It was actually User:Nymf not User:Nues20 who removed the images but the latter has many warnings. The images were removed 18:11, 21 August 2011--T1980 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

they were File:Geena Davis at Bates.JPG and Image:Geena.JPG --T1980 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The user who removed the pictures appears to have a clean record. I sent a friendly reminder to discuss changes such as these before making them. I would consider the matter closed.--T1980 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His edit summary was "trim images", which really tells you nothing, but I'm guessing he thought they were not very well-placed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally reported this believing User:Nues20 removed the images (this user seems to have changed their location just before the the other user removed them, which led me to thinking Nues20 removed them) and the many warnings on their talk page led me to post this. If I had known it was User:Nymf who had done this, I would not have reported it. Again, I consider the matter resolved.--T1980 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

user:Zenkai251

This person started a personal mission this summer that hasn't ended, despite numerous warnings: convinced that material which offends Christians must be removed and that everyone who disagrees with him is an atheist ("silly to boot) or must at least be investigated/outed for their bias about the truth, s/he sarcastically apologized more than once for liking neutrality.

I suggest a topic ban for all articles related to Christianity,^{[too broad, see below]} Creation, and Evolution. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous, of course. Whether you want to believe it or not, I am sincerely looking for neutrality on said topics. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I asked Zenkai, just minutes seconds before this ANI was filed, to consider editing other topics for a while. My comments were in regards to his most recent string of edits. Please see his talk page for the full details. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

After having been to a museum or two, I would recommend it to anyone who wants to explain how all those fake specimens of fantastical creatures that couldn't possibly have existed made it in those places. Wake up, evolutionists! Doc talk 03:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil put them there. The user in question is one of them creationists that turn up from time to time. AGF that it's not just a Garden-of-Eden-variety troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's been mighty busy planting all them lies. Fossil record? More like a broken record... broadcasting damnation! Doc talk 03:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm a YEC. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

True, and there's nothing wrong with being either (or both). But when you're hitting this many walls and winding up the subject of an AN/I report, it might be good to take the advice given to you by Mann jess. More of this stuff, maybe. You can do whatever you want, of course: and good luck :) Doc talk 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's Ludwigs on this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He's ignoring all rules? --Blackmane (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've bumped into a few persons like this on a few Wikis and newsgroup type noticeboards. They are notoriously difficult to deal with as any argument against their literal creationism views is seen as a vile attack against their beliefs. This usually leads to personal attacks and incivility against "evil users" who would "corrupt the net with such falsehoods". The best thing, I hate to say it, is a block. There is absolutely no reasoning with such individuals beyond a total removal from the subject matter. -OberRanks (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@OberRanks, a topic ban would remove him from the subject matter without a block.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Zenkai has agreed to take a break from editing articles related to Christianity. See here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@OberRanks, I don't think people who disagree with me are "evil users" who want to "corrupt the net with such falsehoods". I absolutely respect their views. It's just somewhat irksome when people label my views as "myths". Also, who said I take the Genesis creation narrative to be 100% literal? Just so you know, I am a pretty reasonable guy. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what our opinions on the subject matter are or our personal faith decisions. What matters is what reliable sources say about a topic and consensus achieved through discussion. I am sorry you don't like that word 'myth' but it is an accurate description. As I said in the post you deleted, you win some and you lose some. When you lose you just have to back up and find somewhere else to contribute. I am happy to see that you are going to contribute in classical music. I am certain that you will be helpful in that area.--Adam in MO Talk 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Myth" is a synonym for "Fairy Tale". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

--Adam in MO Talk 08:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Common usage.[233] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no common sense.--Adam in MO Talk 08:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You got that right. Look how the common name "Edelweiss" is handled here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Google the subject and you'll find that the predominant usage of "myth" is "a story that's not true". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did and the first link is a dictionary.com link that doesn't define a myth as exclusivity fictional till the third definition. Either usage fits as far as I am concerned.--Adam in MO Talk 08:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, I noticed a few comments above that weren't exactly calculated to calm the situation down... Might I remind you that civility applies even to this noticeboard? Yes, I know it was probably meant good-naturedly. Still. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah dear, yes. This isn't about the content people are making fun of. I don't give a damn what Zenkai believes (or anyone else for that matter). But I refuse to be called "atheist", or godless, or whatever the hell one more time, and I don't want to see others labeled that way, either, and I don't want anyone to be asked or investigated what their beliefs are. Zenkai has "taken a break" before, only to come back with the same crap again. If this kinda stuff is condoned as a "content-dispute" then I can think of other labels I can throw around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked through enough edits to have an opinion on whether a ban is merited, but I do have two questions for the proposer about ban breadth - a) do you think Atheism should be included in the ban? b) do you think limiting the ban to Biblical and theological topics instead of the broader Christianity would be sufficient? (e.g. allowing articles such as Martin Luther to be edited). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I don't think people like Luther would cause problems; this should be quite narrow in scope. So "Christianity" is too broad. I wouldn't even mind typo-corrections. The spirit of it is that Zenkai needs to stay away from topics where s/he will find something that s/he could supposedly "clean up" and rid of perceived "atheist bias" with respect to evolution/creation/origin of life/definition of "mythology". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And note that he doesn't just call people athetists, he calls them "silly atheists" or "foolish". So biblical and theological topics should work. BUT he has agreed to stay away from Christian articles, so maybe we should note that and thus the ban should state Christian articles. I'm still for a ban, what I perceive from his behavior as his zeal would probably bring him back to these articles if it was just self-imposed. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I only used the words "silly" and "foolish" once, and they weren't even in a discussion. I don't think a ban is called for. If everyone started banning the people they don't agree with, wikipedia would be void of all editors. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where Zenkai251 has had any issues in any religious based articles. I would support a 1RR restriction on origins, including Big Bang, Creation myth and diversification of life articles, broadly construed.--Adam in MO Talk 08:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I see now that this editor has been blocked before for socking and edit warring on this particular subject. I support full creation/origins ban as proposed above.--Adam in MO Talk 08:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A sock of which editor(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock investigation here.--Adam in MO Talk 08:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) He created a sock in August and edit-warred via IP 71.197.46.82. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's edit show a clear pov problem. This user has a persistent history of edit warring and pov pushing on these topics.--Adam in MO Talk 09:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose a limited period topic ban in the aforementioned areas, say 3 (perhaps 6?) months along with mentorship. Zenkai has only been here since July and obviously needs guidance, their faith notwithstanding, in working within Wiki. --Blackmane (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree A temporary topic ban followed by a probationary period would be salutary based on his contrib. record. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note, So I've noticed you guys want to block me because my views are different then yours. That's just not right at all. No ban is needed at all Zenkai251 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• NO, that's not it at all. You may have the WP:TRUTH, but Wikipedia goes by WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NPOV. Pushing your version of your views onto an article is not permitted. Please feel free to have your own views, but be careful in trying to insert them into an article without consensus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• As you may have seen hinted above, I happen to think that "myth/mythology" having the double meaning of "religious narrative" and "fairy tale" allows non-believers to sneak their POV into these articles. However, they are theoretically on solid academic ground. And edit-warring and socking are not good. Keep your arguments to the article talk pages, and keep them reason-based rather than calling someone a "silly atheist" (just as they might call you or me a "silly religionist"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Zenkai, no one is proposing a topic ban because they disagree with your opinions. There was some joking about your views above, but that was never a serious part of the discussion. Editors are proposing a topic ban because you've gotten into a number of conflicts in your short time here, and there's been some problematic behavior that will probably result in larger problems if it continues. Understand that these problems would be equally concerning if your religious or personal views on the topic were entirely different. Part of the reason this is concerning is that you don't seem to understand that there is even a problem. That makes the situation difficult, since it indicates these issues aren't likely to be fixed or simply go away. I'd like you to notice that I haven't posted any support (or opposition) to the topic ban, but I do understand there are serious concerns. This is why I think adoption might be a good option, because it would allow your mentor to help you out with problematic areas and behavior, without having to impose a formal topic ban. Is any of this any clearer now?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize that I was a tad too blunt and arrogant in some of my responses, and a bit hasty in my edits. I can assure you that it won't happen again. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zenkai. Thanks for that. I think a big part of the issue isn't that you were "blunt" or "arrogant". Instead, I think it was mainly a problem recognizing and adhering to consensus. Sometimes, noticing and understanding consensus can be tricky, especially for new editors, and so other issues (like edit warring and tendentious editing) result. I think, if you understand that, and you can make an effort to discuss controversial proposals thoroughly on the talk page as outlined in WP:BRD and WP:DR, and if you can stick to working collaboratively with other editors, mostly limiting yourself to 1 or 2 reverts, that would really help. If you can do that, I (and I'm sure other editors) would be willing to oppose a formal topic ban. I liked seeing that you've been contributing productively to the Concerto article since this ANI case, and I'd really like to see that sort of constructive work continue. Does all that make sense? Does that sound like something you could agree to?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will definitely agree to that. Thanks Mann jess. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't trust this deal. We've been there before. None of the warnings or pleading helped. Who will take charge of this, keep an eye on Zenkai, and answer to us when things go wrong (again)? Volunteers? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So, then as a lesson in community consensus to Zenkai251, I formally propose to the community a 3 month topic ban on articles relating to Creationism and Evolution broadly construed. In this period, Zenkai251 is required to place themselves under mentorship until such time that their mentor is satisfied that they understand the requirements of editing on Wiki. At the end of topic ban, they are permitted to bring this ban back to ANI for community review. Zenkai, this is not a ban to remove you from the project (that falls under WP:CBAN), but a community imposed sanction that you do not edit in those areas that you have had issues with. This does not prevent you from editing in other areas. I see from your contributions that you also edit in music related articles. Please do continue in that area as that is likely to be less controversial and will be a good area for you to get to grips. Also, I proposed mentorship as a mentor will be able to guide you in the relevant policies and also to spot check your edits. --Blackmane (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Zenkai has agreed to focus more on other areas (a weak sort of topic ban itself), and has agreed to discuss changes, not edit war, and seek dispute resolution when necessary, I don't feel that a topic ban is necessary at this time. Assuming Zenkai sticks to his word, a ban would not be preventative, and if he does not, it should be easy to bring this back to ANI, referencing this discussion, and enact a topic ban then. If other editors feel unwilling to extend faith that behavior will improve - a sentiment I can understand, given how short Zenkai's responses to this ordeal have been - then we should be discussing mentoring, since the root of the problem would appear to be lack of understanding of our policies. A mentor would also be able to guide Zenkai away from problematic topics (as necessary), and report back here if there were larger issues. Personally, since Zenkai hasn't expressed interest in a mentor, and since he does seem capable of contributing positively, I would rather see give him a chance to stick to his agreement first before imposing sanctions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So — are you the mentor? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't what I proposed. I would probably be willing, but since I don't have on-wiki experience or established resources to do so, I am probably not the ideal candidate. Finding one should not be difficult. To be clear, I do not think a mentor is necessary at this time. I simply think it is preferable to a topic ban.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)