Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739

Revdel

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just redacted some comments from a discussion. Would an admin please peruse and revdel if appropriate? [1] Sorry, I haven't read that policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think it should be revdeled; I don't even think you should have removed the comments of numerous other editors at all. GiantSnowman 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) OK GiantSnowman. What are we meant to do when someone does that to an editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Speaking to the editors in question, to see if they will remove/re-word it themselves - if they won't, and you still feel it's inappropriate, bring it to a noticeboard for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) One of the editors has already offered to remove his comment. The other editor appears to be offline. For now, given the nature of the comments, I've removed the subthread and will respect whatever consensus emerges once that editor has had a chance to comment. He is a supporter of the subject and I expect that he'll facepalm and agree, given how the subject has responded. Thank you for your advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) No, I agreed to the removal of section on the conditions that the other editor agreed and that the section requesting removal was also deleted. Removing one without the other will just cause people to assume that I was the one who attempted to introduce the content in the first place. Fæ is an admin - I think he knows how to get something revdeleted. This is simply drawing more attention to the questioned material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with your last point and regretted posting here but when I came back to delete the comment, Snowman had already responded. (Can I delete this section, Snowman?) I doubt anyone would object to removal of Fae's thread, DC, especially Fae, if removal of Wnt's thread is contingent on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Let's not delete this thread - instead I've closed it so that will get automatically archived within 24 hours. Hope that's a good compromise. GiantSnowman 14:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro looking for a reversion to another's edit

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

---

In Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro an edit was made here that i do not agree with [2]

i seek to have the edit reverted.

the following is the talk page discussion:
"== Name and details of those arrested =="

There is much explicit detail given of the criminal history of those charged. I am mindful of WP:BLPCRIME which states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." In what way is Wikipedia enhanced by such explicit detail at this stage of criminal proceedings? I am interested in the opinion of other editors. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i could agree with you but to me the matter is too include details since it shows the nature of each of the accused crimes and their proximity to the victims--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

plus, unlike most crimes - this one accuses many perpetrators and the story told on wiki would not be accurate if al those involved were not included - think of the Charles Manson murders and try to tell the story with just manson himself alone - it would not be an accurate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the disclaimer is "those relatively unknown" but all have criminal records and thus none were unconvicted (thus their names were part of the public record by their own actions and signed guilty admissions) before this week--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i believe that "For people who are relatively unknown," is the conditional part of an if-then clause and that the crimianl history of the accused is a matter of public record and thereby excludes their anominity since the first part of the sentence in the if-then clause fails--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, this one belongs on the article's talk page and not here. If you'd like more opinions, you can submit a request for comment. This page is for action that only administrators can take - such as protecting an article or blocking an account. Rklawton (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible WP:AE issue

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

---

203.213.94.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IP is an WP:SPA account who has made a total of 11 edits to Wikipedia in the last year of which 1 was to article space and the rest were to talk pages. All articles edited are within the scope of WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 and all edits are inflammatory an WP:SOAP-y in violation of the above mentioned ARBCOM cases; there has not been a single constructive edit from this user. I didn't file anything at WP:AE since this editor has never been active enough to actually receive a warning regarding their edits being in violation.

Is there an administrator willing to issue a formal ARBCOM warning to this IP? If they stop being disruptive, great. If they continue with this type of editing, we can report them to AE but at least they'll have been warned. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I issed a formal warning and then logged the warning on ARBMAC. -- Atama頭 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Lihaas

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

 – interaction ban in place Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lihaas is harassing me at my talk page and spreading information about me to another user I have been in dispute with to try to get me in trouble. I told this user to cease posting on my talk page, I do not want a discussion with this user because I fundamentally do not want to converse with someone who is a self-described fascist and a self-described National Socialist (aka Nazi) on his user page, I know Holocaust survivors and I do not want to be faced with conversation with a neo-Nazi. I told the user to stop posting on my talk page, he has persisted with threats to get me in trouble over a statement in which I informed users on an issue involving discussion of the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo that he is promoting a POV because he represents an extreme perspective on the issue - he staunchly supports Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo as stated in a userbox on his user page as well as other controversial taking-sides on multiple nationalist conflicts, and mentioned that he is a self-described Nazi. I left that discussion a month ago, the issue is over. I do not want Lihaas commenting on my page, out of respect to the Holocaust survivors I have met and respect - I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I demand the right to not be harassed on my talk page after I have told the user in question to cease, by a person who fundamentally stands against every moral value I hold dear and out of the respect of Holocaust survivors and their relatives that I have met who survived horrific brutality by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas' infoboxes, whilst ill-advised, are clearly meaningless. He has many contradictory infoboxes, including being from India and Pakistan, being supportive of Palestinian independence and a single state solution, and being in favour of self-determination for all and the resurrection of the British Empire, being for Scottish independence and a federal UK. Despite this you have repeatedly accused him of being a Nazi in this discussion. He also has one claiming that "Lihaas totally supports world peace and loves everyone!" I don't see why he should be forbidden from your talk page, but I think he needs to sort his infoboxes out as this has caused other editors to make similar attacks before. Number 57 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

57, Lihaas's user boxes are not the problem here (though I grant you that it's an electron-consuming 223,181 bytes-long mess). Please don't muddy the waters. A user has a right to ask another user to stay away, and that should be respected. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this is exactly the problem. Based on the infobox, R-41 has repeatedly called Lihaas a Nazi. Lihaas then issues a warning not to make personal attacks, leading to this spurious claim of harassment. If it wasn't for the stupid infobox, none of this would have happened. Number 57 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox? There's a million there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The one that says "This user is a National Socialist". Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're shitting: there actually is one like that? I'll have to use Ctrl+f to find it. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, 57. I've asked Lihaas on their talk page to remove that. I have no objection to anyone being righteously offended enough to take it down. Honestly, I didn't think there were people stupid enough to have shit like that out in the open somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] [Also, all the Nazi-calling confused me: I reworded my comments.] Let's please focus on the issue. One should not derive Naziness from user boxes, unless on has a "I'm a Nazi" user box. But even that is beside the point. The issue is this: please point to a precise diff where you told Lihaas to not post at your talk page again (preferably you told them on your talk page). Also, I don't see harassment in their posts to you yet. I have the feeling this is going to end with "please both steer clear of each other" or a more formal interaction ban. Please show us that diff, quickly, so we can move on and see what possible violations of that request may have taken place. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He is a self-described fascist and a self-described "National Socialist", look at the userboxes - yes there are many, but they are there. I am asking for the right for me not to be harassed by a user - I told the user to cease posting on my talk page and he has refused to accept this. I have deem moral sympathy to the Holocaust survivor for his suffering by the Nazis, and I do not want to be forced to accept harassment by a self-described fascist and national socialist. I want him to NOT be able to post on my talk page because he has violated by request to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is not harassing you. On the other hand, you seem to be creating a lot of drama recently. Number 57 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, 57. Enough already, R-41. Bringing Holocaust survivors into this is totally unsavory. You have not been able to provide a diff in which you clearly ask them not to post on your talk page again, and this stuff about what their user boxes are supposed to say is a. neither here nor there and b. irritating (even more so than the million user boxes). Here's what I propose: You place a note on your own talk page and on theirs asking them not to post on your talk page again. You don't even have to ask nicely. From then on, Lihaas will not post on your talk page again. Simple. Lihaas, if you're reading this, please do not post on R-41's talk page again. Let's close this thread. Oh, R-41, one more thing: stop calling people Nazis (unless you can prove that they, or God, say that they're one) or be blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow--here's the notification. If I understand it correctly, you said in the post before that that you never wanted to post on their talk page again, and then you posted on their talk page that you didn't want them to post on your talk page again or have any other conversation with them anymore. And then you called them a neo-Nazi and a fascist (and maybe some other things, but who the hell is counting). R-41, you have given yourself a complete interaction ban with them (voluntarily!), which may be enforced by any admin who sees you interacting with Lihaas. Wonderful: this thread can be closed. Just to make sure, I'll post on Lihaas's talk page, ahem, that R-41 et cetera. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Lihaas has a collection of infoboxes which in toto are obviously self-contradictory/sarcastic/amusing, but in isolation can be read the wrong way. Nothing surprising here. WP:SARCASM and other subtle hints may backfire on the internets. R-41 brings drama to the main drama board. Again, not terribly surprising. As you were! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aahwooo! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are calling me a "drama queen" and say that this is "not terribly surprising". The user is a self-described National Socialist harassing me. If I was a Jew would you laugh off a National Socialist posting repeatedly on my talk page after telling them to stop. Go ahead and laugh, go and try to laugh off National Socialism as not significant here, even though many people are more than offended tha it killed millions of people because of their ethnic background, if you think it is a joke of the sufferings upon this Jewish man I mentioned - who used to be a neighbour of mine - are insignificant to my moral objections - then I wonder if you take anything seriously. Bottom line, I learned my education about the Holocaust by that elderly Jewish man who survived Treblinka before I learned it in school, and I do not want to talk with a person who in their userboxes says they are a fascist and a National Socialist.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Lihaas has objected to anachronistic and European-centric understandings of the phrase "national socialism". Americans who remember President George H. W. Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should recall witnessing a nationalist socialist revival.

  There were discussions of Lihaas's contradictory user-boxes and his objections to mono-semantic understanding of nationalism & socialism before at ANI, my RfC, and even (in a particularly dull moment for WP administrators) in my block record.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? He insults me on his presumptious whim and im harrassing? I was simply bringing (in polite forms) to his attention that there was hypocrisy to his ACTIONS in that HE harrassed said user with restating a section on the ta;lk page simply because he wanted to see it...not that it was his right.

From harassment he goes on to a nazi accusation and he says IM harrassing him? is thta serious?! I duly brought it to hsi attention of whathe did, he also posts on my page and then says im harrassing him?

Then he brings about a new call to carry out some personal vendetta that he is offended by the CLAIM (unsubstantiated) that im a nazi and he should get offended he were a jew? Then in that case anuone whyo proclaims to be an australian, from the americas or from an imperialist state with a record of killing MILLIONS in a genocide far bigger should get offended with the offensive userbox being removed?!Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Retirement following violation of interaction ban

User:R-41 has announced retirement, following placing another rant against Lihaas on my talk page. *Sigh*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another rant has been deposited on my doorstep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself

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 userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a divisive username and putting a userbox proclaiming your political orientation, controversial or not, on one's own userpage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The use of the National Socialist userbox is highly problematic, divisive and should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly any userbox which exists should allowed be placed on userpages. If you think the userbox violates those policies, you should propose the template itself for MFD. If the userbox is hard-coded, then it should just be removed. NW (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hard-coded in this instance. I can't imagine a userbox template like that to survive for long. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas. Probably not much else for admins to do here now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington seems to misunderstand that soapboxing is for user pages vs. articles. What is the pt of userboxes? One can remove all userboxes in that case. Or delete all articles of offensiv content (a la Mohammed cartoons), regardless of whether the euro worldcview deems itokey then,.

Unstead of meaningless arguements over someone think-skin need to censor what is not likes it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this user permitted to edit? Hipocrite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? does that comment firther anything. Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire user-page was disruptive

A 220kb user page, consisting mainly of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) is disruptive in and of itself, and I have blanked it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The userboxes were not the problem - the massive wall of text, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the blanking. I checked out the userboxes and found that they tended to contradict each other, making their use almost meaningless. 220kb userbox pages? That's absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm there are numerous user pages and subpages that go on and on and on. If you dont like dont read it, its not an articleLihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not getting the point, Lihaas. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No YOU areclearly not getting the pt. 1 . its not unrelated to WP if you see thae page, 2. size doesnt warrant disruption, 3. blanking is vandalism especially per IDONTLIKEIT.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated that you are not getting the point. →Στc. 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the comments about Lihaas above, e.g. "Why is he allowed to edit?", per WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Lihaas spends most of his time writing about contemporary political events, always with a great concern for the weakest or worst treated, as a traditional humanitarian. His conflicts often have arisen because he has been outraged by a lack of attention given to non-European and non-Biblical victims (in comparison). In word and deed, he is obviously opposed to the fascist celebration of humiliation and degradation of the weak and the nihilist worship of power.

In the past, Lihaas has reminded us that nationalism and socialism have been intertwined before, after, and outside of the (German) Nazi party, especially outside of Europe. The user-box was, ineffectively and counterproductively, part of that legitimate exercise, I believe.

In this light, please consider whether the hysterics (apparently exclusively by men) were needed or constructive here. Lihaas has been editing some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia for years, and really has made a great contribution to the project. (Nobody has claimed that he or anybody else is flawless, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Coda

I suggested that Lihaas rephrase his user box, and he has, now clarifying that he is "a democratic national[ist] socialist and not a Nazi", etc.

Most of us are more responsive when approached in a conversational manner by a colleague or friend, and few of us respond well to shouting or being denounced.

I wish that those who have written impulsively or wrongly consider apologizing to Lihaas (who has been called a "Nazi" on many pages now)---or help edit one of his articles as private penance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Evidence that what I stated about Lihaas was honest from what I observed from his user page and that claims that I personally attacked him are false

Please, drop the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please read through all of the following, it is a clear revoking of the claim that I personally attacked Lihaas by "slurring" him as a fascist and a Nazi. I have decided to retire from Wikipedia because of administrators' mishandling of the report I put in, in which I took most of the blame for accusations that are false. Drmies, you accused be of personal attack after I stated to Lihaas that I had nothing in common with him because of his stated association with fascism and National Socialism that I refer to as "Nazism" as it is on Wikipedia. Now you and others claim that maybe he is misrepresenting himself - that he meant to say that he is a "democratic nationalist socialist" - - first of all he states on his user page that he is a fascist - and bear in mind that National Socialism as on Wikipedia and in many scholarly works is recognized as a form of fascism. If there is any question as to whether I falsely claimed he was a fascist and Nazi (in the sense of the broader "National Socialism") - look at this userbox on his page: User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist The infoboxes repeatedly state "National Socialist" as "NS" on multiple infoboxes. He also has other infoboxes that support far-right ultranationalist political parties- that indicate even further that he is aligned with fascism and National Socialism (as in Nazism), such as: This user supports Jobbik. - Jobbik is a far right Hungarian ultranationalist movement with a paramilitary movement called Magyar Gárda (Hungarian Guard) - it is anti-Semitic - it accuses Israel of "buying up" Hungary and its paramilitary group attacks Romani (Gypsy) people. Hungary's former Prime Minister described Jobbik's Magyar Gárda it as "neo-fascist" and "neo-Nazi". This user supports Attack. - Ataka - Greek short form for National Union Attack - far-right Bulgarian nationalist movement - acknowledged by all parliamentary parties as a xenophobic movement and a national threat to Bulgaria's ethnic minorities, it known for hate speech, the Ataka's leader's son sent an anti-Romani email to members of the European Parliament - sniding that Hungary is "full" of Romani. This user supports LA.O.S. L.A.O.S. short form for Popular Orthodox Rally - a far-right Greek nationalist movement - it opposes any immigration from outside the European Union True, he has contradictory userboxes - it may mean he is politically confused or has mixed opinions. Bottom line, from the statements of his userboxes, he is not merely a nationalistic socialist, his userboxes make clear that he is a fascist National Socialist and that he supports multiple far-right ultranationalist political parties - two of which have promoted xenophobia towards ethnic minorities - Jobbik towards Jews and Romani, and Ataka towards Romani. When Lihaas started confronting me, I stated on Lihaas' userpage that I fundamentally opposed his views and do not want to associate with him or talk with him because of those views - that is my choice and my right not to be forced to accept unwanted postings on my talk page. I don't care whether he wants to keep them or not, I think he has the right of personal liberty to post his political views - but he should not expect everyone to respect his stated support of fascism, National Socialism, and far-right ultranationalist movements - as I said, I do not want to talk with a person who adheres to such views. I am preparing my final retirement from Wikipedia so please respond here, but I want an apology for administrators' mishandling of this, I was honest and stating what he himself posted on his user page when I said he was a fascist and a Nazi, his userpage says that he "is a Fascist" and that he "is a National Socialist" and his support of Jobbik and other far-right ultranationalist parties - just put those together in your mind and take note where the term National Socialism redirects to on Wikipedia: Nazism - and I referred to Nazism in its general form of an ideology and its continuation in a general form as neo-Nazism. Lihaas may claim that he does not support German Nazism, but when I first noticed these tendencies on his talk page - I noticed the anti-Romani, anti-Semitic Jobbik movement first of all, then looked on and saw the other two infoboxes I mentioned. He is a self-described fascist and supports the exact kind of political movements that advocate the very elements of Nazism that I find morally reprehensible in my opinion - I do not want to talk with someone who supports far-right ultranationalist movements like Jobbik or Ataka that promote xenophobia - that is my choice not to talk to the person and my right not to have the person talk to me after I have told them not to.--R-41 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

obvious sock 76.118.180.210

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

---

Resolved

 – :blocked for 1 week for trolling by Future Perfect at Sunrise, then indefinitely blocked as open proxy Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

76.118.180.210 (talk · contribs) seems to be someone logged out to post to ANI. Would someone uninvolved in the discussion above take a look please? Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am a trolling sock. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also appears I am not worthy of being notified of this thread, as it utterly required. My talkpage is still a redlink. Todd, what gives? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the DRAMAZ PLS. Buffs (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Drmies had a good idea above. Full protect ANI? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's times like these when I am reminded what "ani" means in Italian.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Spam and Open Relay Blocking System has flagged this IP address as an open proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You cant close somethign with a block when you initiated and are hence involved. Furthermore, this is for the SOCK board to investigate not ANI.

And more so with the link posted above.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by IP user

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

---

User:Sascha30, who now exclusively edits under IP addresses, has been posting personal attacks on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan.
There was this post [3] by User:79.233.36.155 where I was accused of being an "Internet-tyrant" and the "Putin of Wikipedia". Sascha was then warned about personal attacks by User:Chipmunkdavis: [4]. I was then called a b*****d: [5] by the same IP address. Later, User:79.233.36.19 (almost certainly the same person) called User:Kudzu1 a "m*****f***ing a*****e": [6].
Sascha has previously edited on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan, Talk:International recognition of South Sudan, and Talk:Foreign relations of Montenegro (mostly with erratic and uncivil posts) under the following IP addresses: 79.233.4.25, 79.233.36.185, 79.233.2.90, 79.233.36.12, 79.233.21.71, 79.233.2.77, 79.233.37.101, 79.233.38.100, 79.233.34.238, 79.233.5.109, 79.233.35.25, 79.233.13.117, 79.233.23.167, 79.233.16.120, 79.233.38.2, 79.233.21.151, 79.233.5.130, 79.233.25.104, 79.233.22.42, 79.233.10.51, 79.233.33.133, 79.233.20.211, 79.233.37.176, 79.233.37.94, 79.233.16.157, 79.233.32.198, 79.233.9.73, 79.233.36.56, 79.233.36.214 (where he referred to someone as an "arrogant jerk": [7]), 79.233.16.226, and 79.233.6.9.
I request that an administrator blocks some or all of the above IP addresses due to the personal attacks. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually signs his demands rants posts with "Sascha,Germany". His last comment to Kudzu1 was particularly disgusting. Nightw 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Surely some clever person can apply a range block here. No doubt, the half dozen edits I looked at are disruptive. How does the cabal (and the peanut gallery) feel about semi-protecting those talk pages? I hate doing that all by my lonesome, since (for some odd reason, maybe) I find it more drastic than protecting articles (I've seen IPs post tons of good suggestions on article talk pages)--but perhaps we have no choice here. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To quote a wise admin: Give into temptation. You have my blessing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If the rangeblock is successfully applied, no lock is needed. CityOfSilver 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, but if I knew how to do a range block I would have done it already. I don't want to risk a virtual Armageddon--I'm already a menace to the security of the first world with my "block" button. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The relevant range to catch all the IPs quoted above would be 79.233.0.0/18, which would block 16,384 addresses. Unfortunately the collateral damage would be rather excessive, so as the lesser of two evils I've semiprotected Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for one month. I (or Drmies or any other admin I expect!) would be willing under the circumstances to extend that to other talk pages as necessary. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth creating a Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sascha30 and tagging all the IPs accordingly, as we have done with perennial nuisance Zombie433 and many others. His list grows almost daily. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As a largely administrative matter (in the bureaucratic sense) I've indefblocked the Sascha30 account and tagged it as a sock-puppeteer. There has apparently already been a previous SPI, now archived, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sascha30. The IPs just need tagging now with {{IPsock|Sascha30|blocked=yes}} and the category you've redlinked should self-populate. I'll make a start from the beginning of the list :-) EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. EyeSerene^talk 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User: FRANKBISTORY

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.

---

Was reluctant to come back here so quickly but i believe this may warrant something. I came across him in this edit that removed protection templates, tags and reverted MOS dates. He then reverted a title that TWO other editors added without explanation (as is the norm for his edits). Another editors' changes were reverted (As his right, i agree BUT he shopuld explain) (this too. He then has these 3 simultaneous edits repeating the same thing (confusingly enough) without reason:[8][9][10]Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're dealing with an uncommunicative and somewhat amateurish editor who presumably is of good will, but I'm trying to look at this positively. There's nothing for an admin to do here at this moment--problem edits should be handled first, on an individual basis, and, second, if they persist should be treated as disruptive, at which point WP:AIV is an appropriate place; IMO, persistent, unexplained, anti-MOS, and anti-consensus edits are vandalism. But they may also fall foul of the 3R line. Right now, all seems well with the world; I propose someone else look at this report and either correct me or close it per WP:Fluffernutter. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left them a note but I agree with Drmies that it's perhaps too early for formal admin intervention just yet. EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspected as such but was at loose ends as to what to do because it seemed more than dodgy with the repetition. ALls well that ends well.

Pretty much all that was sought anyways.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas, I hope this helped. Might as well keep an eye on the situation; drop me a line for individual edits, offenses, and repeat offenses if you think that's necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Rind et al. controversy and user: Radvo consistently failing to comply with talk page guidelines

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.

Radvo (talk · contribs) blocked. Contact arbitration committee for details. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Radvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a fairly new editor who has been editing Rind et al. controversy and posting frequently on talk:Rind et al. controversy. I, and other editors, have spoken with him regarding the length of his posts and his continued insertion of irrelevant material: 1 2, 3, 4, 5. He continues to post exceedingly lengthy posts, so bad that the article talk page in question is now very difficult to read due to many walls of text.

He recently posted on the talk page what I think is a draft of a welcome notice for editors to the article. I know it's a long read, but I saw it as very problematic and battlefieldy, and in my eyes, should not have remained on the article talk page (for a start it suggests that any new editors editing the article will be accused of being a pedophile) so I moved it to his talk page along with a message, a decision I do not regret although I understand that Radvo is much displeased with me. He posted on the article talk page here saying that my removal of his post was a violation of etiquette and copyright law. I initially responded there, then realised that it was simply further clogging the article talk with off-topic mess and moved my response to Radvo's talk.

I think my handling of the situation has been less than perfect and messy; I'm not at all experienced in this area. I would really, really appreciate it if some seasoned editors could look over Radvo's talk page posts and the post which I moved. I believe he does want to improve the article but his attitude I find greatly troubling and problematic. Many editors have referred to and linked the talk page guidelines but he shows no signs of having read them or complying with them. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have informed Radvo of this thread here. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a hot mess. A few seasoned editors are already involved, but this may warrant some attention here. Radvo's edits are at the least soapboxy, containing possible legal threats. That welcome message is very inappropriate and I'm glad you removed it. Perhaps WP:COMPETENCE is applicable here. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Radvo has left this on my talkpage. He is apparently quite convinced that I was wrong to move his post from the article talk. I rather get the sense that he does not hear anything I say to him. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it--totally unacceptable. But I gotta run, really. I'll leave it to others for now--but don't worry, Bugs is in charge. You and him should get along like a house on fire: I smell a carrot party coming up. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am involved, and am concerned about recent trends which show that my efforts to explain procedures have failed. The article in question concerns a scientific paper which has been misused by pedophilia advocates and their opponents. I am hoping some enforcement procedures can be enacted, although I don't know what. A topic ban would do the trick, but that's a blunt instrument and would prevent Radvo from explaining exactly what the article needs (in this comment, Radvo stated "I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month", and Radvo has detailed knowledge of the topic). The extent of the problem can be seen in Radvo's recent message at User talk:Johnuniq#Stop teasing. What is your agenda? (my "agenda" had been questioned at the article talk, and I had responded that such a question should be on my talk page). There are several severe misunderstandings in that post: talk of agendas; accusation "your getting User: Ohbunnies to do your dirty work for you"; misinterpretation of other stuff. Text like "And hit you hard and make it painful, so you think before you take me on a second time" indicates that further responses from me are not going to be helpful.

To explain the mention of OohBunnies and dirty work: Radvo posted the "draft of a welcome notice" mentioned in the report above, and I responded by saying that the message would have to be moved to userspace, but it might not be suitable even there. Ninety minutes later, OohBunnies moved Radvo's post to the user's talk (OohBunnies had posted on Radvo's talk last December, before I was involved). The timing makes it look as if I had some arrangement with OohBunnies, but of course I was totally unaware of her at that stage. I have put a lot of time into attempting to explain procedures at Talk:Rind et al. controversy and User talk:Radvo, but unfortunately my first contributions involved confrontation with Radvo: My first post was to support WLU who had removed links to websites that advocate child rape (apparently the links had been provided because the sites host relevant material) (diff). My second post was to collapse another TLDR off-topic violation of the talk page guidelines (diff). Radvo's response was to post another rambling and off-topic wall of text, complete with two images with captions that read (in part) "Mastodons stopped trampling around on Wikipedia approximately 10,000 years ago" and "Ottoman surrender, bringing an end to WW I" (diff). I removed the last-mentioned post, and Radvo restored it.

Particularly in view of things like the "hit you hard" mentioned above, admin monitoring would be greatly appreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my timing made you look suspect to Radvo. I do believe we've never even spoken before. I'm afraid I simply read over Radvo's welcome message draft and decided to "be bold" or whatever it is and move it from there straight away - article talk pages are often happened upon by the curious reader and there were some very troubling things in it. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. Reading Radvo's contributions, I see personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, assumptions of conspiracy, borderline legal threats, assertions that other editors have no "standing" to challenge him, and demands that other editors jump through hoops and complete his recommended reading list before he will engage with them. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the manner in which Radvo is editing is antithetical to that.

Radvo, here's the deal: either you can follow our rules and treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a war zone, or you can go find another sandbox to play in. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to continue on as you have been, raging at and attacking everyone who you perceive as lesser than you. Please acknowledge here your intention to edit collegially from now on, or I will block you until you are able to make such an aknowledgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible returning sock

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

---

Although currently refraining from posting here, Mistress Selina Kyle has suggested on her talkpage that User:MichelleBlondeau may be a returning sock of User:Cataconia, per this discussion. I have already filed an SPI on this user, thinking s/he was a sock of User:Lihaas; it seems I may have been mistaken. I will update the SPI as soon as I've notified the above parties of this thread, but it seemed as though this might be worth bringing up here again. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it; Versageek blocked them whilst I was posting the above message. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Threat of violence

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 72h by Reaper Eternal -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:84.50.17.185. Estonian vandal responding to warnings. Jojalozzo 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked without talkpage access for that bit of trolling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin action requested - closures at TFD

Any change of a friendly lady or gent closing the deletion votes for userboxes I nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4 with a keep, the rationale something like WP:SNOW - nominator has decided to Keep based on the arguments of others, and everyone else agrees. Or other mots of votre choise

(I know I haven't provided said rationale there, but ANI Egg Centric is the same guy as TFD Egg Centric) Egg Centric 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm merrily clicking away on those happy little 'keep' thingies, but don't rightly see how to add a rationale. Ha, if I screw it up someone will fix it, no? Isn't that the spirit of Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have no way of telling if I did it right or not. Someone please fix it. I'll take a wikibreak, so I can claim innocence. Oh! the doorbell is ringing! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've closed both discussions. -- Atama頭 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I missed the third one, closed that one too. -- Atama頭 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a manual? I deleted one, I think successfully (please check--no, I deleted the template but didn't close the discussion). The little buttons, what do they do? I assume, Atama, that you closed it the same way you close an AfD? Drmies (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've never closed a TfD before, but yeah it's basically the same as AfD. I just followed what was written here. -- Atama頭 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:CourtChru

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.

---

Sorry, I should be in bed (almost 7 am here), but I think that someone needs to explain that adding the same WP:OR to multiple articles isn't helpful - see Special:Contributions/CourtChru.. I can see little point in just reverting. Can someone with more tact than me (i.e. almost anyone) explain that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, point CourtChru in the general direction of Wikiversity, and then revert the edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek. I just finished removing their other edits (before I had seen this report), and hoped that someone else would engage with the user because my patience level is currently a little low. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just left a feedback response on the user's talkpage which pretty much covers Andy's suggestions above. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 78.154.126.122

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

---

WP:3RR broken here - no discussion on that talk page or reply on IP's own, unreasonable behavior. Suggest block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNB is the place for this. Doc talk 07:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits with deliberately false summaries at NoScript ?

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

---

Looks like deliberately deceiving abuse of edit summaries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475831790&oldid=475806721 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475846198&oldid=475834476). Both IPs are in Italy so there may be some COI as well. Richiez (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected it for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Archiving of Deleted Articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – I'll userfy for her. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My article was recently deleted for Vivid Racing. Are deleted articles archived somewhere, and is it possible to get it back or have it emailed to me so I can correct it?Betty Merm (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• They are in a very mysterious place that's probably best referred to as Limbo. It was User:Fastily who deleted your article. Leave Fastily a note on their talk page (you've been there before) and ask them to "userfy" it for you. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that User:Betty Merm post here, but that was before I read Fastily's response. Based on that, all I can suggest to the original poster is that you start again from scratch. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of Fastily's terse responses. More words would have been welcome, yes--but if Betty Merm asks again I am sure Fastily will give her the time of day and a copy of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for Betty to jump through hoops; I'll restore the article to her user space, and leave some suggestions on her talk page. It will need a lot of work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor redacting another's comment on this board

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

---

Above,

• Tarc posted that is the bullshit I was talking about. in response to a comment by Cailil.
• I replaced it with removed potty-mouth comment
  
• It was restored by Pablo X with the edit summary Grow up
• So I removed it again with the edit summary Removed insulting and inflammatory comment.
• But it was restored by Atlan with the edit summary no need for overeager language police.
• So I removed it again with the edit summary Describing an editor's comment as bullshit is insulting and inflammatory and inappropriate for this board.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's mine. You are not just censoring language. You're removing valid comment, and changing the sense of comments. You need to stop. pablo 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To restate and summarize, I concur with with you say about "changing the sense of comments." I also understand where Anthony is coming from. I just don't think he should be doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I am a only a few synapses away from filing a request for the Civility Enforcement 2 arbitration case... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment (I'm assuming it's a humor attempt?) Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I have an evil plan to make ArbCom pass WP:Discretionary sanctions for ANI (participation). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with redacting off topic comments to keep things on track (in fact did so but was reverted). Tarc's comments are on topic and best left in place. Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony - as I advised you yesterday, you should not remove other editor's comments that you find offensive/disagree with. Instead you should have asked Tarc to remove their comments themselves, which would have been an amicable solution. Instead we now have moar dramaz. GiantSnowman 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Such censoring, redacting, refactoring of others' comments will never lead to anything but moar moar drahmazzz. pablo 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In the country where I live, the newspapers are full of the words "fuck", "cunt", and the like. This is normal here. Perhaps I'm right in assuming that Anthony lives in the USA? The point would then be that it's inappropriate to try to impose (through edit-warring, no less) American standards of public discourse. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I am in America and can say that this level of prudery is not widely-held. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio closed the discussion but I haven't finished. Is anybody going to say or do something about Tarc's behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not me. "Bullshit" is barely anything at all, and I see no reason why it should have been removed. I thought we were trying to de-escalate ANI, not re-degenerate it. Look at what this redaction, its dedaction, its re-redaction, have accomplished. What Pablo said. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What administrator action are you seeking here? pablo 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I thought Salvio's close was appropriate. This is going to generate more heat than light if it stays open. FWIW, I agree with the principle that we should civilise the language here; however we do not yet have consensus that (a) this should happen or (b) how. You were premature in starting to refactor in the way you did. Have patience, we will get there, but not by trying to force the pace. Now two admins (Salvio and I) have declined to act and tried to close this. You can of course reopen it but I suspect each time you do you'll get the same answer, as well as shortening peoples' patience. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim closed this conversation but Pablo had asked me a question. Pablo, I'd like Tarc to recognise that his comment was uncivil and inappropriate anywhere on this project, least of all at ANI. Presently he doesn't recognise that. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orderly_ANI. So, it would be appropriate for some kind of sanction to be put in place until he demonstrates that he is able to recognise uncivil behaviour and avoid it. Perhaps we could begin with a topic ban from this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good luck with that. Ho lawd. Thread's dead, baby. pablo 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, your solution (extending this discussion and continually reopening it) is worse than the problem. Tarc is not going to recognise anything of the sort, particularly if you keep badgering him. Nor is what he said sufficiently egregious for a block. A topic ban, I predict, will not fly either. The pair of you are now being disruptive here, in my opinion, by dragging this out - more particularly you, as you keep returning when you don't get the answer you hoped for. I will say no more on this thread, and will not close it again. However I invite any editor/admin who agrees with me to add their close to Salvio's and mine. Anyone who disagrees and thinks we should keep discussing this here is of course welcome to say so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not badgering Tarc. I'm asking you to enforce Wikipedia policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In before the lock: the issue of removing single uncivil words like "bullshit" does not currently have community consensus. See Wikipedia talk:TALK#RFC Removal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't redact a word. I redacted a sentence. An uncivil sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you object to any other word besides "bullshit" in that sentence? What is uncivil about "that is the stuff I was talking about" for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you (pl) could leave this thread open for a bit to give others who are not online yet a chance to comment. It's not going to break the wiki, and I won't be adding anything but responses. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the usage of bullshit was unhelpful. But I also agree removing let alone edit warring over it was a bad idea simply because it's not severe enough to warrant such action. And I agree there's no much point continue to badger Tarc about it. So it would probably be best to just close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

unnecessary section in an RFC

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.

---

No attacks worth the name were made. Section has been collapsed.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}}

The above was the original closing statement, but as Cla has reinserted his comments twice, I've unhatted the section.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need an uninvolved admin to come in and close (or delete) a section in an RfC. One of the users has decided to make a list of all the users who have made personal attacks during this rfc. They then list about 10 editors who have generally disagreed with the editor (or another editor who hold similar views) and labelled every comment that disagrees with them as a personal attack. Start at the bottom of the list and tell me how many of those comments are violations of NPA? I see the whole section as one trying to intimidate or squelch people from having free dialog as any comment that is negative about the users/view in question might land them on the list of people who have made personal attacks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking it over. I haven't participated at the RfC (not interested in it) and while I've had contact with various people involved in that discussion over the years I don't think anyone would consider me biased towards or against anyone. If I don't see anything worth warning about I'll collapse the section. -- Atama頭 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that there might be a few that breach NPA, a lot of discussions have breaches, but not enough to warrant a whole section/discussion. But thanks for looking it over.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Atama, I started reading the diffs without posting here that I was on it. I agree with Balloonman here that the diffs provided either are not personal attacks at all, or are so microscopically resembling of a personal attack that the list is to be intended for a chilling effect rather than to address any real civility issue.--v/r - TP 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One hot mess leads to another, doesn't it. I wonder how much harm comes from people saving up diffs and collecting them into lists of grievances. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just ask Malleus...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have to. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I wanted to do it, but that would have been a clear COI.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Going through these, at least one of these "attacks" were supposedly done on my talk page, in response to a comment I'd made, so I don't know if I'd be considered "uninvolved" after all. In my opinion though I agree that these aren't personal attacks, most of them were done in very public discussions and have been witnessed by multiple people (including a number of admins, they were at AN after all) and if they were actual attacks they would have been responded to already. TP if you're already reviewing them, please continue, you're not stepping on my toes in doing so, for sure. -- Atama頭 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor continues

I have notified Cla of the ANI report---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, the person who started the initial thread has decided to summarize the hatted edits, again, I think it would be better if an uninvolved admin responded. The reposting of the summary is essentially a violation of the warning provided by TParis.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Cla inserted a summary of "the personal attacks" after it was hatted above. TParis issued a Final Warning. Tryptofish chimes in that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responds that "There is a method to my madness." He has since reinserted his edits claiming personal attacks.[11]. I encourage you to review the "personal" attacks to which Cla alleges and consider whether or not they are personal attacks or whether his insistance on claiming that they are is a personal attack?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE: My concern isn't so much about his list as personal attacks per se, but rather the effect his list has on open discussion. His lists of "attacks" are more disagreements and by calling different opinions "attacks" he squelches peoples desire to stand in opposition.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some slightly more nuanced responses to this. While Cla's going about it the wrong way, were it not for A) my already unfortunate involvement in the RfC and 2) The generally poor quality of the overall discussion, several of these diffs are the types of comments that I'd give "don't make personal attack" warnings for in other situations. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Try this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, astute as always ASCIIn2Bme. The problem is that Cla has not been told that raising this isn't helpful, he's been told that these aren't attacks. That's a subjective issue. (Well, an even more subjective issue that "raising this isn't helpful.")

• To my reading it's pretty close to a personal attack to accuse someone of harrasment without a clear, tenable reason.
• It's totally an attack to accuse someone of homophobia (or any kind of xenophobia) with an very clear reason.

While I'm pleased not to have been watching this degenerate, someone *points bone at admin corps* should have been playing nice police way before Cla did his nanna. There's enough bile in this RFC to digest a horse.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors on Cla's list. Naturally I don't have a problem discussing that particular edit of mine, and I believe it to be a justifiable edit. But currently it is mentioned in three places, none of which are appropriate venues for me to edit. It exists in an AN/I archive of a discussion which closed with no consensus to ban a certain editor. It is linked to in the discussion which TParis hatted, and I'm on Cla68's list. If it is OK for CLa68 to list me as someone who has made an edit that he considers questionable then I would like the opportunity to respond. But it would probably be more sensible to put the list within the hatnote - the community had a difference of opinion as to whether a certain incident merited a ban for a certain editor. I can't say I'm happy with the result, but I can accept that the result failed to agree a ban and that the incident is thereby closed. What I'm less sanguine about is being listed as attacking someone without having the opportunity to respond. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Firestoned

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

---

[moved from WT:BIO Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ]

Since IDK where to take this, let me make a request here to an Admin. User:AndrewFirestone777 has, to date, repeatedly added Diego Firestone to the Firestone dab page. He's done (literally) nothing else since June 2011. He's ignored repeated requests to stop, or create the actual page. IDK if this rises to vandalism, but advisorys or warnings appear futile. Can somebody do something? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (FYI: not watching this page, & not looking for an answer here if action gets taken.)

I've given them a two week attention-getting shot across the bows (hopefully long enough for them to notice, given their sporadic editing patterns). EyeSerene^talk 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:70.119.58.72

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.

---

70.119.58.72 (talk · contribs) is posting threats on a couple of pages, not that they seem truly serious, but thought I should just mention it... Calabe1992 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Template:Music of Canada

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

---

• User: Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Template:Music of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor Roux created a !vote section with this language:

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template

I observed his language was not neutral and changed it to:

Should the song "God Save the Queen" be excluded as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada?

Roux reverted my neutral language. I request admin intervention to restore neutral language, and a block of Roux if his disruption persists. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look at the history. If you were to do so--I know, I know, it's a lot to ask Wikipedians to be informed before they wade in and start whining--you would note that I had not one fucking thing to do with adding that RfC tag, and the section I created was made quite some time before that tag was placed on the page. But, jeez, that would mean you'd have had to actually pay attention to a) timestamps, b) history, c) my edit summary. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I did read the page. You still have time to make your !vote language neutral before the entire community arrives and begins commenting. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I was unclear. Let's try this again:

I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PLACING THE RFC TAG. THE RFC TAG WAS PLACED BY MIESIANIACAL SOME TIME AFTER I MADE THE NEW SECTION. I NEVER HAD ANY INTENT TO CREATE AN RFC.

Do you understand yet? → ROUX ₪ 04:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A) The content issue isn't going to get resolved here, that's what talk pages are for. 2) Roux is about to get a warning from me for civility, and possibly a few more will be handed out. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a simple misunderstanding + nothing good will come out of reporting this matter on ANI. Closing. —Dark 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Death threat

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

---

See [12]. Similar edits to those made by recently-blocked Death to leftists and Arabs (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably related to 96.49.76.98 (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Bongwarrior. 28bytes (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Case of LTA. Just report these to AIV directly and quickly rollback with no questions asked, next time.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed as being the Grawp/JDH dude. I've just blocked an open proxy - Alison ^❤ 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

ARS Canvassing at AfD

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

---

Per the suggestion of an admin I am focusing the issue with the Article Rescue Squadron on the specific AfD that prompted my previous report. Here is the deletion discussion. User:Northamerica1000 voted keep within hours of the AfD being listed, but this vote was followed by two delete votes. After three days with no activity on the AfD, North listed it at the Article Rescue Squadron. Looking at the discussion it is clear what the result of this was. Within minutes of commenting at the ARS list User:Milowent and User:Drmies, the admin who closed the previous ANI thread, each comment on the AfD. Drmies makes a clear keep vote and Milo leaves a comment that is clearly pushing for a keep. At the same time these editors are commenting, User:Dream Focus from the ARS also makes a clear keep vote. The timing is pretty straightforward, that after nearly three days with two delete votes to his one keep North decided to list this for rescue seems more like he was trying to stave off a likely delete. What happens after listing is evident, a clear shifting of the discussion towards "keep" as ARS members notice the listing of the article at the Wikiproject. I don't really see how this could not be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS by North and it reinforces my concerns about this list being an inevitable tool for such canvassing. If you look at the article itself there is no indication of actual improvements to the article. Unfortunately this is the same sort of activity we saw with the rescue tag, which North was also accused of regularly using to canvass inclusionists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't going to keep doing this every few days whenever someone disagrees with you on anything are you? The last ANI addressed this issue didn't it? [13] The arguments made by people, not the numbers that show up, are what are used to determine whether the article stays or goes. Do you believe the administrator Drmies is conspiring against you somehow? If he was truly up to something wouldn't he not participate in the AFD, but instead wait until it was time to close it and close it as keep? How many articles have you sent to AFD so far, and how many of them have ended in keep even when the ARS wasn't around? Dream Focus 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could simply create an ADS (Article Demolition Squadron) and template AfD nominations they see as valid accordingly. In fact, they could use the ARS page in order to save time reviewing nominations for possible tagging. This would keep the playing field level without actually creating even more rules. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see that WP:ADS is already taken. So I propose calling this new group "Article Rescue Squadron Exterminators" instead. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• [Sorry AQ, but I'm venting for a moment.] I may lose my temper here. The Devil's Advocate may not know me, but I am the mortal enemy of Dream Focus (BTW, DF, well put, above! thanks), and a longtime collaborator with Milowent. I am friends with User:MichaelQSchmidt, whose RfA I supported, and with whom I have turned many an all-too speedily nominated article into DYK. I am also, I guess, a deletionist of some sort--though Wikipedia Review lists me somewhere as an old ARSer. I participate occasionally on their pages, usually playing the devil's advocate (yes), most recently here. I got close to a hundred thousands edits on my belt. The Devil's Advocate seems to think that I'm some kind of pussy who purrs keep when poked by Northamerica1000 (I think our dislike of each other is well-established) or when some article appears on a list. Bullshit. (Anthony, I pre-dacted myself--I wanted to say worse.)

  That this list would be "canvassing" is total crap. I don't see why the ARS shouldn't have a right to list some (not all!) articles that they think are worth saving. Every WikiProject that's current and active does that, and Northamerica has every right to make this list and maintain--I can only hope that they do a decent job of selecting what's worth saving; some of you will recall they got slammed for tagging every other article with the Rescue tag, for which I took them to task as well. Devil's Advocate, I don't give a good g-----n for your concerns, and if you had been conscientious you would have looked around to see the other "votes" I engaged in following from that list, such as a "Merge" and delete (but I would leave that up to the closing admin) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leopard (newspaper). Or you could use Snotty's tool to see how I vote in AfDs, or some other fancy tool that says how I close them. I find this accusation directed at me repugnant, and I find the whole issue, of this list on one of their own pages, to be moot, vindictive, and baseless. Grrr! I'm sorry if I lost my temper. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing consensus for close. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#archivetop_and_collapse_tags Nobody Ent 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "ARS is canvassing" claim has been brought up repeatedly at AN/I recently. It's time to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if the problem repeatedly being reported was not continuing, there would be no need to keep reporting it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a user conduct dispute. It more than likely requires some form of mediation. However, ANI is not the place for that. There is no immediate administrative action needed. The Devil's Advocate needs to actually try to discuss the issues with the other involved parties before running off to ANI to file complaints. He keeps filing reports, and he keeps getting told that ANI is not the place to discuss the problem. He still has not discussed the problem with the other involved editors outside of ANI and he is still filing reports. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing is an ANI matter as it's disruptive, and admin action may well be appropriate. While one might view repeat filing as redundant, another might view it as providing evidence as to the scope and seriousness of the problem. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, canvassing can be dealt with. With that said, this editor has filed three reports in the past three weeks. A new report is opened right after the previous discussion closes. He has been told that there is no alleged canvassing, and that if he has a problem with a particular ARS member, he should bring the issue to their attention. He has not done this, he just keeps filing reports. This unwillingness to engage the editors in a talk page conversation, running straight to ANI, is disruptive and a waste of other editor's time. On the top of this noticeboard it states: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." He is yet to follow that requirement. There is no immediate concern here that requires immediate administrative action. If he can't resolve the dispute through reasonable discussion, then he should try a dispute resolution process. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As Rk notes, WP:CANVASS is very much a user conduct issue that is something for admin intervention, especially when it comes to repeat offenses by an editor. Your comment about discussion is not accurate. When I first brought ARS up on ANI I did try to discuss beforehand to no avail and clearly the discussion a few weeks ago at ANI and the TfD have not gotten across to North. An admin, Salvio, suggested that I file a new report here following the close of the last one that focused on the specific case regarding the AfD above and so I did. I must say that a member of the group that is being mentioned here should not be jumping in to close the discussion ten minutes after it opens, then reclose it four minutes after an editor re-opens it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At some point NA1K is going to get himself blocked. I don't know when that day is, but his conduct wears even on his supporters as I've seen on WT:ARS. Just be patient. At some point, the ARS itself is going to open one of these threads about him.--v/r - TP 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's possible (that block)--but I thought (though I might be wrong, it is hard to tell) that this was a complaint about the very existence of the list. If The Devil's Advocate wants to accuse Na1000 of canvassing, they'll have to do better than point at the existence of the list. As it is, they seem to be arguing that because Na1000 posted something on the list and Milowent and I voted for something, therefore it's canvassing. But as far as that concerns me and my behavior, they'd have to prove that I am likely to vote keep on things I'm being canvassed for--and that I have a reputation of voting keep. Anyone with half a brain/memory knows that most of my votes on AfDs are directly opposed to An1000's. In fact, if Na1000 would contact me, directly or indirectly, about some AfD, they'd be less likely to be canvassing. You'll note the glaring absence of Na1000's messages on my talk page. I've been on theirs, to give them a piece of my mind about those rescue tags. Now doesn't that prove that the current complaint, in all its vagueness, simply holds no water? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you made two comments on January 11th in attempt to resolve the first issue, which ultimately failed. The issue did not require immediate administrator action, and should have been taken to WP:WQA. If that had failed, then it should have been taken to ANI or to an RFC/U. Instead you have filed thee different ANI reports on the Article Rescue Squadron, rather than a particular editor.

While the user is a member of the ARS, the problem is with a particular editor, and the report should be on that particular editor. As was discussed on the last ANI thread, the Article rescue squadron is not about canvassing keep !votes, the purpose of the project is to cleanup articles on potentially notable topics. There are quite a few WikiProject that use Article Alerts, which notifies the entire project of project related articles up at AfD. It allows editors interested in the topic to work on potentially notable articles up for deletion. Sometimes it results in the article being kept, sometimes it results in the article being deleted.

The concern you originally brought up on the 11th had nothing to do with ARS canvassing. The issue you brought up was over the fact that he notified all editors that contributed to the article's talk page which is technically canvassing. With that said, the problem was not the ARS, it was a particular editor. The other two incidents you reported did not even attempt to resolve the dispute first. The list you are so concerned about being a canvass board was taken to MfD. There was a strong consensus there to keep the board and that it did not constitute canvassing. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at that again, I said plainly that the rescue tag skewed the discussion and requested that he notify other outside editors to balance the discussion. That editor's response was to say there was nothing wrong with using the tag. Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. After looking over the MfD for the list I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be re-opened. Five of the twelve keep votes came from ARS members like yourself, one vote was nothing more than a keep vote with the comment "you've got to be kidding me", two votes from non-ARS members claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion (even though in the TfD on the rescue tag the closing admin plainly said canvassing was such a reason), and two other voting editors do not appear to be impartial. That these votes were used to close the MfD within two hours is an oversight I think. Of course, it helps to demonstrate exactly how an AfD can be quickly dispensed with by a flood of editors and why "immediate" action should be taken.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. Apparently it's also a reason to assume bad faith, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get an assumption of bad faith exactly? North created the list and is using it essentially as a way to canvass keep votes. Saying an editor is doing something wrong is not assuming bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies North's addition of it to the list clearly had the result of skewing the voting towards at least no consensus away from a delete vote. You can say that it would be up to the admin and that consensus is not about counting votes but the reality is that enough votes one way tend to be more convincing than a few good arguments in the other direction. Rather than waiting to see if the result of canvassing is as desired or if a closing admin sees through the canvassing, when it is not plainly noted is not something that should be expected of any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you prefer that this perfectly legitimate list (your arguments about that MfD are silly) be written in invisible ink? Better yet, shall we keep the log secret so that those ARSers don't know what's up for AfD? Invisible AfD templates? Or maybe a topic ban for Northamerica? and me?

I don't know why you're talking about a tag, up above. The tag is gone. I didn't participate in the AfD; I don't think it was so canvassy, but I do think that Na1000 used it haphazardly, inappropriately, and uselessly. But the tag is gone. So now the poor ARSers have nothing but a list, and you want that taken away? Drop the stick, The Devil's Advocate: this is getting tedious. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• What a misguided ANI to bring. DA's beef has to do with the ARS flagging an article for further examination that has in turn improved the quality of the AfD discussion, instead of leaving it to the random fate that awaits many borderline articles depending on which 3-5 editors show up to comment. This article, in fact, is likely to be deleted and at least it will be deleted after a fair hearing. DA claims: "Milo leaves a comment (at the AFD) that is clearly pushing for a keep." Really? If I wanted to keep the article I would have !voted keep. My comment, in fact, pointed out that some of the delete votes were weak on their rationale and incorrect about the amount of local/regional coverage of the restaurant in the press. And my transparent comment at ARS pointed out that the ability to rescue the article was questionable. I stated "As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [14] does show local popularity." If this is an incident of horror to be condemned, please shackle me, dear comrade editors. I ask DA to assume a little more good faith; he is free to comment in any AfD regarding any votes he think were "canvassed," but I think his real fear is that his nominations might sometimes be proven hasty, otherwise what does one have to fear from examination?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Another discussion is also occurring regarding the WikiProject Article rescue squadron rescue list, located here: Village pump (policy) – Use of the article rescue list for disputing a spinout/merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now that ARS follows the same conventions as other porjects (i.e. off the article page, manual list, notification of listing in the Afd) all my concerns have mostly vanished. I take into account the effect that this listings have when closing an AfD, and beleive that this would be common practice in any closer who is not simply counting noses. Propose this thread be closed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem with ARS (including with this specific complaint) now that their obnoxious tag is gone. The solution here is for everyone who hates ARS to simply watchlist the list themselves. If you think they are crusading to save a bunch of crappy articles, just put your own opinions on the same AFDs (within reason, of course). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - For shit's sakes, this is the stupidest ANI whine in recent memory. AfD is not a vote. 500 vapid "votes" for keep SHOULD be defeated by one intelligent argument for deletion if the closing administrator is doing their job. And, by the same token, 15 people braying "delete" should lose a debate with a well constructed defense. AfD is not a VOTE, it is a TRIAL. Five attorneys do not trump one if their case is weak and the judge is following the law. Why does it matter if ANYONE "canvases"? It shouldn't. The facts of a situation are the facts. Sources are sources. Rationality would deem some things necessary and others inappropriate. Have a little faith in the system, please. ARS has been kneecapped by a very bad decision to eliminate their Rescue template lately. It will take some time for them to reestablish themselves on a new basis. Give them a break. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Time to close. There is nothing here that requires administrative action. I suggest that ARS be set up with a delsort page just as do other projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With a heavy sigh, I'm "unclosing" this. (See my talk page.) I'd also stress that putting a little box around a discussin is an edit that, like almost all others, isn't owned. So if you think someone has closed wrongly, please be bold and unclose, with a little note that says why. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming even that the AfD closes with a keep, someone who disagrees would still have two good ways of proceeding, the easiest of which is to nominate it again in 6 months or so, and the more complicated alternative is to use deletion review. Since the AfD was at the time of posting and still is ongoing, an even better way is to continue to discuss it there--and indeed, DA, you actually and properly made a further comment in the discussion as well as your nomination before coming here. Given your comment has now been followed by 6 straight delete opinions, 2 before you came here and 4 afterwards, it is hard to see why you would be complaining. When an AfD discussion goes the way I think it ought to go, I don't usually complain about it. Even if I don't like what someone said there, if I get done what I want to get done it usually satisfies me. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• • This discussion, despite the good faith of all involved, seems to me to be a whole lot of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm thoroughly confused as to what valid concern there could be. WP:CANVASS says that notifications are appropriate if they're "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open". Posting to one page is pretty limited. The [15] shows the notification was phrased in neutral terms discussing reliability of sources and asking for more reliable sources. I suppose you might consider it partisan if you thought that membership of ARS is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article should be kept, but that'd be like believing that membership of Wikiproject Glub is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article about Glub varieties should be kept. Membership of ARS only means believing that some articles should be improved so that everyone will want to keep them (hence asking for more reliable sources). And finally, obviously it was posted openly (though repeatedly bringing up spurious complaints about canvassing seems like a brilliant plan for driving ARS underground). Being an ARS member myself (when I feel the urge to research-and-fix, it's quicker browsing a list of articles someone already thinks are worth saving than the list of articles someone thinks are worth deleting) no doubt I'm biased, but really, what exactly is the problem with someone asking a bunch of people who like to research-and-fix, "Here's this article that can be fixed by adding reliable sources, can someone do that?" --Zeborah (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Were it only about fixing articles or establishing their notability that would be one thing. From what I can tell this is the only Wikiproject devoted to reaching a specific outcome in an ongoing deletion discussion. The whole theme of the group suggests it is an audience that is likely to be more favorable to inclusion than others. Honestly, who doesn't want to "rescue" stuff? That you are rescuing "knowledge" makes it even more compelling. When a group has as its set purpose preventing the deletion of articles it covers it is hard to see why anyone would think that is the same as a group of film aficionados directing people to AfDs that concern movies. Really that is directing a group of people who are well-versed in the subject on Wikipedia to judge whether something fits the relevant notability criteria. The specific problem here is, as I noted above, North lists this apparently several days after voting keep when the discussion was favoring delete and the result was that several editors stepped in to vote keep. At the same time North made no noteworthy contributions to the article, nor did any other editors popping into the AfD. So it wasn't a case of "research-and-fix" at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you comment on the fact that 2 of the first 3 items in the AR List have drawn ARS responses amounting to "they're not notable" -- including one such response from NorthAmerica1000? I'm not counting my own Delete vote (and delete-leaning comment at the List) regarding Sal's Pizza (which is, as an aside, a complete joke for an article subject). As I say below, if this is a keeps-only canvassing machine, it's obviously not working. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people are terrible at making insults, it doesn't change that they are insults. I think there is an obvious question of intent and ultimate effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not following. Is this ANI intended to be about NA1K's conduct or a(nothernothernothernother) review of ARS practices in general and the List in particular? If the former, I have no comment -- I'm unfamiliar with controversial behavior on NA1K's part. If the latter, I have to suggest that you reconsider that POV, given that Lists such as this are firmly grounded in precedent and policy, and given that there are a number of articles listed on that List where ARS members have chimed in to basically say that the subject looks hopelessly non-notable and that there's nothing to be done. If it's a keep vote canvassing tool, it's certainly a very weird and ineffective one. I have absolutely no idea if there is an issue specific to NA1K regarding canvassing, but the canvassing argument with regard to the ARS and the Rescue List has gotten so weak as to border on give-me-a-fucking-break territory. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to distinguish the two honestly, especially when members of the group tend to circle the wagons every time this sort of issue gets brought up. What makes it even harder to distinguish the two is the fact that North created the list in the first place. Here I think you should look at the specific case. Does it not seem clear that discussion was trending towards delete at the time of its listing? Does it not seem clear that the effect of the listing was a marked increased in editors pushing for the article to be kept? Given the listing was at a group specifically about moving deletion discussions towards keep does it not seem clear that this effect was the result of appealing to a skewed sample of editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This I understand, and that is a reasonable reply. I have certainly noticed the same circling-of-wagons behavior in the past, although I suggest you consider what effect your continued crusade is going to have on the amount of wagons in the circle. Nonetheless, with specific regard to Sal's apparently fantastic Pizza (good pizza in Dallas; pish), I see the ARS listing drawing a keep vote from Dream Focus (shocker!), who basically has yet to meet non-notable subject he didn't want to keep. I also see a qualified Keep vote from Drmies. I also see a Delete vote from ARS member Ginsengbomb, and I see Drmies basically reversing himself afterwards, followed by a string of delete votes. This well-oiled keep canvass machine managed 1 Keep, 1 semi-reversed Weak Keep, and 1 Delete. So, no, in this specific case, I don't see something hideous and sinister happening. The group is very clearly not specifically about "moving deletion discussions towards keep." It is about moving deletion discussions towards keep when there's a valid reason for doing so. That's a significant distinction. And, again, if you're going to focus this on Sal's Pizza, focus it on Sal's Pizza, because your argument taken to the List and to the ARS as a whole looks extremely weak when you consider that Keep votes don't come flooding in unless there are ARS members who actually think the article should be kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note - Just so it isn't missed by anyone, please note that the ARS Rescue list was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2012, and the result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Furthermore, the nominator later commented regarding their nomination on the Rescue list talk page located here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't find any "snow" decisions made 2 hours after something is posted very compelling.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• [16] I've read through all of the above. The only thing I see is continual waving of the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment the key difference I see between an ARS notification list and a project notification list is that ARS has a specific agenda in regards to AfDs. While we expect the projects themselves to be interested in those topics and possibly capable of giving more expert opinions on the subjects or finding sources if necessary, we don't necessarily expect them to argue for keep on every single article. On the other hand, we do expect that of ARS, and just as if there were a Wikiproject:Deletionists group, it would be inappropriate for them to create a similar kind of notification system. One of the ideas behind canvas is to avoid notifying people specifically because you know how they'll !vote. They are a partisan group. This is votestacking per the table on WP:CANVAS--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) and comment:
  • The {{Rescue}} template was deleted because, from my reading of the discussion, there was a consensus it was used indiscriminately; the template was viewed as disruptive, as it was used all over the place and regardless of the merits of its application.
  • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list was SNOW kept. It's one list, in the one place, and closely watched. It was not in any way of the magnitude of the disruption to the project that {{Rescue}} was argued to be. And as it stands, it a useful reference for both the Article Rescue Squadron and those of a more deletionist tendency.
• In legalese, "in the matter of interlocutory application The Devil's Advocate v Article Rescue Squadron and Anors [WP:AN/I 794] I agree with my brother Bushranger J. that this serves only to re-agitate matters already decided in other tribunals, and must be dismissed."
• In plain terms: The TfD is over. the MfD is over. Nothing more to do or see here. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Twomorerun

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.

---

Twomorerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Username is created at 3:13, 8 February 2012
• Like Athena from the head of Zeus, user arrives full-grown, with full Wiki-knowledge
• First edit: 03:14, 8 February 2012, with edit summary: "clarity/redundancy/pov fixes"
• user begins editing rapidly (eg. 51 edits in the first hour and six minutes)
• most of the user's edits are to remove descriptive adjectives from the lede sentence of articles, even when sourced [17]
• other editors revert Twomorerun's edits, put warnings on his user talk page [18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23]
• templates are removed as "vandalism" [24],[25]
• Twomorerun "retires", puts "retirement" template on user page [26], redirects talk page to user page [27]
• "Retirement" last 6 hours and 9 minutes, plunges into undoing other editors' reversions of his edits, without discussion except in edit summaries, continuing new edits per his previous pattern
• more warnings on his talk page [28],[29],[30], plus a suggestion that he needs to talk about his edits on the talk page not just in edit summaries [31]
• the editor tries to have his talk page deleted, [32],[33], but his speedy is turned down [34]
• editor has still not responded to any comment on his talk page

This editor has a long history of editing with precisely the same pattern, as an IP, beginning (at least) in August 2008:

• 67.36.58.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 69.218.254.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • blocked by LHvU for not discussing edits
  • AN/I thread here
• 75.41.6.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.79.133.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.212.57.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • blocked by Barneca for not discussing edits
• 69.208.77.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • AN/I threads here and here
• 24.11.246.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • this IP's response to every comment on their talk page was to delete the comment without responding
  • Thread about this IP on WikiProject Visual arts here

That takes it up to October 2011

So far as I know, this editor has never responded to the many, many requests for discussion made on their talk pages. Discussion between editors is an essential part of the collegial Wikipedia process. I can certainly understand that discussions, once started, can become unproductive and are sometimes better shut down than continued, but never talking to any editor who has problems or concerns with your editing is not something that we should allow to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. Also, note that the person attempting to interact with the IPs on their talk pages is me, under my original ID. (See this for an explanation). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• BMK makes a convincing case. I've checked with some IP edits, and they agree in content and style. There is no doubt in my mind that we're dealing with an obsessive editor who is likely to sock. I'd like to hear what they have to say, but I am also interested in hearing whether the community would block for the editing behavior in the first place (even without the IPs). Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• If I have the timeline right, Twomorerun's response to my notifiying them of this discussion was to request that their user page be deleted, and also that the page I had assembled this information on be deleted. (It's already been deleted at my request -- once I had filed the report, I had no further need of it.)

  To be clear, I am not making the argument that Twomorerun's edits are all problematic: some are, some aren't, some are debatable. But it is incumbent on an editor to discuss their edits when disputes or concerns arise, and not simply to plow ahead and then move on to another IP (or another ID?) when things heat up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not that it is ground for action, but I find it odd that their speedy deletion request on their talk page was made with an edit summary of "for privacy/safety reasons and to avoid harassment." They did remove valid inline citations: [35] and [36]. And then the removal of the same reference over and over on the same article, Phillip Johnson: [37], [38], [39], [40] that supported the architect as being influential in his field. Violated WP:3RR also on Phillip Johnson article, but did undo their own 3rd revert. Altairisfar (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Likewise with the article about the influential artist Jackson Pollock there are these [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and he stopped at the edit war edge...Modernist (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

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

---

• User: 88.224.158.240
• Incident: Canvassing, disruption

Two groups of users are constantly arguing over the name of the page Ermenikend, I tried combining both names to help both sides reach a consensus but the users kept going on with one name they prefer, I didn't take neither of their sides as I'm not interested in warring with them. But I noticed this contributor, 88.224.158.240 mass messaging users talk pages which is going to cause more trouble by his disruptive behavior, I noticed he might be violating this rule: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They've been bickering for a month about what amounts to a transliteration dispute (not even a name dispute) on an "unofficial district" with no sources at all, never mind any that attest to its notability. As it is the article is worthless, and if no-one is making a good faith attempt to actually improve it into an acceptable stub, it needs to go to AfD. 87.113.204.4 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You HAVE to notify editors if you discuss them here; I have done so for you. GiantSnowman 10:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User given some advice about what is, and what is not, acceptable. If they continue after that warning, then please let us know. However, 87.113.204.4's point is extremely valid - the introduction of reliable sources to verify your information would make this all so, so much easier. GiantSnowman 10:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree he has valid points. On the talk page the use of the name is discussed by users but they can't come to a consensus. I just used the talk page to hopefully help them. Thank you! Nocturnal781 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:TheREALCableGuy

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

---

I have been having problems with TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs), who refuses to engage with anyone using his talk page in any manner about any issues, unless it involves removing fair use images from his user page, which he was blocked for a week last week and involved one revdeled threat (last ANI incident). I have begged, pleaded, asked for a compromise and reason for why he continues to revert my template on Milwaukee Public Television over the last three months, which I feel is needed for explanations of what exactly airs on their station's subchannels, but he continues to ignore me and revert me blindly, even when I asked him to post what he feels is wrong with it and trying to compromise by removing cable channel slots, just reverting and refusing to respond on my talk page, as I asked (I'm scared to modify further because of 3RR). He refuses in any way to discuss anything on his talk page with anyone, which I feel is absolutely needed to build up Wikipedia. I also feel he violated his last block by using a college computer under IP 152.43.1.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to round his block. I would like to cooperate with RCG, but without being able to discuss anything with him via his talk page in any way there is no way I can compromise with this user. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice on his talk page has been blanked and disregarded without any comment. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I left them a note on their talk page. I'm still looking into their behavior, but it's worthwhile noting that the suspicion of socking while blocked is easily confirmed per DUCK. I'm not sure what the consequences for that might be, but I'm not entirely done yet with snooping. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Well, it's the typical uncommunicative editor who knows everything better, so they don't have to explain anything. They reverted themself on that Milwaukee article (probably after you either asked or started this thread, I don't care enough to check) and they possibly think that's all there is to it. There's a few things here. First of all, if they continue to revert you on that article, report them as an edit warrior--were they warned at 3R? Second, another admin may come by and comment on the block evasion: perhaps the original block should be reinstated. Third, well, I don't have a third just now. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• One more thing. You are both guilty of edit warring on that article, 3R or not. I am going to give you both a warning. You reverted them a couple of times before you explained in this edit; to your credit you have continued to try and explain yourself, while they haven't. Still, you both deserve a warning, and that suggests that next time such a revert happens that editor can be reported for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Understanding on the warning (it is deserved), all I'm asking for from RCG is an explanation of why they want it that way, that's all I ask. I try not to edit war, but it's frustrating to edit and try to figure out what's wrong with my template's style when the other editor will not even communicate why. I also was discouraged to report to the 3RR board due to the lack of communication. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. And 3RR can be tricky anyway, but it's a lot easier if the other user has been warned (and in this case, by someone who is not you). Drmies (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally have a response. "I reverted it. Now please let me be. Thank you." When I asked for further elaboration..."You liked it the old way, so I changed it back so I could stay out of trouble, okay?" I don't really know what to make of that. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (original timestamp of 5:55 UTC removed to reflect latter edit.)

• OK, here's the deal. I've reverted the blanking of their talk page to respond to that teenage comment. I am blocking them for a week--the period they were blocked for in the first place, during which they used an IP to continue the edit war on Milwaukee Public Television and to reinstate non-fair use images on their user page, the very thing that got them blocked in the first place; note that the war on Milwaukee Public Television was waged by the account, then by the IP, and then by the account again: persistent disruption. If any admin disagrees with this block (now their fourth), I invite scrutiny. Thank you Nate, and let's close this thread. I hope the editor will come back in a week with a more communicative attitude, though I doubt it. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider it closed too, and I finally got the answer that he felt it was "cluttered" after the block, which he could've definitely said beforehand and it didn't have to get to this point at all (usually I've engaged in discussion and it's all worked out before I ever need to get to ANI). I don't know whether making changes to the template further to de-clutter in a compromise is OK or not though, so I don't hit 3RR. If it isn't I will cool down at your suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they changed to "your" version, so one can only assume that you are at liberty to edit to your heart's delight. When you edit it next you're not reverting them, so you can't be edit-warring--in my opinion. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does, thank you. I am going to reduce it down, and we can consider this closed. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

NewsAndEventsGuy changing votes to Keep in an AfD

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

---

In [48] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) turns a comment into a keep vote. Specifically, this AfD had been prematurely closed, then got reopened. One user didn't seem to realise it had only run a few hours, and posted.

• Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy changes this to:

(Keep) Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) To facilitate the discussion I added the keep to this comment.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Keep" is what the user would have voted; but the user is clearly unaware of the reason why the AfD was relisted, so it would be for him to say, not someone who's known to promote the article up for deletion. He modifies a couple other comments as well. 86.** IP (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree adding keep to someone else's comment is a very bad thing to do. Let the closing admin decide how to consider their comment or ask the person who commented for clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, he was notified but has now removed the notice. He has instead User_talk:Greglocock#Your_abuse_of_process_.21vote canvassed the user, trying to get him to vote Keep 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process is indeed the right description for the AFD, and 86's actions William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, WMC, still think that WP:NPA doesn't apply to you, I see. 86.** IP (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin needed to act on article probation violation re: Men's rights

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

---

User:Cybermud has repeatedly engaged in incivility, violating the terms of article probation described at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. He was warned about the incivility by User:Kaldari and User:Kgorman-ucb on his talk page, and he responded with "...do whatever floats your boat princess...", calling Kevin Gorman, a campus ambassador for UC Berkeley, a "princess". Kevin and Kaldari were pointing out to Cybermud the following infractions of the probation: [49], [50], [51], and [52]. In response, Cybermud told them to "STFU on my talk page".

I see the foul response by Cybermud as a signal that he is unwilling to follow article probation terms. Cybermud should not be allowed to continue in this vein. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have placed Cybermud under a one-month topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you frequently find evidence that supports the exact opposite of your contention and put it forward to advance an argument anyway?!--Cybermud (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deja Vu Binksternet?[[53]] In any case, it's all about context.--Cybermud (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the diffs speak fairly well to why sarek was justified in topic banning cybermud, especially this one and this one, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves.

Cybermud has continued to edit the article on Michael Kimmel, in violation of his topic ban, even after being warned that continuing to do so was a violation of his topic ban. (Michael Kimmel is a sociologist whose work frequently deals with men's rights issues, and the use of his writings on the men's rights page was one of the major issues that cyermud disagreed about.) Although disagreeing with an administrator and questioning their actions is fine, choosing to ignore a topic ban - especially one stemming from community sanctions on an article - is not fine.

I think that Cybermud's responses to this post have demonstrated that he cannot be a productive editor on men's rights or related issues at this point. I would request that Sarek's one month topic ban be extended to indefinite with the option of appealing at some point in the future if he can convince the community that he now sees what was wrong with his behavior, and convinces the community that he will not repeat his former behavior. I would also request that he be blocked if he continues to fail to respect the terms of his topic ban. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also support an indefinite topic ban, as Cybermud's edits are a clear example of POV-pushing and his incivility related to those articles has been disruptive. Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not support an indefinite topic ban. While I agree that he was uncivilized in some regards, he brings up some valuable points. I admit I haven't contributed to this article in awhile, I think the 1-month ban is enough, and if he re-offends after the ban to re-evaluate. TickTock2 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban. Cybermud is clearly a POV warrior that is not going to contribute anything uncontroversial on this topic, ever, judging from the talk page. It's time for such folks to pick another topic and to get busy improving the encyclopedia or get the hell out of the way. All this perpetual drama/verbose talk page war garbage needs to be snuffed, not coddled and enabled. Ya want adrenaline, buy a video game or grab a soap box and head for the nearest streetcorner. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. After being banned for one week in October 2011 [54], Cybermud is back to the same problematic behavior. Not only does he continue to accuse various authors of misandry [55][56], but he also refers to them as "gender ideologues who support the feminist view that all men are rapists" [57]. His fellow editors are also misandrists [58], according to Cybermud. I find his agitated rhetoric very unhelpful. That he calls a male editor "princess", goes beyond the pale. Back in 2010, he wrote that Kimmel and Flood are considered "manginas" [59], so this theme is not new. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So far three people have suppoted an indefinite topic ban and one has opposed it. With only four people responding and no further contribution for more than 12 hours I'm reluctant to see this as a consenus for an indefinite ban. On the other hand, I don't see anybody here speaking up in Cybermud's defence; nobody is suggesting that his edits were OK and that no ban at all should be enacted.

This report has been open a long time and while I don't want to close prematurely, I'm not sure how much more is going to be said. I will close this report in a few hours (not less than five) if there are no further responses. When I close, I will leave a firm note for Cybermud about the ban, indicating that a breach will lead to an immediate block and the possibility of an extension of the ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reblock of User:Mistress Selina Kyle

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

---

A day or so following her unblock following a five-year absence, this User:Mistress Selina Kyle was reblocked by User:Courcelles for allegedly breaching the conditions of the unblock. I found the reasoning highly suspect and unilaterally unblocked her. It turns out, however, that over two years since I last used my blocking tools, I've become unfamiliar with the processes (and will be taking myself back to WP:NAS as a result), and so have been encouraged to replace the block and attempt to gain consensus for the unblock here. I still stand by my original reasoning, however, which you can find at User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Blocked, however the brief version is that the rationale given was that she broke item 4 of her unblock conditions, which stated "Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving." Now, the incident in question, as I have noted in more detail at User talk:SalopianJames#Unblock of MSK, revolved around a report of a WP:LEGAL breach at WP:ANI and the subsequent fallout from that, where she was the recipient of a number of WP:PERSONAL attacks and attempted to deal with this. Now, the initial reporting was entirely within policy and, whilst her reponse to the attacks was misguided, it was not meant with any malice, instead representing an unfamiliarity with policy after five years of absence, for which I feel she should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I do not find the block reasoning convincing, and am not the only one who takes this view, as can be seen from the comments in the two user talk page threads I linked above. Furthermore, in the intervening time between my unblock/reblock, she took several editor's advice to avoid political pages to prevent herself getting into trouble, for instance reporting a POV-pushing editor on her talk page rather than at ANI, who was later blocked. She also spent a lot of effort spreading some WP:WikiLove, always a good gesture, and various other constructive edits. As a result, I believe the block should be lifted forthwith. SalopianJames (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An unblock of the reblock's unblocked reblock, right? Doc talk 09:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Amazingly something good did come out of all this. The BB-MSK event did shake the collective hubris. Threads here on ANI are now closed promptly with a resolution instead of being let to degenerate. Given that BB has been unblocked (although he was also blocked by an Arbitrator), I don't see a compelling need to keep MSK blocked given the subsequent developments outlined above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. We needed a kick in the behind. We may need more, but it's a good start. Manning (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll spank you as well, Manning, if you like. ASCII, I agree. I hope it lasts for more than a week. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock (edit conflict × 2) The circumstances surrounding Selina's reblock were controversial. As SalopianJames notes, Selina was subjected to attacks crafted to skirt the boundaries of what we consider 'personal' but were clearly and deliberately intended to bait her into a response. This was an agent provocateur action by editors, one of which was later blocked and nearly given an indefinite community topic ban from admin noticeboards. It's my view that Selina's response was inappropriate and she did deserve a short term block (which she got) but I don't believe it's fair to indef her again over a situation that was clearly engineered to elicit this kind of response and result. She is freshly back, has barely had time to brush up on the changes to the rules in her five year absence and was immediately forced into a situation where she had to make a snap response. I don't see anything malicious or even intentional in her technical breach of the rules here. Further, as SalopianJames points out, in the period after she was unblocked by him she showed an immediate change in behaviour and demonstrated clearly that she had listened to criticism and had taken the advice of people trying to mentor her, myself included. She reported a problem with another editor on her talk page even though it would have been well within her rights to make a report at ANI, because she responded to advice that she should ask others for help and stay away from the boards. I believe Selina is showing a genuine desire to contribute constructively to the project and I strongly believe she doesn't deserve to lose her chance because of this. This was an accident, she has acknowledged that she made a mistake and she has shown positive signs of not making the same mistake again. We don't punish people for accidents. She's gotten enough of a scare from this whole mess that I don't believe she'll misstep again. And she's aware that I'll be here supporting her block if she does. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I continue to support the unblock: after Mistress Selina Kyle was unblocked by SalopianJames, she clearly showed improvement and did begin to demonstrate that she was following the advice that myself and several others have given her. As has been said above, when she had a sock to report yesterday she reported it on her talk page and the sock did get blocked (this actually would have been a good report to AN/I just as her previous report was), but she stuck to the advice she was given and reported it on her talk page). Evidently, she has made some mistakes, but I don't believe that she has done anything with bad intentions in mind, and there is nothing that she has done so far that I consider to be too serious or that warrants re-implementing the original ban; besides, there are a few users, myself included, who are willing to work with her/help her out along the way, as we have been doing. I think she should just be unblocked and we go back to letting her edit, and when she makes any good-faith errors we help her rather than hold blocks over her head. The other night's drama has cooled off...let's keep it that way. Acalamari 10:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not have been a good AN/I report -- sock reports go here: WP:SPI. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - "He hit me first" is not a defense for bad behaviour. However MSK was IMO deliberately baited, and her inexperience led to her getting trapped in this manner. Also mitigating is the fact that the admin corp did NOT handle the matter well, any of us could/should have stepped in much sooner and prevented the debacle (myself included). As with Techno above, my advice to MSK is to stay off AN entirely, even if more deliberate baiting occurs. There are other editors who can handle the matter on her behalf, if needed. Also as Techno said, if there is a genuine transgression, I will be in full support of a permanent reblock. Manning (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock per Manning, and, well, peace really. Begoon ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock per TechnoSymbiosis; I am a little worried that an arbitrator's actions (when acting as an administrator) are seeming to be given more weight here than any other admin's actions. pablo 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock - the current situation seems a bit unbalanced. A topic ban in regard to anything wikipedia review connected might be a good resolution in regard to helping the user stay out of conflict. Youreallycan 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. MSK was targeted for harassment by one of the gadflies that constantly buzz around this page. That user was lucky to get off with a voluntary recusal and it has all led to Manning Bartlett and Kim Dent-Brown taking a stab at reining in the chaos. SalopianJames has outlined most of how this went and Mistress Selina Kyle didn't really do anything wrong here. This is a simple procedural step; MSK should be given a fair chance without harassment. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock and topic ban on discussions related to Wikipedia Review. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• first - I'm not anybody here. My observations do leave me with a concern though. I'll note that Jclemens also issued a block a while ago, one that I personally thought was excessive - I brought his attention to the unblock request - told the blocked person I'd look into it, and watched. Lets face it - a week away from this place isn't going to hurt anyone. My concern is that 2 out of 3 (arb) blocks were pretty much "I know better" overturned. Sure, all well meaning I'm sure - but it's a concerning trend. It shows a lack of unity in the admin. community. It shows a lack of respect for people who obviously have earned the respect of the community. Good intentions are fine, but maturity and common sense are needed if we're going to head in the right directions. Sorry to have troubled you folks - but my understanding is that this is an open discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ched, arbs, individually, are at least in theory no different from the next guy. They are not elected because they are infallible at adminship and are entitled to no particular deference. Indeed, the fact that they are arbs is all the more reason why they need to be really, really careful when acting individually.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I'm just saying we need to communicate more, and not be so all fired up to rush to judgment. If we take the time to talk to one another - we may still disagree, but in the end, the calm measured response is going to be a better educated one. I'm not suggesting there's a hierarchy to be feared, simply I think that judicious and prudent ways forward are always going to be the best. — Ched :  ?  11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock Unable to comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I cannot see anything in MSK's editing before or especially since their unblock that leads me to believe there's anything fully productive or collegial goign on here. I'm always willign to be convinced, but I'm still not convinced the FIRST unblock was wise in any way, shape, or form (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Only 26% of your edits in the main space. Any plans to do anything fully productive yourself in the near future? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at this time, without prejudice. I was the admin who declined the block review. Part of it was procedural (wheel warring concerns, and barring that, it's just common courtesy to discuss with the blocking admin first; furthermore, a block this high-profile would mandate community discussion from the getgo; thus any admin should have declined/held pending further discussion). Part of it was that any restrictions or agreements need to be worked out before any unblock. And part of it was seeing the wide-scale disruption at ANI; 4-5 quite virulent threads from the same user. I understand that she was provoked, but it takes two to tango in this situation. In addition to this, it seems that she feels that she has the obligation to report every instance of bad behavior she sees on the site; not a good thing, borderline Wikilawyering. Sometimes you've just gotta let things go. This disruption also carried over to the already badly damaged FAC and FAC RFC, where MSK repeatedly and forcefully made suggestions regarding overhauling the process entirely, where it was clear she didn't know the issues at hand. There have been suggestions that a lot of users have been visiting the RFC because they have "an axe to grind" with Raul654. I'm not entirely convinced that this will be the final discussion regarding MSK, either. I probably could add more to this, but it's 4:30 am my time and I'm going to bed. --Rschen7754 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Unconditionally, unrestricted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• O_O — Ched :  ?  12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note. I don't doubt the sincerity here for a second. I remember when Bugs was willing to extend an olive branch to CoM years ago. He is always willing to put the past in the past, and does not carry grudges. Noting just so my "holy cow" funny eyes aren't taken the wrong way. — Ched :  ?  13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock Let's not reward baiting. Consider also a topic ban from anything related to wikipedia review, so she has a clearer guidance that we are here to write articles, not to pick political fights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Courcelles' explanation for the block was cogent, clear and backed by the facts. No matter who one holds as "responsible" for the dust-up between MSK & BB, there was no symmetry between their situation. MSK was on a conditional unblock from a community ban, Bugs was not, so there is no reason they need to be treated the same in the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support unblock This is from a pure procedural standpoint. MSK was unblocked and given a loosely defined parole. After a few drama inducing threads the conditions of the parole were listed more explicitly. One admin blocked based on perceived violations of the parole. A Block appeal was denied. Another admin initiates a unblock based on no block appeal, but rather re-trying the previous appeal without consulting the blocking admin. Unblocking admin is questioned at length by blocking admin about the Wheel Waring aspect of the unblock. After several editors weigh in on the unblocking admin the admin reluctantly reblocks and posts this block review to establish consensus. Having looked at the thread so far I'm inclined to endorse the unblock with the cast in stone warning to MSK regarding the terms of their parole (Don't involve yourself with drama, neutrally report instances of harassment/baiting, let others stand up for Wikipedia Review, don't take everything as an attack on you) and they won't be in danger. This constitutes a absolute last chance. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Well said. One thing I would add is: report does not mean report in five different places and post at least ten times in each thread. (see WP:NCR) The community doesn't have the patience to build Betacommand-style restrictions for Ms. Kyle because insofar the positive contributions made by Ms. Kyle are quite modest. So, Ms. Kyle should absolutely not test the boundaries again if she gives a damn about her editing privileges here. Whether she likes it or not, Ms. Kyle has put herself in a position where from now on she's going to have to turn the other cheek to anything but the most severe transgressions of policy. And I hope her experience from yesterday clarifies where the community currently sets the bar on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock - There is some supreme and petty bullshit going on around these parts. This user was baited and harassed by one of the more egregious ANI gadflies. Courcelles' judgement was exceedingly poor. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock MSK, but other questions need answering SJ's original unblock was a text-book example of how not to use the unblock button. I disagree with Tarc - there's nothing petty going on here. MSK was unbanned after 5 years and was unblocked unstrict conditions. She has since been misbehaving. If after 5 years and a second chance MSK hasn't got it then MSK shouldn't be here. That said I agree with ASCIIn2Bme and Hasteur - in light of Baseball Bugs's unblock that MSK should be unblocked too (but by someone uninvolved in any of this thus far), but under a very very clear & final warning.
  Frankly I think that's what would have happened here anyway if SJ hadn't intervened. The unilateral reversal of Courcelles' decision, by SJ, an admin who admits to not using the tools in over 24 months & is obviously not up-to-date with dealing with DR or sanction/ban enforcement, is far more of an issue than anything MSK did--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  "She has since been misbehaving", that is the bullshit I was talking about. We have a user here who was held to a completely unreasonable, break-one-sliver-of-an-eggshell standards of the earlier unblock. If you're going to hold someone to a "one-strike" rule, then that's the prerogative of the community to decide. But to reblock, that admin best be damn sure that it is a "strike" that occurred. Courcelles was unreasonable to call that malarkey a strike. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Note to Tarc - Fluffernutter's explanation below makes it clear why your argument is incorrect.

  Note to would-be censors - It's best to leave vulgar comments in place, as they help to reveal the character of their writer.

  ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think we have to put up with his rudeness and belligerence. [60] He brings the tone down. Gets people's backs up. Sets off little wars everywhere in situations that might easily be resolved with reasonable discussion. In short, he's the last person this board needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're right. But I still don't think a user's comments should be censored unless they're a blatant and gross rule violaton (such as outing, socking, or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × tons) What happened to your self-imposed one month vacation from ANI, BB? You've made your opinion of MSK abundantly clear in multiple threads on ANI and AN. I don't think many here now want to hear your opinion of Tarc in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Cole, mind your own business. Bugs, why are you here? Didn't you agree to an ANI vacation as a condition of your own unblock? I do not agree with fluffernutter's assessment of the situation; you and others baited her and began this whole mess. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I have the right to respond to discussions that involve me in some way. I am staying away from discussions that don't. I say again that the editor Kyle should be unblocked, without conditions and without restrictions. Ya got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm very close to having a problem with that Bugs, as we're discussing Selina's position and not yours. However now you've made your position clear, provided that is your last contribution to this thread I'm content. But the number of edit conflicts immediately after you dipped your toe back in this pond suggests your reappearance made a number of people very twitchy. You won't find the fourth power of the Sphinx mentioned on Wikipedia but it might be a good one to cultivate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock—unless or until the community agrees on terms to unblock her going forward. Mistress Selina Kyle violated the conditions of her last return from a community-imposed block. I don't condone the baiting tactics, but BaseballBugs opened a door that she willingly walked through. She must take responsibility for those actions. Until she does, and the community allows her return, she's not welcome back yet, and Courcelles' original block should stand. SalopianJames was not in the right to unilaterally substitute his judgement for that of the community; the proper course of action would have been to initiate a community discussion with the goal to set limits (including the option of no limits) on extending a new option for Mistress Selina Kyle to return. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The oddity with that user Kyle is that they were indef'd in June of 2006, yet somehow were able to edit on January 28th. Since then the block log looks like a ping-pong match. As regards "opening a door", I called the editor for making a false accusation against me. Perhaps I should have taken it to WQA instead of here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - she's not here to improve the Encyclopedia. She's here to create and enhance drama. Her contribs before and after the previous community ban should make this obvious. Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - purely on the basis that the block may have been questionable from a procedural perspective. I have seen no evidence to disprove what Raul654 above has to say regarding MSKs propensity to create drama, and see little reason to assume that a further block will become necessary. I would of course like to be proven wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, reinstate community ban. Working backwards from the present here, we have:

1. An admin who is patently unfamiliar with blocking policy unilaterally reversing the reinstatement of a community ban, which he failed to research the existence of, then repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or undo his wheel-warring and moving the goalposts until someone (not the blocking admin, for what that's worth) pointed out that admins have lost their bits for such actions.
2. A previously community-banned user, unblocked with strict instructions to adhere to our behavioral guidelines, who within day or two commences violating those same behavioral guidelines in a series of ANI threads: Wikilawyering (attempting to characterise people's commentary about a website as personal attacks against her), accusing people of harassing her by commenting about Wikipedia Review, accusing admins of giving the "all clear" for a user to "insult" her, continuing to accuse users of trolling and harassment, more trolling. Again, this entire thing was set off by her wikilawyering in an attempt to shut down criticism of Wikipedia Review by claiming any commentary about the site was personal commentary about her, which is a bit amusing in light of this claim that she is "not WR" and "WR shouldn't even come into it". Each of these behaviors - wikilawerying, accusations of bad faith, accusations of harassment and trolling, accusations of conspiracy among admins - is a violation of our behavioral guidelines. Mistress Selina Kyle was offered an unban with the strict provision that she not violate our behavioral guidelines, and then went almost directly to the most visible drama board on the entire wiki and began agitating and violating those guidelines. She is patently in violation of her unban conditions, has used up the one strike the community offered her, and as such should be rebanned. I quite frankly can't see how any other conclusion could be reached. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• and this is why any unblock needs an accompanying topic ban from any topics related to Wikipedia Review, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• fluffernutter, this is how: Don't Underestimate the Power of The Assume Good Faith Nobody Ent 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• AGF, as we all know, is not a suicide pact, Nobody Ent, and when a user has exhausted every drop of the community's AGF, and then five years later is lucky enough that the community is able to scrape up a smidge more AGF, and then proceeds to trample on that...AGF can be depleted, and we are not required to AGF to the detriment of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The editor was repeatedly told that criticisms of WR do not qualify as a personal attack, yet the editor continued to repeat that claim. Does that fact nullify the good faith assumption? Or is it possible the editor truly did not understand the distinction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The true power of AGF is that it doesn't matter; we can take the same action in either eventually and don't have to stress about it. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• @fluffernutter The number of support unblocks on this thread is irrefutable evidence MSK has in fact not exhausted every drop. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, as I posted above, having reread the policies (which I fully admit I should have done prior to this all kicking off rather than after), I realise the way I went about things was not correct, hence why we're now going through this. Again, as I said before, I'll be back off to the WP:NAS with an apple for the teacher. However, in response to the 'moving the goalposts' comment, the items I listed were what occurred, and the reasoning given for the block was violation of the unblock conditions. I failed, and still fail, so see how those two match up in any way. On another note, I know I personally would construe an attack on a website I ran as a personal attack, with a further point being that views on WR were irrelevant to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock: while Selina does have a rather quirky style (both in terms of prose and in terms of approach), I'm rather certain that she genuinely wants to help improve Wikipedia (IOW, she's not a member of the "hasten the day(tm)" faction on WR). To borrow a famous quote from a fictional book cover, she's "mostly harmless". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. At the very least, indef is completely out of proportions. In fact, I think we should focus more on the inappropriate action by the blocking admin here, it is much more worrisome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock The editor has been blocked for several years. She appears to be genuinely trying to follow policy. The community and policies can change over time, she just needs time to get up to date on policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I wasn't around when the original block came in so I don't have the history. But based on the last few days even the most cynical interpretation of MSK's behaviour is that she came back after her community ban, tried to see how much room for manoeuvre she had and got the message really soon that she has none. Since then she has been the model of restraint; the cynic will argue she is just biding her time but if she is, we can of course (and will, I suspect) reinstate the ban instantly and permanently. But if the cynic is wrong and she can contribute productively then for as long as she does that I have no problem. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I find the block well-intentioned but a misguided and overly strict interpretation of MSK's unblock/unban terms. It's quite possible she'll do something that warrants an indef but filing a couple of reports at AN/I isn't it. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Discrepancy between crime and punishment "preventative measure". The Mistress will be on a tight leash anyway (hey, that's kind of saucy--I like it) given the attention this has received. It's a good time to start creating article content, Mistress. Annemarie van Haeringen, for instance, is still a redlink. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I understand that the block was given in part because drama was really escalating, but Bugs' block was shortened and I think letting MSK back is a good idea too. While she perhaps should have acted differently, she didn't do anything that makes me think she was acting out of bad faith/trolling us. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock, obviously. Have already explained why in other places but basically there was no basis for the original block and in fact it was a good bit in the "blame the victim" (of personal attacks) spirit.VolunteerMarek 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• note - at this point the consensus for an unblocking is twenty four in support and six opposes. Youreallycan 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • mumbles something unclear about 4 to one not being consensus, involved admins, and various randomly-directed obscenities--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Given how contentious this series of unblock/block/unblock/block has been, I would really recommend that we stay away from calling an early consensus about anything and let the thread run for a minimum of 24 hours, especially since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have had a chance to weigh in yet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I unblocked her. Let's get on with our lives. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can hear some more mumbling... Youreallycan 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block explanation

Moved from discussion above Nobody Ent 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see a fuller explanation of the block by Courcelles, here, at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know if he is online, but [61] [62] should be relevant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I did read all of that, I would just like a summary after consideration. My initial reaction is that Courcelles, as an arb, should have considered that if MSK's conduct was that blatant, another admin would have taken care of the matter. In addition, Courcelles is a drafting arb in the Civility Enforcement case, in which there was an admin who unblocked without consultation a user who has been repeatedly unblocked by admins who did not consult with the blocking admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And Risker, who blocked BB, is another drafting Arb in that case. Go figure! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No. It's not the same thing. Courcelles has said he's considering filing a wheel warring complaint on SJ. He is a drafting arb in a case which will be precedent for that case if he files the complaint. I see a conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I haven't checked, but I would assume Courcelle's comment about a Wheel-war case was posted prior to SJ's corrective action above. SJ has corrected his actions, so there is nothing to answer for. Manning (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Manning, this whole mess could wind up in the lap of ArbCom, and SJ's actions could be an issue. There's an appearance issue, to my mind, and possibly an actual conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) My "go figure!" puzzlement was over this part of Courcelles statement: "she [MSK] committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, (being critical, even dismissive, ofsomeone's website is a far cry from attacking the person)", which implicitly disses Risker's block as hardly justified. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • With such a difference of opinion between arbitrators, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that arbitration is done by panel, rather than Judge Dredd-style =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, I'm not that shocked seeing arbitrators bitterly divided in an actual remedy vote, but I am a bit more surprised seeing two of the Civ Enforcement drafting Arbs applying principles the committee hasn't even published yet. And the two blocks were a bit Arb Dredd-style, given that an WP:IBAN between the drama protagonists was being proposed (by me) on ANI at that time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to all - As Ascii said above, let's embrace this new world of AN/I. The topic here is the unblock review. Discussions of arb motivations, arbcom cases, etc belong elsewhere. (I'll trout myself for my earlier comment about the wheel war, not helpful). Manning (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, whether the blocking admin has or has created a conflict of interest is plainly relevant. However, this could be a separate subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters, but you'd have my full support for opening a separate discussion. I just think we all just need to work on reducing the chatter within threads. (And comments like this are just more chatter - so yet another trout for me)Manning (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) — Ched :  ?  13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• <cough>, ummm .. excuse me (and perhaps I missed something) - but ummm ... did we forget something here?— Ched :  ?  14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to see justification for an indef block. What has MK done (diffs, please) that according couldn't have been handled by a warning, or even a short block, and instead needed, in his opinion, and indefinite block? Votes above clearly show that such an approach is not supported by the majority of the community. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant. The nature of the lifting of the community ban was that infraction of the rules would lead to a reban. That's it. There is no mechanism to give a user a whole new set of chances in that case, and whether you or I agree or disagree with it doesn't matter; MSK accepted those conditions and then violated them. Everyone is taking some sort of moral indignation at the whole thing as the basis for unblock. Now, if MSK didn't like the conditions, she did not have to accept them. She did. For us to complain about that after the fact is pointless - if the deal was unfair, there was always a right of refusal. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is my understanding too - that, per the provisions of her unban, any violation of behavioral guidelines, etc, would result in the ban being reapplied, according to the will of the community as expressed in her unban discussion. Courcelles would have been on much shakier ground attempting to apply a time-limited ban of some sort, because that would have been voiding the community's will to impose his own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with that interpretation is that it leaves no wiggle room for cases where the blocking admin is in clear error. I think form these discussions we're seeing a general disagreement that Selina violated much of anything. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary?

Sorry. Cleanup. The summary of the decision box at the top is unsigned and in otherways oddly phrased, but I don't know who to ask about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be Youreallycan, here. Probably just forgot to sign. I think 4-1 is a pretty solid endorsement, though. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The question mark is odd then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The question mark was an allude to the fact that WP:Consensus is not a vote - so technically, 6 to 1 still needs interpretation. I will sign it now. Youreallycan 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reversed file deletion - more opinions, please

I just restored File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg, which was promoted to Featured Picture on Feb 6, while Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 2#File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg was running. Fastily closed that as delete, because a redirect had been created on Commons to make it english-searchable, which was the main objection raised at the FfD. However, since it was a featured picture, I have restored it. Should the FPC take precedence here and require another discussion before deletion, or should we just go with delete-as-dup-of-Commons anyway? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Does a featured picture have to be posted on enwp, or can it be at commons? If the latter then I see no problem with it being deleted. I'm pretty sure I've gotten images featured that were only on commons... all we had here was the page indicating it was featured. Now, if you're talking about the article for the picture, rather than the picture itself? I say keep it, otherwise we have no indicator it's featured. But the picture itself could probably go away. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This English-language-titled image was created to satisfy WP:IFN (an enwp-specific guideline) in that a title name be "descriptive or at least readable". FPC determined that a Korean title does not satisfy this guideline, and since Commons would not rename the file and instead suggested the use of {{Do not move to Commons}} on the enwp file with a rationale for the redundancy, this file was created and eventually promoted to FP status. Given the IFN guideline, I think this file should stay. —Eustress ^talk 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, there's now a redirect on Commons that gives the picture an English-language title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If the picture is now searchable using the Commons redirect, I'd delete the local copy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I outlined at the deletion discussion, FPs also have pages created for them on en-wiki for different related templates and categories. With the redirect, theoretically this could be on the Korean-named page as well. However, the title of the page will not display for readers without support for Korean characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

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

---

It would be very helpful to get some more eyes at WP:Requests for page protection. Unless I'm misinterpreting the timestamps, some of those requests have been sitting there for over a day. Zagalejo^^^ 22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Salvio is on the case, it seems. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can that page be reset so that granted (and denied) requests don't stay on there for days on end? I hate looking at it, it takes time to load, and it's often hard to look through to find requests that haven't been dealt with yet. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

Discussion moved

 – Moved to WP:AN. --Dianna (talk)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Persistent_off-wiki_and_cross-wiki_harassment_.2F_Community_ban_proposal. Nobody Ent 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Orangewhitegreen

Resolved

 – 1 week block for disruption Manning (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orangewhitegreen (talk · contribs), despite being warned, engages in WP:IDHT-style disruption via unsourced, self-referential, and/or anti-consensus edits ([63], [64], [65], etc); at least one bears a sarcastically arrogant edit summary ([66]) which indicates that this user knows that what he/she is doing, and that it is wrong. The key issue here is the willfully recrudescent and sloppy insertion and reinsertion of "sources" consisting of naked URLs to Wikipedia pages despite multiple specifically worded warnings issued over an extended period of time by several editors. He/she also continues to specifically target and repeatedly overturn painstakingly discussed and long-standing talk-page consensuses ([67], [68], [69], etc). A block would would send a non-ignorable message that further passive-aggressive time-wasting is unacceptable. Saravask 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the summary above. Orangewhitegreen has been at it for quite sometime now. They refuse to discuss but stop right before the situation escalates into requiring administrator intervention. They have received multiple reminders and warnings from other editors in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on German cruiser Emden

Discussion moved

 – Moved to WQA. --Dianna (talk)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Dispute_on_German_cruiser_Emden. Nobody Ent 13:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and removal of opposing comments

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.

---

JasperDang is putting SEVEN tags on the article MongoDB without any rason multiple times WP:OVERTAGGING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MongoDB&diff=475893466&oldid=475892060

And when I'm trying to ask him the reason, he is removing my comments from talkk page and warning me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

This is ridiculous. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. The reasons are plainly obvious. This board is not for bringing in a content dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. I am not opposed to tagging of the articles with RELEVEANT tags. I am questioning your bad-faith tagging without given ANY reason whatsoever - your behavior in putting 7 tags and when others post a detailed point-wise talk page comment asking for reaosns - you remove their commets - not once but twice. Then you attack me mock me for using capital letter for emphasis and paradoxically warn me for personal attacks. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. WP:AGF. Tagging is a content dispute. Speedy close now please.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see the 203.99.208.3 is up to a level 3 warning for issuing personal attacks. Are there any diffs giving evidence of violations of WP:NPA#WHATIS? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This was for #1, and this for #2.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT, anyone? I generally frown when researchers do not disclose things to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Given my recent block, I'll refrain from commenting here, beyond suggesting that so-called 'research' based on such behaviour is not only unethical, but worthless. Actually, I'll ignore the block, and suggest that it blindingly obvious to anyone that either (a) this isn't 'research', but trolling, or (b) the 'research' is a waste of time, money, and entropy, in that it tells us nothing that anyone but a total halfwit couldn't have figured out without engaging in such idiocy. If you are engaging in this 'research' as part of a course of study, I'd ask for your money back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What research, affiliated to what academic institution? Where is your plan? Where is the approval from your institutional review board? Where has the Wikimedia Foundation and the community agreed to your research project? Where will you publish your results? You should cease your "research" immediately and answer those questions instead. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest it's either sarcasm or a rather naive self-construction to get out of tense situation. I can't imagine any legitimate research would take that form (and I've seen some fairly odd stuff at university) and the edits don't look like those of a troll or one seeking to provoke an outcome - they look like the edits of a very inexperienced newcomer entering into conflict for the first time (and we've all been there!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• ...and like clockwork, another "social experimenter" appears on Wikipedia. I strongly reccomend an immediate block here per WP:NOTHERE. As has been said before by those wiser than me: we're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please also see WP:HOSTAGE, and feel free to expand. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Now that we've thoroughly shot and hung the messenger out to dry, the tags on MongoDB were in fact excessive, and Jasper Deng was being unnecessarily combative and uncooperative in his placement of them. Jasper did nothing to really explain his placement of the pile of tags in the first place, and when he was reverted, he responded with a further unhelpful and combative edit summary. He further claimed that all 7 tags needed no further explanation on the talk page, which is just absurd. 7 article level tags on an article of that size certainly do need further explanation. Always a proud moment when I see one of these.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the relevant article talk page - I for one don't think that a section like this should appear in a Wikipedia article:

Capped collections

MongoDB supports fixed-size collections called capped collections.[8] A capped collection is created with a set size and, optionally, number of elements. Capped collections are the only type of collection that maintains insertion order: once the specified size has been reached, a capped collection behaves like a circular queue.

A special type of cursor, called a tailable cursor,[9] can be used with capped collections. This cursor was named after the `tail -f` command, and does not close when it finishes returning results but continues to wait for more to be returned, returning new results as they are inserted into the capped collection.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be best I think. I'm not necessarily convinced by the experiment explanation although of course we have to treat it as though it's true—we have nothing else to go on. There are some obvious problems with the article, but I too feel that Jasper Deng could have made a more convincing effort to explain the tags promptly and courteously, and treated the IP user with a little more good faith. EyeSerene^talk 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That section about capped collections looks fine to me (informatively describes something unusual enough to be worth mentioning). It is pretty typical of how articles about software and programming languages are written. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the tags themselves can be discussed on the article talk page. I'm discussing Jasper's behaviour in getting them on that page. There seems to be a whole slew of poor edits made around this situation over at MongoDB. In addition to forcing the tags onto the article without explanation, and assuming bad faith, he also made edits like this which are clearly against our policies [70]. Altering others comments is a no-no. The IP tried to engage him on the talk page, Jasper reverted it. I'm beginning to think if we really need to block the IP out of this situation, it shouldn't be the only one.--Crossmr (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know this discussion hasn't ended yet, was trying to discuss. Yep, I admit my faults here, and I won't try to fault the IP. I just don't like it when my name is mentioned in a section header on an article talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but if you're going to edit an article in that manner, it's almost inevitable that you're going to end up being discussed on the talk page. You don't have any rights over your name on wikipedia, other than to ensure someone doesn't impersonate you, and others are free to refer to you as necessary, which may include using your name in the header of a section, especially when it directly concerns the edits you've been making. You had zero business removing another person's comment from the page as it contained no excessive personal attacks, and even then you're limited to removing the personal attack itself.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have some concerns (first raised by the other IP) that Jasper Deng may have been editing tendentiously. I'll try to look into it further tomorrow. I also think some of AndyTheGrump's complaints about the article were unhelpful, though well-intended, and resulted in good content being removed. I left some comments about the latter on the article talk page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Added: Viriditas's WP:HOSTAGE essay discusses tag-bombing of controversial articles, but that's a somewhat separate problem than what happened here. IMHO the contents of the MongoDB article (including the earlier version that Jasper added the tags to) are mostly uncontroversial. At worst there are a couple places where the wording edges away from neutral, or a little too much space is given to unimportant info. All of this can be touched up pretty easily and I might try. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I now believe 7 tags was not appropriate especially since some could've been consolidated into one (OR can morph into the V part, for instance). I've talked with my mentor about this, and I think I deserve to be trouted on this. If it were a valid personal attack, I've been told that just removing part of the comment is worse than removing the whole thing; it's moot here - I need thicker skin.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you're concerned about your name appearing on externally searchable pages, that's understandable too. You might consider WP:CHU to deal with that. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Jasper Deng's Conduct (continuing previous discussion)

Beyond this need to archive so quickly getting out of hand, I don't think this situation is entirely done yet. I didn't really do any background on Jasper, and simply looked at this incident as it was. While I was away, Jasper mentioned being under mentoring so I did my due diligence. After doing so, I have some increasing concerns over his behaviour. There seemed to be incredible concern over his editing last april [71], on multiple levels regarding multiple things including competence. Including this bizarre exchange [72]. Again in September we have more concern over his behaviour [73], including biting newbies as he just did here to this IP editor. Eagle points out in that discussion that this was not an isolated incident and that he'd been repeatedly warned about this behaviour. As this is a furtherance of the behaviour for which he was repeatedly warned, this gives me some grave concerns here, as this has been going on for quite awhile despite apparently being mentored by 3 people.--Crossmr (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What did Jasper say when you brought your concerns to his talk page? 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

April was a long time ago; I've changed since then. 28bytes is my most active mentor (the other two are not as active).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two incidents, the second one is in september, it's much closer, and specifically addresses you biting newbies.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion (despite trying to jam it closed) was already here. There is no reason to take a discussion from AN/I to a talk page, especially when the behaviour has already generated consensus twice on an admin board.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw initially, this user was apparently not a new editor, judging from the other contribs; all that matters is that I stop my own behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - As you know, we are trying to clamp down on the improper use of AN/I. I'll note that you have opened a discussion concerning a user that you have not contacted directly in the past several weeks, nor did you post a notice on their talk page concerning this AN/I case. Also, as you seem to be concerned about an issue that happened in September, so this isn't exactly an "incident". Please take this matter up directly with the editor, and then take it to the appropriate noticeboard only you cannot find resolution. Manning (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Manning. If you have not discussed this issue with Jasper directly, it shouldn't be placed on ANI. —Dark 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

On this matter, I've started a discussion on Crossmr's talk page about my behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Ecx50)The issue was being discussed with Jasper directly above. I did not bring this issue here. I continued the discussion as new evidence was found regarding his behaviour that indicated this was not a one-off incident. This is not a new discussion, it's a subheading to an existing discussion of which he was already aware.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. Jasper has a history of biting the newbies and overdoing things. This is yet another example of a long term behavioral issue--Guerillero | My Talk 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in passing there seems to be confusion about what triggered Crossmr's complaint about Jasper, it was something in the immediate preceding closed discussion. (biting an IP) I don't think that's clear to some here and I don't know if that would effect your propriety analysis of the report but I do think it is important that you understand each other first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - My sincere apologies. The problem with this archiving trend is it isn't immediately obvious the new item is connected (of course I should have looked a bit more closely). I suspect I'm not alone in this. You are perfectly justified in continuing the discussion from above. Manning (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly it. The IP came here to complain about Jasper Deng's behaviour. Now, the IP had some kind of agenda himself, and was rightly blocked, but it's Jasper's behaviour that is outside of the IPs odd behaviour that is the problem. Restoring all those tags claiming there was no explanation needed, removing the entire comment on the talk page, even if the IP wasn't doing an "experiment" I can't imagine them reacting well to that kind of behaviour. The reason I added this, was as stated, I discovered this was not a one-off, this was something that seemed to be an on-going, long term behavioural issue on the part of Jasper, and before the community considered this matter closed, they should be aware of that as it could influence how the community wanted to proceed with closing this matter.--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Stanistani disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT

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

---

This user, who has claimed himself to be "semi-active" since 08/03/2011. Over the last few months, all his edits have been making a WP:POINT, criticising Wikipedia and our editors and disrupting discussions. Edits like these aren't helpful at all: [74], [75](personal attack), [76], [77], [78] (another personal attack). PaoloNapolitano 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not everyone who disagrees with you is "disruptive". --JN466 14:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The only really inappropriate diff is this one, in my opinion. The others are just fine – to tell the truth, I consider Robespierre to be perhaps the mildest personal attack I've ever seen. I think this issue should be moved to WP:WQA. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That one does look rather poor, and much as I dislike "but someone else did it" as an excuse the standard of discussion in that entire thread wasn't exactly high. I think WP:WQA is reasonable, or just leaving it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything for admin action here, tbh. (Mind you, I'm not saying Stanistani's editing style is mellifluous and collegial...) I think taking it to WQA would suggest we think there's something to be done here. Instead I'd tend to close it. Next editor to express a view (close or take to WQA) why don't you act on your instincts on this? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Whitney Houston death report

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

---

A heads-up: TMZ reporting that Whitney Houston is dead: WHITNEY HOUSTON Dead at 48--A bit iffy (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CBS News has confirmed the report of her death: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57376028/singer-whitney-houston-dies-at-48/ Semi-protection is appropriate here for the time being. --MuZemike 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected by Eagles247 (talk · contribs), which I agree was warranted. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:1ravensnflfan's unblock request

(moved from AN) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 1ravensnflfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours in August, one week in September, two months in October, and six months in December for ignoring warnings regarding additions of original research and POV, and general MOS problems. He did not post anything on his talk page after the first three blocks, but after the three month block in December, finally spoke up. He posted two unblock requests that were declined, and the third one was met with a request to prove he has changed his editing ways. He posted a few paragraphs of prose he would add to Chykie Brown if unblocked, but no action has been taken since his recent unblock request, which was on January 22 (nearly three weeks ago). He has grown frustrated with the delay, which can be shown by his comment today, "What are you waiting for? Just ban me permanatly and end this!!!" I am requesting that a bold admin attempt to review the situation and either accept or decline his unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Procedural comment: Such a request is better made on AN/I, which is a more heavily-watched page.) AGK [•] 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whomever looks into this might also want to take his edits at Simple Wikipedia into consideration too: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/1ravensnflfan only (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks for MOS violations??? What happened to be bold and anyone can edit? Someone please give it a shot and unblock this guy. Nobody Ent 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He was overlinking after several warnings, so yes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks for disruptive editing. Repeated MOS violations, especially after requests to familiarize oneself with the MOS, can easily constitute disruption. Even disruption in good faith is disruption. --Chris (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking over his Simple contributions, it doesn't appear he has truly changed his ways, as he is still adding original research to articles there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, in fact it looks like he's actively creating multiple unsourced BLPs over at Simple. Swarm ^X 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've just requested the Simple-version of speedy deletion for 11 articles he created as copy/pastes of their enwiki counterpart articles. Every other article contains original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• He blanked his talk page (including the declined and active unblock requests), so we're done here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd generally have no problem giving another chance, but considering the continued problematic editing, even while blocked here, is a WP:COMPETENCE indef needed? (The block's still set to expire in a month.) Swarm ^X 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He just "retired" and subsequently edit warred with me to remove the declined unblock requests. I had to revoke his talk page access. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've upped the block to indef per WP:COMPETENCE. If he wants back in he can use the WP:STANDARDOFFER, but the little rant he posted as his retirement notice [79] clinched it for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block per WP:COMPETENCE. --Rschen7754 03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

TV stations and syndication

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

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

We have a major major problem here! Someone keeps adding syndicated shows to TV stations websites. This information is irrevelant! We do not need a list of syndicated shows on wikipedia TV station articles!? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania)

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

 – SP'd for a week. Notify me if the trouble persists. Manning (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The page Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania) needs admin attention. I have removed an inappropriately written, partisan section on a recent incident from the article, but users keep re-adding it. (See my explanation on the talk page.) I don't want to be revert-warring, so I am reporting it here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• 87truthseeker78 (talk · contribs) has taken the rejection of his preferred version of the article quite personally. I don't want to be involved any more, in order to avoid escalating the issue. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Makotojs (talk · contribs) and 87truthseeker78 (talk · contribs) have both been indefinitly blocked for disruptive editing (and I smell meatpuppetry, if not outright socking, between those two). Pizzaluver (talk · contribs) has been blocked because  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me as a sock of 87truthseeker78. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • SPI turned up Fishbait71 (talk · contribs) as another sock. All bagged and tagged, should be done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Fact tagging to remove usage of British Isles

I just come across User:Bjmullan yesterday who is fact tagging instances of British Isles with view to returning later to remove the usage. Is this not tantamount to pushing an anti British Isles POV? He has a long history in this respect. Correct me if I'm wrong and if what he's doing is valid, but to me it seems as though fact tagging individual words that are disliked is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. CommonPAS (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This incident has been posted by a British Isles SPA. Have a look at their edit history. WP is based on RS and V sources not hearsay. I'm just trying to improve this project. CommonPAS is doing what exactly? Bjmullan (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a 3rr note on each of the above user's talk pages as they have been edit warring on turquoise. Vsmith (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log may be relevant. Thincat (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thincat you are absolutely right that it is relevant ... Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing. CommonPAS is just another British Isles SPA (and probably a sock of one of the many blocked SPA in this area). Just have a look at their edit history. I have an interest in BI among many many other topics and believe that I contribute positively to this project. Bjmullan (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, has the term British Isles retroactively ceased to exist, in history? GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think Thincat is trying to point out with the use of Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is the number of times that Bjmullan has been "topic banned and sanctioned" regarding to this very issue. Looking at the log, the user received 2 topic bans within a week back in September 2010. The first was for 12 hours, the second was for a period of a month. Wesley☀Mouse 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact tags shouldn't have been placed, as they question the usage of the term British Isles & rightly/wrongly damages NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Forgive me, I mis-read a name on that log. Multitasking reading this and watching CSI isn't a good idea. Wesley☀Mouse 21:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest Wesley Mouse that you strike that above just in case someone gets the wrong idea. Bjmullan (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did say "forgive me" very politely, is that not good enough? Wesley☀Mouse 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Strike them please. Simple enough request and simple to do. Bjmullan (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone at admin level please do that on my behalf - I'm not overly familiar how to implement strike-through, as I personally prefer to write statements of retraction rather than make a page look untidy with lines running across it. Thank You in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue which may require RevDel

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

---

Hi, I asked on IRC #wikipedia-en-revdel, but the Admins there were unsure whether these edits required RevDel and suggested I post here.

[80] [81]

What do you think? Thank you.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Screw RevDel; take it to Oversight. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel'd. Drmies (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Movie piracy website

I posted a movie piracy website's videos that I found on 10 articles at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The website is Stagevu and I'm not sure that was the best place for a website that has illegal uploads. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock of 109.155.160.0/19

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

---

Could somebody take a look at this rangeblock and see if it is appropriate? This range is part of a much larger range of BT addresses, so the block (3 months!) won't be particularly effective - I've been hit by it twice now, and both times rebooting my router gave me a new address outside the block (this time it is 86.151.*). I suspect by now the original user has a new address and this block is doing nothing but hitting bystanders. Interplanet Janet (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've checkusered it, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Note that it only affects anonymous users - log in and it won't affect you. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know how to get round the block, but that's not the point. The block may have been applied for a good reason, but I don't see how it is possibly serving any purpose. The original blocked user almost certainly has a new dynamic IP address by now, outside of the blocked range. All the block is doing is annoying innocent bystanders who don't know how to get round it. Interplanet Janet (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody will care, it only affects IP users. Hopefully they will just block anon editing fully and be done with their hatred of it before the end of the year. --81.98.51.7 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are unable to use rangeblocks to prevent banned users from editing, then we have no choice but to unban and unblock said banned user, because he will not stop. --MuZemike 03:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Finnish heritage disease

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

 – semi'd for 3 days. --Dianna (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please look at semi-protecting Finnish heritage disease which has been very stable up until today when it has attracted more than 50 , mostly vandal IP edits. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have protected for three days. If the problem persists once protection ends, please list the article at WP:RFPP for another round of protection. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Danjel

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.

---

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

Continual attacking of me, User:Purplebackpack89. This all grew out of a series of school deletion discussions over the past month or two started mostly by Epeefleche, supported from time to time by me, and opposed by Danjel (for diffs, see the WQA thread). In the vast majority of the discussions, mine and Epee's viewpoint won out over Danjel's. On some of them, Danjel called my rationale for deletion or merger "flat-out wrong" and a sign of "imcompetence", and claimed another editor who supported Epee's viewpoint, Fmph, was trolling (again, diffs at the WQA thread). He then brought up my viewpoint as an aside in threads I hadn't even commented in, always in a negative light. I asked him to stop doing this. He responded by rolling back my edits, claiming they were vandalism (which is probably misuse of either rollback or Twinkle). He also started a ridiculous thread on my talk page where he again accused me of being wrong/incompetent, and asked me to abide by BEFORE (an always-optional thing) on articles I hadn't nominated. As a result of his continual attack, on the grounds that regardless of whether someone's right or wrong (and I'm probably right), it's still not right to attack someone as fervently and often as he had, brought him to WQA. Instead of commenting on the issue of whether or not it's right to attack someone so much, he continued to call me "flat-out wrong", while failing to address the issue of his civility. That's getting nowhere (and no uninvolved party has commented), so I brought it here. I ask that this be stopped, perhaps by blocking Danjel, forcing him into mentorship, or topic-banning him from school-related articles and AfD discussions. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing what's entirely wrong here. First of all, why does this need to come to ANI? There seems to be an on-going thread at Wikiquette assistance. Most people there seem to disagree with your calls for action against Danjel. Also, I don't follow the logic that saying that your ideas are wrong, in his opinion, constitute a personal attack. only (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Most"? The three other people who commented are either Danjel himself or two people who are heavily involved in the same WikiProject as him. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your ignorance is showing, I'm not part of the same WikiProject and the other editor whom also commented (who also commented in this AN/I thread) infact has voted to delete rather then keep, so what do you have to say now? Bidgee (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Purplebackpack89, you're on a mission to silence someone from the opposition, by having Danjel blocked or topic banned would mean your AfD's would be more successful then they currently are. I'm sorry but I can understand why Danjel may/may not have called you a few names and your harrasment towards him (on his talk page and other "forums", such as WQA and ANI) isn't helping. Stating someone is "flat-out wrong" and "imcompetence" isn't a personal attack. Bidgee (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since I closed some of those discussions/!voted I am semi involved. I do not think that Danjel is in the right here. Anyone can nominate any article for AFD. There is no cap on the number of articles that can be nominated, in theory. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Purplebackpack, we ran into each other a few times before, including at some of those school AfDs. For the record, I voted right along with deletionist Epeefleche there and thus with you as well; since, then, we are on the same side of the bottomless divide, I think I can tell you what's up without being accused of having my "politics" influence my objectivity. [Yes, the hoops we have to jump through here.]

  Purplebackpack, knock it off. Nothing good can come of this. That use of rollback you referred to above, that's in the editor's own user space, where it's generally allowed. As for this civility dispute--if I read it correctly (and that WQA thread), you're upset that someone says you're wrong. Now, and I hope you'll pardon my French, but I don't give a flying fuck in how many forums and in how many ways they say you're wrong, and I don't understand why you should care. Esp. given that all those AfDs that I participated in ended as "delete" or "merge", what's your problem?

  On the other hand, the spurious opening of threads at ANI, just when we're trying to clean this place up a little bit, that's disruptive. Or, you didn't get your way at WQA so you're trying it here? That's forum shopping.

  In short, there's nothing actionable here, and this thread is spurious. If your feelings are hurt because someone says you're wrong, well, then, really, I have no advice to give you. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle is still being abused to claim that something is vandalism when it ain't. And I really haven't been following the ANI deletion drama, so you can't blame me for using ANI the way loads of other users have in the past. I see no reason why someone gets to call me wrong fervently and in the wrong and gets away with it. If I were to do that, people would call for me to be indef blocked Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[ec] That's a different matter. I will be glad to look into that. Give me some diffs to look at--but it better be worth it. As for the rest of your complaint: NO ONE will be blocked or banned or topic-banned or reprimanded for saying someone else is wrong. Clear? Drmies (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Who cares, you were harrassing him on his talk page and he told you not to comment there, but you have continued to hound him. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bidgee, if you have nothing productive to offer, go edit some article. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WOW, is that a threat? I suggest you see the comment left on your talk page as to why I stated "Who cares", if you have a problem with that then it is your problem not mine. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No threat, just impatience. See my reply to your comment on my talk page. Recap: alleged misuse of rollback is unfounded. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I take that as an indirect threat (since you're an Admin). When someone makes an unfounded allegations when the editor isn't around to defend themselves, I will prove it wrong and in this case I have with the diffs provided. Bidgee (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Cenima

Cenima (talk · contribs)

Small stuff: user has deleted an apparently valid article and co-opted it to create another, unsourced piece. I don't know how to undo without bollixing things up, and would appreciate other eyes on this. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Meiporul Nayanar and Nathaman Udayar split. I'm about to leave a note on this editor's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note left. And thank you for informing us of this issue. If you need anything further, do feel free to drop a message on my talk page. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Special:Contributions/67.164.66.33

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

---

Hi, I have reverted a few but it may need some more action as the IP appears to have done disruptive edits that went undetected some time. Richiez (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They don't appear to have edited in 3 weeks ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here for an administrator to do: edits are old, and undoing them, if they are not productive, does not require any special tools (besides a keyboard, probably). Well, one thing: Richiez, please don't go around telling people that edits such as this are going to get them blocked: it's not vandalism, for instance, unless they are doing precisely this kind of thing all over the place. They're not, from the diffs I looked at. I'm not saying that the editor was improving the project, but come on now--and an ANI thread is not necessary in the first place; AIV will do if there is vandalism. I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Another external link to Beatles music

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

---

There have been previous discussions here regarding external links to copyrighted Beatles music. In this edit 78.106.83.130 added a link to [http://www.archive.org/details/NoReply], which appears to have copyrighted Beatles music. I reverted the edit, but it was restored by 176.15.136.73, stating "Vandalism: Internet Archive can not contain illegal material - this is impossible". What is the appropriate next step? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert again and issue a warning to the IP, then take the link to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I should assume good faith instead of assuming these IP addresses are related to those who added inappropriate external links in the past. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP editor has had our copyright policy explained to him/her over and over and over and over again and still refuses to accept it. The IP may come from a country where flouting copyright law is a way to stick it to The Man, but that's irrelevant: s/he is not ignorant of policy but deliberately acting in contravention of policy. We don't assume good faith indefinitely, not when faced with evidence that an editor knows s/he's contravening policy and does not care. --NellieBly (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nellie. I don't see much reason for good faith here--unless it's that the IP only added one of those links instead of dozens. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the IP in question is one of a series used over time by some guy in Russia who won't listen to repeated assertions that these are copyright violations. I thought they were going to set up some kind of edit filter, but maybe the Russian guy figured out a way around it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Baseball Bugs' concern; this is not a complete newcomer, and he has been told repeatedly to stop this for quite some time, now. See his various discussions on Jimbo's talk page over the past month:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 95#Request to make Warning
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#CULTURE OF THE BEATLES UNDER THREAT
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#APPEAL TO THE PROFESSIONAL (COPY)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 93#About man, who makes lobby for EMI or Apple Corps.

His response to my last (umpteenth) attempt to tell him to stop, which has failed miserably. Now, I understand there is some sort of a language barrier, as English is not his first language, but that still does not excuse one from blatantly and freely ignoring everybody else's concerns. --MuZemike 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since at least November 21, when 128.68.192.115 (talk · contribs) started posting this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we were supposed to have a filter. MuZemike, that's the same guy, judging from grammar and style, if memory serves me right. What can a rangeblock do in this case? Bugs, can you dig up the last ANI thread? (While I crawl in bed with Thomas Mann?) Drmies (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, make a list and post it to the meta spam blacklist (this needs to go there if this is a copyright violation - other mediawikis should also not be able to link to this stuff then). That should deter this quite a bit. I wonder why the original website does not exist anymore, and why this is only available from the archive - that already should give a hint that this is a copyright violation.

Even besides the copyright problem, I wonder whether these are external links in the spirit of WP:EL (they are certainly not 'must have' type of links, and except for the copyright violation they are also not really 'must never have' type of links), and when questioned, this should go onto the talkpage for further discussion. Alternatively, we could use User:XLinkBot to bash some sense in this - hard override and overruling of standard warning practice for this specific set of links. But I would say:  Defer to Global blacklist (you'll have to collect all the links, if you give me a handful of the IPs who spammed this to mainspace for this, COIBot may be able to help in collecting the links from the last couple of weeks). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And Special:AbuseFilter/443 - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I became aware of this situation in late November, due to having some Beatles songs on my watchlist. It's pretty clear that rangeblock is not a practical solution, and it doesn't seem like the filter is working either. Semi-protecting all the Beatles articles also seems impractical and overkill. Blacklisting the URL seems like the best solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, there are a couple of different sections in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, from this past November. In the first, it is alleged that these IP's are socks of Ron Halls (talk · contribs), who in turn is a sock of John Torn (talk · contribs). In the second, various possible solutions are discussed. I originated a section in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728 on this same subject. A lengthy discussion ensues, and reasons are given as to why a URL block won't work. Since I have no access to edit filters, I can't say what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're going to blacklist the URL, make it the exact URL - archive.org itself is used quite a bit (or it used to be). It would probably be best to tell archive.org that someone is uploading copyrighted material to their archive - they'll delete obvious infringements fairly quickly. Black Kite (t) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can block it on meta, but I indeed would need specific urls - \barchive\.org\/details\/NoReply\b seems to be one of them, I guess the others have other terms in stead of NoReply, so \barchive\.org\/details\/(?:NoReply|<Term2>|<Term3>|<etc.>)\b will do the trick on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• As one who has explained the situation to the editor multiple times on OTRSN and on my talk page, I assert a positive DUCK test. Best we can hope for is RBI and DENY the editor any attention. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and blacklisted the one added by the editor in this thread, please ping me if there are more. Hasteur, RBI may here just give more frustration, some people don't do things for the kick, they simply persist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The link has returned to No Reply (song) via this edit by [Special:Contributions/2.94.173.212|2.94.173.212], who accused me of a "long pattern vandalism and war of edits" [sic]. GoingBatty (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's probably a good idea to tell archive.org. It's unlikely they want this content even with its 'impressive' list of UN treaties and conventions. IIRC someone had planned to contact them. Does anyone know if anything happened with that. Edit: I see it was User:NellieBly who said they intended to contact archive.org. P.S. [82] shows there's a lot of this on archive.org. If they expand to other articles, it looks like there's a lot of possible targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They do get those reports all the time and they act on them. They don't have 1000's of admins online 24/7 like Wikipedia does, so it may take them a little longer than we're used to here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

749 currently active admins out of barely 1,500. Many of them work odd volunteer hours and don't deal with reports to begin with. Doc talk 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: With that article being monitored, other articles are now also having the link added. I was glancing through this link, and spotted this edit. adding archive.org/details/PleaseMisterPostman to the article Please Mr. Postman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bl'd this link as well. Any others? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly this is what I expected to happen as mentioned above. Given the number of songs available on archive.org I'm guessing just about every Beatles song is a potential target. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So? Every link that gets blacklisted is one that they can not use anymore. Every IP you block will result in a new IP being used. That, or even rangeblocking will have significant collateral damage. Blacklisting the specific archive links is taking them out one-by-one, and it will get more and more annoying for them to find yet another link to add (one that is not blacklisted). And this can be done pre-emptively, has no collateral damage, and I hear that archive.org is already starting to remove the links. The other option is to write a proper edit-filter, but I am afraid that for that to function properly one would also need to know all the links, otherwise an innocent IP out of the range using a valid archive.org link would also be blocked. XLinkBot would have a similar problem, I could Whack-A-Mole using that bot as well, but then still, I would also whack the innocent editor adding an innocent url. IMHO, the only real solution is RmBI - Revert-metaBlacklist-Ignore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that this was as I feared above. And given that there appears to be 328 different songs [83] as I showed above (well I didn't note the number but it was 7 pages), that's a lot of possible targets. (In case it wasn't clear from the indenting, note that my response was to Barek not to you.) If this is done preemptively, that would be great but I presume this hadn't been done at the time of my comment since one still got thru as demonstrated by Barek. Archive.org does seem to have removed the stuff from November, as I noted below but I don't know how long it took and the 328 songs still seem to be there. (If this person keeps abusing archive.org I presume they'll start to look in to other ways of stopping it but in the mean time it's fairly annoying.)

Note that even when the stuff is removed, the links remain junking up our articles. And while these probably could be detected and even automatically by a dead link bot, this isn't done yet. (And would need to be done carefully particularly since archive.org is fairly flakeky and often has strange problems.) I didn't mention numbers below but I found 3 from November (which as I said the songs themselves were no longer available) in my searches, which I think was all although it took me about 1-2 hours to be fairly sure. (Although to be fair, I actually found all the extant links in about 20-30 minutes, it was only checking there wasn't anything else that took the rest of the time.)

P.S. I do agree there's no easy solution. For example as I found in my search, there are plenty of legit archive.org external links for music stuff, as they host recordings from performances where they have the performer/s permission.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to simply block each IP sock after a single instance of re-adding any of the offending links rather than go through a more lengthy process of warnings? Sure it's whack-a-mole, but I've had some success with persistent vandals using this approach. In the long run, the effort to breakt he rules is much greater than the effort to undo the damage and block an IP. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's already the process being used by myself and others. I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980 be added to whenever another IP is added to act as a repository of sorts. In addition... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of stuff mostly from November that was already deleted on archive.org (so they are taking action). The only recent on I came across was [84]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion on AN

A related ban discussion is here. Nobody Ent 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban has been instated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Via this link, I spotted the user on a new target at Across the Universe‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per the community ban, I've blocked both IPs involved; and due to their habit of returning to the same target article, I've also applied a short term protection in order to discourage their disruption of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Problems with Militant atheism and WikiProject Conservatism

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.

---

Militant atheism, orginally an article and now a redirect currently up for discussion at AfD, has had a muddled history. The original article, a fairly extreme example of POV-pushing, was transferred by Anupam to conservapedia, when it became a disambiguation page en.wikipedia. The page on conservapedia [85][86] makes it clear what the aims of Anupam and his friends were. A prominent picture of Joseph Stalin starts an article where various eminent academics in the group New Atheism are discussed in derogatory terms. Before being changed to a redirect, a final vestige of the borderline BLP violation was visible on the disambiguation page for Militant Atheism where New Atheism was listed. Jweiss11, a long term user with over 100,000 edits and a block-free record, noticed these final vestiges of the conservapedia article on the disambiguation page and removed the entry repeatedly as a BLP violation. Other users have subsequently commented that he had not misread the history of that page. The problem has now apparently been resolved by placing the disambiguation at a higher level (Atheism (disambiguation) and/or changing the target of the redirect. Lionelt was militating for a block[87] and eventually Fastily summarily blocked Jweiss11. That block has subsequently been upheld by several administrators. However, there has been no explanation on WP:AN3 or any statement by Fastily about why it was not a borderline BLP violation. Stephan Schulz had already commented there, and, as has happened in the past, Fastily gave no account of why he had decided there was no BLP violation in making the block. Can he please try to improve his communication skills if he intends to continue being an administrator? In this case the block occurred after a general agreement that the disambiguation page was indeed non-neutral and a borderline BLP violation. Bearing in mind the article that Anupam and his cohorts wished to have on wikipedia was an article emblazened with the image of Joseph Stalin in the lede, this muddled set of events neverthless points to the problematic nature of WikiProject Conservatism. In this case it seems to function as "dial a WP:TAGTEAM". Bearing in mind that, after other users agreed that there was some form of borderline BLP violation, the article has disappeared into thin air as a redirect listed for deletion, the circumstances of the block remain cloudy. However the role of WikiProject Conservatism, which has been criticized on previous occasions, does seem problematic. Any kind of organized agenda-driven activism is problematic on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The sole purpose of WikiProject Conservatism is to provide an area where editors can improve Conservatism-related articles. In fact many of the members are self-described liberals. Just look at the talk page. Every initiative of this project is thoroughly discussed and analyzed. Every member of this project is subject to intense scrutiny. With so many eyes on this group of editors it is ludicrous to suggest that there is an intentional agenda to subvert Wikipedia policies. There has been no tag-teaming, no vote-stacking, no canvassing. Correction: there was a single incident of canvassing identified. The post was immediately deleted. This project has been in existence for 1 year. It's record is exemplary. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, what does Militant atheism have to do with WikiProject Conservatism? Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, in early Summer of last year Anupam placed several banners on MA, including WPConservatism. 5 months ago it was decided at ANI to remove the banner. At the time, I was the only member of WPConservatism involved at Militant Atheism. One member from a WikiProject hardly justifies the accusation of "organized agenda-driven activism." – Lionel ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was labelled as part of WikiProject Conservatism in this edit[88] by Anupam, presumably as some kind of call to arms. Once it is listed on that WikiProject page, it will attract the usual cohort of "agenda-driven" editors. Lionelt appeared on the page shortly afterwards, so the method appears to work quite effectively. NYyankees51 also appeared there. Perhaps Lionelt will explain why that tagging was appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing overlap between WIkiProject Conservatism and Wikiproject Christianity - I hope this isn't the reason for people showing up for the first time at a religious article to change dating eras from BCE to BC, whatever their reason. Lionel, are you aware that WP:ERA no longer gives priority to the original dating style? But hopefully that's just a coincidence as the other editor that was also showing up at articles for the first time recently & also presumably unaware of the WP:ERA change isn't a member of either project and we won't see project members doing this sort of thing. I did look through the membership and it seems as most of those describing themselves as 'liberals' are classical liberals rather than 'liberals' as in 'liberals vs conservatives'. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is something I have noticed. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)oll

Um -- I find all of the "bitchiness" about "conservapedia" to be absolutely irrelevant to any rationale for what should be done on Wikipedia. Further, I find referring to any Wikipedia project as "Dial a Tagteam" to be abhorrent on any noticeboard whatsoever on Wikipedia. Lastly the contention that any overlap between projects on Wikipedia is somehow "evil" is absurd. Wikipedia is supposed to function as more than a puerile name-calling social network, folks! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No one used the word 'evil', and I agree it would be inappropriate if they did. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. What, specifically, is wanted from administrators?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of response or explanation from Fastily possibly? Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you click the wrong link and think you were at User talk:Fastily...? Guess not since you did notify him/her of this post at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Um, I see you haven't notified him either, and as I don't know if Matahsci's been watching since he posted, I have. And I didn't notice the first edit conflict, and have had another, but I wrote this shortly after the post above. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also you may want to read WP:3RR or WP:BLP. 3RR states "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The 3RR exemption is an important part of policy I've supported and possibly even used myself, but it also needs to be used with care. In other words, it's probably not a good idea to violate 3RR if it's only a borderline violation since the admin who reviews your case may not agree on which side of the border it falls. I know you're the one calling it that, not the person who violated 3RR. But since you're the one here and you say it's only a borderline violation I think it suggests you already have your explaination. (Of course you don't need ANI to tell you this, I'm not even an admin.) Edit: I see you've already been told more or less the same thing at WP:AN3 by others. In fact, StS who you quoted above also said it was a borderline violation. So your request is even more confusing. Again, if you want a response from Fastily, the best method would have been to ask them directly although I'm not clear why you need it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was in fact taken to WP:BLPN [89] but I agree that it should have been done immediately, as soon as the problem was identified. The reporting at BLPN is in fact partially why the AfD was started and the problem moved towards a satisfactory resolution (or so it seems). Lionelt gave a view of consensus on TaLk:Militant atheism which in retrospect does not seem at all accurate.[90] I also find the edit summary here not helpful.[91] Apart from the block, Jweiss11 accurately pinpointed a problem which seems to have been resolved once he brought the problem to the attention of a wider group of editors on BLPN. Lionelt's edit above and other actions appeared to be an attempt to silence Jweiss11. Although Lionelt acted within the letter of the law on wikipedia, his edits and those of Anupam have not been helpful. In my experience (image discussions for example) Fastily has never been particularly responsive. (I don't by the way edit articles like this. The only editing I do that touches that of Lionelt has been in jointly watching articles on Seventh-day adventist higher educational institutes that have been edited disruptively by an editor who is now community banned.) Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, trying to link "Militant atheism" (a severely critical or derogatory term) with "New Atheism" (which refers to a small group of writers) is flat out inappropriate. If it's not a BLP violation, it's still blatant POV pushing and Jweiss was certainly in the right to try to clarify that it's a derogatory term.
• Despite my best efforts to AGF, I simply can't fathom how Anupam is a neutral party here, especially given his attempts to link this article with religious, conservative, and theological Wikiprojects. While he claims that the article isn't intended to advance a viewpoint (something I find questionable in itself, considering that's exactly what Conservapedia does), it apparently doesn't do too good of a job at neutrality. An anti-atheist Conservapedia administrator made it article of the month for December, where it was featured on the main page, and commended him for "doing [his] part to continue the trend of the decline of global atheism in terms of its adherents".[92] How he's gotten away with this for so long without a block or topic ban is beyond me.
• Although Jweiss's block was not bad, the edit warring on that page was widespread and chronic and a single block, rather than page protection, was probably not the best option. Admins far too often ignore non-3RR edit warring while only taking action for 3RR, which isn't helpful in the least.
• Fastily (who I'm generally quick to defend) should indeed at least explain why he chose to act on the 3RR vio and nothing else. Swarm ^X 19:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to say about the block of Jweiss11, but the linked diffs of Anupam on Conservapedia make me cringe. His adding 130kb of POV/SYNTH crap to Conservapedia, the same text that we removed from Wikipedia after a very difficult discussion, is just awful. This destroys any good faith that Anupam may have built up at Wikipedia. On a positive note, it does help to make Conservapedia more laughable than it was before. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are four actions that need to be taken here:

1. A topic ban of some sort, at least, for Anupam.
2. An investigation into whether Fastily has conducted himself in a manner that is unbecoming of an administrator.
3. An investigation into WikiProject Conservatism's purpose, usefulness, and appropiateness. It's existence as a WikiProject, while "Liberalism" and other political ideologies exist merely as task forces within WikiProject Politics is a problem, one that virtually guarantees an ongoing emergence of NPOV issues.
4. Drafting of a better clarification on the BLP exemption to the 3RR.

Jweiss11 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments to be found on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/About us could certainly look like declarations of battleground mentality and biased editing (for example the following: "The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back. Remember - WP:NOTTRUTH.", "Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes.", "I am interested in working on the right wing politics article, as I believe it is biased from a left wing perspective.", ""To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before"). --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing issues of this nature should be discussed on WP:RFC... Not here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Conduct and communication by administrator Fastily in explaining a particular block

The original request contained the plaint, "Fastily gave no account of why he had decided there was no BLP violation in making the block. Can he please try to improve his communication skills if he intends to continue being an administrator?" This is a request for action, apposite to this page as it directly arises from the incident. Could editors restrict themselves here to a discussion of this incident involving an administrator. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply observed a 3RR violation and acted upon it, nothing more. If that block was so egregious, it would have been overturned by at least one of 6 reviewing administrators long ago. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not a simple 3RR violation, since technically no 4 reverts fell within 24 hours (to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used). Several issues raised at AN3, on the article talk page and on BLPN were not taken into account: administrators have subsequently drawn attention to them here. In addition during the block the article transformed radically into a redirect listed at AfD for discussion. In those circumstances and given the carefully nuanced comments of 3 administrators (Stephan Schulz, Dougweller and Swarm), it seems odd to have treated this as some kind of matter-of-fact black-and-white open-and-shut case which only needs to be explained through mechanized templates. As Swarm mentioned, one of the editors involved on the article—not the one you blocked—could well be topic-banned at some future date. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

to count 3RR. edits at 7:11 on 02/10 and 02/11 have to be used - errr, that's 24 hours apart. And WP:3RR says that any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that acting upon perceived violations requires a minimum amount of due diligence and good judgment so as to avoid the shoot first and ask questions later attitude that is destroying this community. Anupam (talk · contribs) had been previously warned about edit warring on militant atheism in September 2011.[93] Why did you not block him as well? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, your block on me was completely unwarranted. That five reviewing admins didn't overturn it probably speaks more the reticence of any admin to cross another, rather than any commitment to justice. Frankly, this was a pathetic display by all of you. What happened is that you were all gamed by a Christian conservative effort to subvert Wikipedia. Either you were not perceptive enough to see it, or were in on it. Either way, you are most likely unfit for adminship. The same may be true about some or all of other admins who reviewed this case. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When six people decide to block you/let an existing block in place, it is more then likely that the block was warrented. Shouting, roaring and threatening is not very helpful to convince other people you are a good and innocent boy. If if you really want to file a formal complaint, be aware of the boomerang. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in this case. And your flimsy analysis of likelihoods isn't helpful as is just perpetuates the unjust positive feedback system that got us here. The point is not whether I am "innocent and good". My long record of constructive editing and project leadership speaks for itself. These issue here is the failure of those in power to discern true threats and act accordingly. Formal complaints will indeed be filed. What you, Night of the Big Wind, need to do is quit with the condescension, mischaracterization of my tone, and thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, and figure out what you are going to do to help rectify this situation and protect Wikipedia from those who have harmed it thus far and bode to do more harm if left unchecked. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your position, having been there myself, so I know what you're going through. But it is best to respect DefendEachOther, and let other editors speak up for you. Getting down into the dirty mud puddle isn't helping. I'm neither a Christian nor a conservative, but I think it is both wrong and unfair to attack them as a group. It's no different than what they are doing. Plus, you're giving these editors the false impression that they actually represent Christians and conservatives. Don't do that! We're human and we're individuals first, and we all share those two things in common. Treat users as thinking and feeling individuals, not as spokespeople for groups or memes. Take a step back from this and let others defend you. Edit warring is bad no matter who does it, and you can't escape from this conclusion. In the future, rely more on teamwork and communication. Don't edit while angry, and when you're calm, address arguments not editors. Strategize about your next move and reflect on your mistakes. Make an effort to talk and negotiate with those across the aisle and see if you can find common ground. This isn't a battlefield, it's a meeting place of minds. Let's use them. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless if Jweiss11 had adopted a different more contrite tone in his unblock requests, he would have been unblocked early, possibly even after the first request. A minimal kind of explanation posted in a timely way, beyond templated messages, would have been helpful in complex situations like this one. Lionelt had misrepresented consensus on the talk page and the editing of Jweiss11 at AN3, as the edit summaries indicate as well as the subsequent history of the article. The real underlying problem that has emerged here is the editing of Anupam. That has been acknowledged here and elsewhere by several administrators. Jweiss11 was not in fact editing against consensus: apart from Lionelt and Anupam, the other editor [94] who suddenly appeared out of the blue was editing the article for the first time and not in a neutral way. He has not participated in the AfD or commented since.

The summing up by Fifelfoo, which I assume is part of an attempt to create a "new look, new feel" ANI, was probably a little premature and seemed to be forcing various issues. One of the possible uses of ANI is to bring problematic incidents, which can be complex, to the attention of a wider set of users. In truth I don't think that the conduct of either Jweiss11 or Fastily is really an issue here. Instead the issues are those mentioned in the title of the thread which gradually unravelled thanks to the comments of administrators and other editors here and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder about IPs turning up out of the blue. It's so unlikely as to be virtually impossible that a new anonymous editor suddenly turns up by coincidence and does that. And I agree that Jweiss11 didn't handle his unblock request well. I endorse the comments just above mine by Veriditas and Mathsci. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not an IP actually. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly news that a new editor appears when there is resistance to edits that anupam wants to push through on this topic. It's simply part of how these articles work. How about an SPI? bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The "new arrival"" here was Trödel, an administrator ... and he edit-warred. Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I thought I read something about an IP. I've notified Trödel by the way, only fair. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption by User:JamieRothery

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

---

User:jamieRothery has continued to show the competence required to edit Wikipedia. After tagging several of his/her pages for deletion, I got this message. Although per WP:OWNTALK it is allowed, they keep removing talk page content from their talk page and don't actually acknowledge the messages. Xe then proceeds to make a troll AIV report reporting me for "removing pages" when I was actually tagging the pages for speedy deletion which were then were proceeded to be deleted by admins.

I wonder if this is showing a lack of competence required to edit Wikipedia? You know, User:Spidey665 was blocked indefinitely for no less than this. --Bmusician 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And then removed my ANI notice. I don't think this user cares if action is take on their account. --Bmusician 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is lying about tagging serval of my pages since i never created as many as 7. I reported the user because the user was abousing the the system of tagging pages for deletion. Now he is reporting me out of spite. I removed the talk message as they were abousive and I did aknowlage them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs)

[[JamieRothery (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)]]

No, the notifications were not abusive. They were tagged under speedy deletion and where did I say you created as many as seven? Tell me, WHY did I abuse the system of tagging pages for deletion? And how is that vandalism? Your very comment is clearly a lack of competence. --Bmusician 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You first flagged for delteion with out any reasons so when i tried to recreate the page with more information to please you really didn't know exactly what it needed, you then flagged it again before i had chance to comeplete it. Since then I havent tried to create a page from scrach because wiki isn't friendly to new users and i plan to learn more first before. but you wont leave me alone since, even after i asked you to stop contacting me the issue is beyond closed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieRothery (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusing me of doing things I have not done. "With out any reasons"? I had a reason, you just removed my message without reading it and then claim that I had tagged "without a reason". If you have no time to finish it you're best off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. I try to be always friendly to new users, but not when messages like this show up on my talk page. --Bmusician 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given I have repeated this about ten million times, there's no use repeating this over and over. --Bmusician 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see 4 deleted pages that were created by JR: Spirit of Discovery, CTA Developments, and Red Rat Software was created twice and deleted twice. Bmusician should already know that removal of a talkpage post is tacit acknowledgement that it has been read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that a removal of a talk page post is tacit acknoweledgement that is has been read, as this shows, but this user doesn't seem to have acknowledged it - accused me of tagging pages for "no reason" when I actually tagged it under A1 and A7. Despite my attempts to tell them my intention, xe constantly ignore me and continues to accuse me of doing things that I have not done. --Bmusician 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying, is that we have a fairly new user, who really does not understand the deletion process, and quite possibly does not understand the basic requirements for articles. They get a little pissed off at "their" articles being tagged for deletion, and get a little snuffy with you. Now you think that calling them "incompetent" is going to help to remove the challenges between the two of you? At a maximum, we have a WP:WQA situation, perhaps needs for some degree of mentoring for a fairly new editor. Calling for a block is pretty premature (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with with Bwilkins. Part of supervising new pages is assisting and developing new editors. Bmusician may need to further develop their skills in the area of interaction with newer editors. They may wish to rethink their attitude towards spam-in-a-can messages and talk page interaction ("And could you please sign your posts with ~~~~??? I don't tolerate comments which are not signed!") Fifelfoo (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Typical. The person who's actually trying to keep Wikipedia up to a useful level is the one being attacked. Way to keep veteran editors around, guys. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I called them "incompetent" because of this and this. "With out a reason" is false, xe removes their talk page messages without reason and then accuses me of doing things I have not them. I'm not calling for a block, but I am asking if this behavior is unacceptable. I was born with a temper, and I am extremely impatient, especially with new editors who are not willing to learn. --Bmusician 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you got an answer here. There is nothing blockable as of yet. A temper is not a good thing to have in a collaborative environment. As for Jamie Rothery, well, continued disruption will end up badly anyway, with or without an ANI thread. Mark of the Beast, dragging a new editor off to ANI isn't a great thing to do--you have to acknowledge that much. Sure, going to AIV wasn't a great idea, but I don't think they'll be doing that again. Can we move on? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The temper thing is something I have been trying to fix for ten years...and I know it's never good in a collaborative environment. I get especially annoyed when someone sends me to AIV in bad faith - let's just move on. I'm keeping an eye on them. --Bmusician 07:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Stavgard

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.

---

Stavgard (talk · contribs) is going crazy creating huge, unsourced, unformatted, block-of-text articles. I've asked them to please stop and source and format, but they are continuing. I'm worried that these huge blocks of text are copyright violations, but I can't find them in English language texts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have deleted a couple as duplicates of existing topics; the rest will have to be sent to AFD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I took one look at his most recent "effort" (regarding Gotland) and my eyes started to bleed. I'm in favor of applying G1... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There's Gutagård as well.This edit also contains a URL to a website which has his username in it, likely original research I would say. The website appears to be Russian in origin so I have left Россия является вашим родным языком? on the user's webpage, which is (I think) the right way to ask if Russian is his first language. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, you're such a tender soul. You must have led a sheltered life here. Be glad that our Scandinavian archaeoastronomist hasn't discovered the Old Testament link yet (which begs to be added to Tachash). I see that all of them have pretty much been dealt with: good work, all. If author starts recreating and/or undoing the redirects, I guess we need to revisit this? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been rather sheltered, yes. ;) And now he's made Astronomical calendars in Gotland. And isn't answering on his talk page. At all. Methinks a block per WP:IDHT might be in order soon... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Still isn't responding on talk page, but on the other hand hasn't made any new edits for over 24 hours. We may need to just watch and wait...Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Started again this morning with this among other edits. I have blocked for 12 hours and left a message on his talk page to try and get a response. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now responding on talk page - discussing what constitutes a reliable source etc. Will leave this open for a few hours until we see where this goes. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, canvassing, editwar by IP sock

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.

No admin action forthcoming and the edit war is now stale. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved from WP:AN3:

Chagai-I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pokhran-II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
PNS Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.161.31.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Other IP: 122.161.78.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• 5th revert: [99]
• 6th revert: [100]
• 7th revert: [101]
• 8th revert: [102]

Warned [103]

Attempt to discuss content returned with more and blatant personal attacks [104] + warned before on user talk.

Comments: User hoping IP to add content over multiple articles, has already been specified as a sock by another experienced user on the first IP.[105]. The IP has further made canvassing attempts [106] [107] containing personal attacks [108] [109] vandalism accusations in edit summaries. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User notified. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing that meets the definition of WP:CANVASS, nor do I see anything that meets WP:NPA. The WP:TE across a couple of articles, yes ... but ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a 'troll'... certainly personal attacks. "plz visit that page" is direct canvassing with the section header as article title. This is unambiguous. Although I have some suspicion that this might be a sock of a user whose words the IP is using, but for now I'll keep it to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How does asking a single editor to visit a page meet the definition of canvassing? Canvassing is the wide-range posting to editors who may be sympathetic to a specific point of view. Asking one editor is not canvassing. The other comments may be worthy of WP:WQA, but do not appear as NPA worth any blocks. Look, when I declined your 3RR notification, I suggested you re-think and take this to appropriate noticeboards, expecting you to provide focus and proper "evidence". You decided not to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't mean asking editors on their talk pages to get involved in content dispute is right. I've provided diffs above for evidence. This incident is not in a vacuum, there's been a lot of hounding recently. DS here was recently blocked for following my edits, I'm surprised that he followed them here again. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking one editor who already has a history related topics to provide input is not considered canvassing. Stop suggesting that it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remember that one then... but this was certainly not asking for input. These were rude remarks, and certainly deliberate. I'm sorry, but if such issues go unactioned, this kind of activity will surely be encouraged. This has been happening over and over. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If that user is me then, sorry, but I have no history at all in the subject area; nor can I recall any past involvement with the protagonists - very weird, but not canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Atleast we have some contradictions to Bwilkins's statements then who seems to be prejudiced. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you dare refer to me as "prejudiced", using any attempting possible meaning of the word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments again. You should know better than that. You reaction to the report was just that. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If I have removed any of your comments, it was clearly not intentional - as you can see from my edit-summaries, they pretty much all say "ec" for edit-conflict. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The diff bomb above are all on different articles, this was rightly rejected at the edit warring board and should be rejected here. Especially as the IP is correct. Which I have pointed out to TG here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute discussion. It is obvious that these are multiple articles (which I already mentioned in my report). You don't need to get involved in this report as you got involved from my contribution history (for which you were blocked two-three days ago). Let the administrators handle this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI and AN3 are on my watchlists, I have often commented on AN£ reports. I have not looked in your contributions history and I would thank you not to make assumptions and present them as facts again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - for reasons that I cannot fathom, this dispute hit my talk page a few hours ago, here. I have no idea why it did so but there is a bit of name-calling going on. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why I made this report since BWilkins said it did not fall in editwar category. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

Ok TopGun, now that you know this is not edit-warring, not canvassing, and we have some minor non-blockable incivility, plus due to the nature of dynamic IP's, this does not even appear to meet a violation of WP:SOCK, what exactly are you trying to achieve here, and can you please providing supporting documentation related to it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If that kind of incivility is considered minor, in short suggesting that it is unblockable and the IP can continue to do that. This is what I was talking about. A previous report of exact same nature with the user using the same words. anyway... if you do not consider such remarks as personal attacks, I guess if I use such terms in return you'll be fine with such? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what you should do is rise above it. We are not a school playground. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And that was a rhetorical question. These attacks are persistent, and by different socks. I've provided my evidence. If no action is to be taken this should be closed instead. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, I think you provided a link to a situation that proves my point, and Sitush's above. You have provided two acts of purported violations of NPA, and state that they occur in edit-summaries. For example:

• "you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki" (from here

Where's the blockable WP:NPA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've provided diffs and quotes (and this is not the sole quote.. it is the least incivil of those). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so this one:

* "What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature" (here).

... and the NPA is where? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I quoted before and I'll quote again, "Vandalism & propaganda accusations, labeling me with "the most infamous user on wiki" & "edit-war-mongering nature", calling me a "troll""... these are personal attacks. Many of these are just mentioned in the above quote you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They are uncivil but not on the scale of the attacks that I frequently get, for example (various sexual acts involving my mother and dogs, etc). The latter are over the line; your examples are not, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but ""the most infamous user on wiki" is a clear WP:NPA violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why's that? Infamy is both positive and negative in its connotations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "most infamous user" is obviously not meant as a compliment, but as a personal attack it falls well short of blockable. Personally, I'd take it as a kind of inverted compliment, and stick the diff on my user page if anybody said it about me. I've looked at all the diffs provided and there's nothing here that's actionable by an admin. You need to grow a thicker skin, I'm afraid, if "attacks" like these are distressing you. The IP editor is obviously inexperienced, with English as very much a second language; nobody is going to regard these remarks as remotely damaging to your reputation; you'd be best off rising above them and ignoring them as Sitush has already suggested. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Pssst ... we said the same thing to TopGun last time he brought something like this here ... he chooses not to listen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be both positive and negative, true - it depends on the context. I agree it's not blockworthy but it would, IMHO, bring forth a "mind WP:CIVIL" note to the writer of the comment, at the very least, if I stumbled across it in my browsing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)>

Exactly ... certainly not ANI material (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Famous" occasionally does double duty as either negative or positive (although it's far more commonly positive), but even after consulting OED, I can't remember ever seeing "infamous" used in a positive sense. No comment on the claims of personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Often used sarcastically ... "Ohhh, the infamous Nyttend, is it?" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(add: "...the infamous Mr. Bond" is a phrase used in at least one 007 movie) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't the admins do a 24 hour page protection on the pages in question?--MONGO 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

vandalism by wiki13

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.

Wiki13 has acknowledged his error; nothing for admins to do at this time. 28bytes (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

a usernames wiki13 keeps deleting my question on the reference science desk with no explanation or justification will administrator please tell him to stop and take action against him --208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Odd that half of this IP's postings are to ANI. That it is from a hosting provider explains it as a proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the OP is also 208.86.2.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has more edits in mainspace. In any event, it appears that Wiki13 (talk · contribs) has been reverting the OP's question on the basis of vandalism, but it looks like a legitimate reference desk question. Singularity42 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 has also just deleted the message I left him on his talk page and attempt to cover up what he's done--208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved. Wiki13 reverted his initial reverts at the Reference Desk, and acknowledged his error in an edit summary on his talk page. This is not a "cover up". I do not believe further admin action is required. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 deleted my question about a half dozen times in a row that is not a mistake that's a deliberate action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.205 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki13 is using Igloo, so this might constitute a misuse of that tool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(After some edit conflicts): I'm not misusing Igloo. It's just sometimes difficult to something is vandalism or not, since English is not my motherlanguage (see also my user page). Also, i don't understand all the policies here on the English Wikipedia. I admit that i made a mistake but that's human being. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be a one-off error, partly caused by not taking into account the IP's edit was to a Reference Desk. A random selection of Wiki13's use of Igloo demonstrates that it is not being misused. If Wiki13 is more careful in the future, especially with regards to Reference Desk questions, I don't see the need for admin action. Singularity42 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you struggle to understand English, and if you do not understand the policies of the English Wikipedia, it would be wise in cases of doubt not to accuse other users of vandalism. It might also be wise to steer clear of tools such as Igloo until you are more familiar with the language and with the policies. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk-pages. It is an acknowledgment of having read it and little else, regardless of whether they or others think it is actually hiding anything. See WP:BLANKING. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 broke the rules and there has to be a punishment for that. I think a 24 hour block would be appropriate and would help him to follow the rules next time. I'm also concerned that someone who says that they don't understand the rules on Wikipedia is allowed to use the igloo tool and is reverting other people's edits.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent, not punish. GiantSnowman 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Igloo is a public tool anyone can use. He has already apologized for the mistake, let it drop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP: I said: I don't understand all the policies here on the English Wikipedia. With this i mean, i know much of the policies here, but not all of them. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are also used to punish if someone vandalizes an article there has to be a punishment for that. And like I said you reverted my edits a half a dozen times that is not a mistake he did it on purpose and if he has so little understanding of the policies on wikipedia he shouldn't be editing at all. He also broke the 3rr rule. There is no way my edit could have been misconstrued as anything other than a legitimate edit.--208.86.2.203 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.2.203 (talk)

"Blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish" is the policy. Don't make this into a WP:BOOMERANG complaint about someone not knowing policy. We only block article-vandals if they are involved in ongoing vandalism--to prevent continuation--not if they noticeably stopped by the time anyone noticed. DMacks (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that if he did this he will not do similar actions in the future--208.86.2.206 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) will

That's a shame. Per the comments he made here and advice he received from others, it remains to be seen whether he has learned. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User Beetstra removing referenced content

Moved to Talk:Granada Reports Nobody Ent 20:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New editor being bitten?

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

 – Accounts were being used for spam. Blocks supported.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Editor's accounts:

• Haroldpolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untioencolonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cloudreviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocking admins:

• Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to reconcile the behavior of these accounts with the blocks that were handed out. I agree with jpgordon's initial block, even though the user was only ever given one single warning: a level 2 spam template, which Haroldpolo did blank. This was followed up with an indef block. Nothing too out of the ordinary here, though perhaps a few more warnings would have been appropriate.

Then the editor started to evade the block, which resulted in a sockpuppetry block. I'm rather baffled by the rationale for these blocks, since the user did not engage in sockpuppetry from what I can see, only block evasion. Sockpuppetry is evidence of bad faith; block evasion can be, but can also be the result of someone who just doesn't understand what happened and wants to try again.

While the editor does not seem very familiar with our policies, this reaction has seemed all around incredibly harsh and bitey. One warning, and then three blocks. I'd feel pretty confused and frustrated with the whole experience too.

I'm asking for comment from other administrators and editors on this matter because I don't feel comfortable unilaterally unblocking any accounts in this case. However, I do think that this editor needs a gentler introduction to editing. --Chris (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with these blocks. I see nothing but spam from all three accounts. If they want to make any edits other than inserting that single website into a bunch of articles, an unblock request could be considered, but right now I see no evidence they're interested in doing anything other than spam. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Look a bit deeper at the timing. User:Haroldpolo -- owner of hostingtecnews.com -- first started inserting links to his website on January 20. He was warned on February 10 that the edits were unacceptable; he blanked the warning and inserted another similar link. He was never blocked specifically for spamming, though. In the meantime, he'd created User:Untioencolonia, which spammed three articles and that was all. Then on Feb 13, he created User:Cloudreviewer, which started the same spamming when noticed by User:Ohnoitsjamie, who surmised that this was all one person. There was never any block evasion, as there was never any block until all three were blocked. I verified that the three accounts were identical with checkuser and changed the existing block on Cloudreviewer to reflect my findings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I must've been pretty tired last night to miss the full timeline. Thanks for the clarification. This does make more sense to me now. --Chris (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good block in all cases. All accounts blocked here were created solely for the purpose of spamming an external link; the latest contributions attempted a fig leaf content addition but it was still the same external link being inserted spammily. (And, to address a question of the OP - block evasion is simply a form of sockpuppetry when boiled down to its essence, it is multiple accounts being used by a single user to circumvent Wikipedia policy.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Frustrated

Resolved

 – User warned, admin-o-sphere on alert. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

After a lot of work I put in maintaining Belgrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is still a WP:FA, I must say I'm really frustrated by apparently underage kids, like Filipdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who never read the talk page, never leave an edit summary, and remove the material from the talk page that does not support their view [110]. Finally, he provides a reference on his own talk page [111] only after a dozen appeals...[112][] Naturally, he goes on to push his favorite changes by means of revert-warring [113]. Then, after I put his own reference to the article, just to settle the matter [114], he [115] reverts it, because my edit also removed his favorite picture (600px-high collage disputed on the talk page long time ago). That revert, of course, also reverts some minor vandalism inserted in the meantime.

I'm sure he means well, but he's a prototypical example of Randy in Boise. Since I really don't have the nerve to guide him by the hand and explain the importance of citing, consensus, edit warring, manual of style, I'll bow to anyone's else handling of the situation. That of course includes my own behavior. While I may seem to wp:own the article, I'd just like to have it conform to high FA standards, but I don't feel like babysitting. This is, unfortunately, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No such user (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: What Immediate Administrative Action are you requesting? If you are seeking to have the page protected against random edits WP:RFPP is the venue. If it's to raise concern about an editor WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U are the venue. All editors are encouraged to help explain policies to editors and to guide editors into productive editing. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The chap's talkpage history is full of deleted warnings for edit warring. I've left a final warning, if he reverts again, he faces being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to impress the need for consensus on them. No such user, I'm sure you'll keep an eye on it and will let someone (Elen, myself, or the rest of the world) know anything exciting is happening. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

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

---

Hello. I am changing my name from User:Dragon Rapide to just User: Rapide. Just a notification, it's not sockpuppetry. Dragon Rapide (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like you can move your old talk/user pages to the new versions and have the old pages redirect to your new account. Let us know if anyone can assist you in that. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME -- bureaucrats will do it for you. In any event, just leave notes on your userpages. Nobody Ent 00:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) formerly Gerardw

I like it. "Rapide" has a nice ring to it. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reversion of RM closure

Resolved

 – No action needed here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Mike Cline (talk · contribs) closed a move request but was reverted by an involved editor Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the close was only 5 days after a relisting (explanation and further discussion). Eraserhead1 has refused requests to undo his revert, and Mike Cline has now given up. Please confirm this is not the way things should be done around here. (I am also involved, having commented on the RM.) Kanguole 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to know which rules and/or social norms I have broken by wanting the reopened move discussion to run for seven days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to want whatever you, um, want. What I object to is your attempt to force an admin to redo their work to conform to your personal preferences. WP:RM is fraught enough without this innovation. Kanguole 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I'm involved to the extent of participating early, but haven't contributed or watched it since. A premature close seems like a rare type of situation where immediate action is required. Was there something wrong or inappropriate with the revert itself (for example, if the admin closed it appropriately per SNOW, the revert would obviously be disruption)? If not, what's the issue? Isn't this a no harm, no foul situation? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kanguole, the policy on whether moves can be closed early after re-listing appears to be ambiguous and thus on a policy basis my action seems a reasonable interpretation. The only possible behavioural issue raised is that I may have unintentionally caused the closing admin to lose face, which I have already apologised for.

If you can't explain to me what I've actually done wrong I have no idea why we are having this discussion, and really you shouldn't be raising this without some element of obvious wrongdoing.

You could also say that I've managed to upset Mike and I am sorry about that. However unless I have done something wrong, either by breaking a rule, or behaving in a way that's socially unacceptable I don't see why that is worth discussing here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Cline

This incident started when I closed an RM on Feb 11 that had been open since Jan 17, ~27 days. Within 90 minutes of the close, Eraserhead reverted my close without discussion with me. I engaged him on his talk page without success. Late on Feb 12, I sought advice from a fellow admin which is restated below: Advice sought on RM situation- I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [116]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [117], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Based on the sage advice I recieved, I chose not to pursue this and to recuse myself from closing this RM. On Feb 14, once the RM hit the backlog, I relisted it again because there had been some additional discussion ongoing and maybe a consensus was possible. In my relisting comment, I indicated that I would not further involve myself in the close of this RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is good practice to at least notify when reverting things like that. Generally it should not be a big deal, generally things can wait for the person who acted to self-revert, and generally no one should be annoyed, upset or think they have "lost face", although we all understand that having a carefully thought out action reverted can be annoying. All that said I see no need for admin action here, so I am marking this as resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

For the record I did make a notification. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please block the IP 91.140.87.114 permanently

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

 – Off to SPI!

The IP 91.140.87.114, is yet another IP sock of banned user Picker78. Please refer to his contributions in comparison to those of Picker78. Also note that Picker78 has a long list of attempts of avoiding his ban. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Picker78 which doesn't include some of his recent IPs. He's also been vandalizing my user page lately. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, you may want to report this at WP:SPI instead, which is a more focused noticeboard designed to deal with issues like this. --Jayron32 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected your user page. If you don't want that, any admin will be glad to undo. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the semi, Drmies. I'll go to SPI directly. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Improper use of Wikipedia

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.

---

Kimberly camba (talk · contribs) seems to be more interested in plugging themselves and their YouTube channel/shows than in contributing to the encyclopedia. I just deleted the user page (as promotional) and Chrysoprase (TV Series) (A7, but promotional as well. Their talk page is full of warnings and notifications of all kinds--a true cornucopia of what not to do on Wikipedia. Any solutions? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef block would be a solution. Nobody Ent 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef applied per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COMPETENCE. That long list of warnings and not one talk page edit in their entire contribution history...oi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's that then. You fellas work quickly. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Need a Rangeblock on a Proxy

Dealing with an entire range of IPs that has been continously vandalizing for some time now (about a year). Everything in the same range as 69.178.192.194 needs to be blocked (I am not great with ID'ing ranges, forgive me). The IP is licensed to Daktel.com and geolocates to Carrington, North Dakota. We have blocked this range before and tagged several of the talk pages as proxies. See 1, 2 and this history for more beginning with 69.178. There has been far too much time devoted to stopping the all-vandalism edits by this range (more than likely just one person). Requesting a rangeblock on the entire range for the standard 5 years since this is a proxy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there would be a lot of collateral if blocking 69.178.0.0/16. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Unlikely IP is an open proxy Also for what it's worth it doesn't look like an open proxy to me. This looks like a normal, dynamic IP-hopping vandal. Normally this sort of thing isn't rangeblocked unless it's causing severe disruption, whereas your links look more like run-of-the-mill (albeit subtle) vandalism. It probably makes more sense to request to have Template:Glendive TV semi-protected for a few months at WP:RFPP, but even that is probably excessive given that the vandalism is less than once-a-month.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Glendive TV Template that is being hit by this editor. This is on-going across many pages. Several admins have put small rangeblocks in place that have worked, but not completely. This user keeps coming back, I think we have to deal with a little collateral damage to stop this editor. It isn't like those editors can't get a sign-in account. I think a year's worth of whack-a-mole is enough. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but I agree with NeutralHomer. This editor goes back to the sockfarm Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back a year and a half ago continuing to persist on articles and continuing attacks against "liberals" (and attacks against liberal political figure pages) for reverting their vandalism, mainly on Upper Midwest media and city articles. I know of no good contribs from the DakTel IP's at all in the last year as I've followed this one constantly under their Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) guise and other false accounts (see the sock page). A rangeblock is the only way to go to get this "Zimmer" character to finally be exhausted out of their efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• 69.178.192.194, which is the same IP I am currently having problems with and on the same range, just requested me a new password. This IP and range is nothing but trouble and there needs to be a block put in place ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What a coincidence (he says not shocked at all as he rolls his eyes), I just got the same lovely 'password reset' message from the Wiki password server from the same IP. This by the way, is what this vandal calls "hacking". Seriously though, nothing good comes out of this range pool. Nate • (chatter) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP - if they're pulling stunts like that something absolutely needs to be done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think a block of the IP will stop them sending password requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The range is too busy and too big to be blockable. With a /16, we're talking tens of thousands of IP addresses that would be blocked/ But have a look through this—there are quite a few constructive edits coming from this range in addition to your guy and what looks like a distinct petty vandal. Blocking the range would be a bit like using a bazooka to kill a fly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The first couple edits on that Toolserver link (the ones to Common cold), they were vandalism. The television station ones are universally vandalism. I would love to actually see one non-vandalism edit from that range, but I doubt I will. Since DakTel.com only has the potential to serve about 25,000 (who may or may not have computers), we aren't talking about alot of collateral damage (like say blocking Verizon or something). While there would be some, it wouldn't be a large number. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123] all appear constructive, and the oldest of them is a week old. That's already too much collateral damage—I wouldn't block that range for more than a day, and even then it would have to be for serious abuse, not just regular vandalism. Semi-protection is probably a better option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • This has been ongoing for almost two years. It would be alot of pages to semi-protect...and it would have to be indef protection, cause this guy isn't going to stop. He has two blocked and locked accounts to his name, plus all the IP socks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The clear solution is Sign In To Edit...but WMF has made it abundantly clear where they stand on that, consensus be hanged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The range seems to be only 69.178.192.0/22 - all IP edits from that range since the start of 2010 look like the same user, other than three that are probably test edits. Peter E. James (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite vandalism, perhaps a plea for help

Resolved

 – IP's original attempted addition confirmed and re-added to the article by Bilby. Swarm ^X 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across this edit following an AIV report. It doesn't look like your typical vandalism, more like a frustrated plea for help. I'm sure someone reading ANI will know what to do with it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to notify someone at the Home Office directly. Maybe User:Philippe (WMF). --Jayron32 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That diff is several months old and was reverted immediately (I suspect that you didn't notice that? :P). They claimed to have been a candidate in that election who declined, and repeatedly added themselves to the section.[124][125][126] Apparently Angela Beesely Starling responded to their email, but no action was ever taken regarding the article. I suppose someone can do some digging to evaluate the validity of the claim if they want, but bottom line, it's an old incident and the article looks fine. Swarm ^X 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I was able to confirm that he did run, and for a time was the only Democrat candidate. There are a few sources confirming this, with a couple of articles on him personally, although he never had official Democrat Party backing. btw, there was a bit of vandalism which was attacking him added to the page about a month ago which was missed - I've removed that as well. [127] - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Better late than never, I guess. Can only wonder what the deal was with Angela, but at least the original issue has been resolved. Swarm ^X 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly our quality queue (for BLP concerns) on OTRS is still jammed with many requests not yet answered, some going back at least that far. We just don't have enough volunteers (and for this queue, experienced volunteers). It's not easy work and a ticket can take a long time to handle, not just because they are often tricky but also that you often get responses from your original reply that have to be answered. There are about 100 tickets still in the queue. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I proposed a possible solution to the quality queue quandary, but have had little feedback. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange page move and edits

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

---

Could someone please check out the recent edit history at what is now: Paging Grace

I am not sure if this is a case of vandalism or just an admin error. The edits took what had been a guideline page (Wikipedia:Page name), changed its title and turned the guideline into a regular article about a rock band. There was apparently a page move request regarding the title of the guideline... so it may be simply a case of unintentional crossed wires somewhere. In any case, it struck me as odd that a guideline would suddenly become an article in mainspace.

Never mind... it seems to have been corrected. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page name doesn't look corrected to me.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 14:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure what is happening... the editor has changed the title yet again... needs an admin to sort it all out. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Justlettersandnumbers

User:Justlettersandnumbers, nicknamed "JLAN" has been engaged for months in an ongoing harassment of several editors across WikiProject Equine and repeated tendentious editing on articles related to horses, donkeys, Tyrol, Italy, Spanish and Italian animal breeds, and non-SI measurement. Full disclosure: This editor also harasses and annoys me, but I just hit back, this is NOT about me. This ANI is filed specifically because of JLAN's consistent harassment of User:Dana boomer because every time she attempts to bring an article to GA or FA, most recently Large Black (pig). Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) See the diffs below:

• Talk:Large_Black_(pig)#Facts.3F Dana nominates the article on Feb. 7, JLAN immediately jumps in with criticism. see [128]
• [[129]] Azteca horse is nominated by Dana for GA and granted GA status January 3, JLAN immediately jumps in adding OR, UNDUE and other harassing and tendentious edits. I requested article lockdown, consensus was to remove all but a few of JLAN's edits. see also [130]
• [131] Attacks Andalusian horse when it is to be TFA
• [132] Demands Percheron GA reassessment, after Dana brings Percheron to GA, rejected
• [133] Attacks Lusitano GA article, also Dana lead editor on GA push
• [134] and [135] Initial appearance is to attack Thoroughbred on its Main page appearence day, team getting it there includes Dana.

There's a lot more than this, but I'll keep the focus on wikistalking Dana boomer. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick examination at the problem reveals it is likely far too complex for ANI. For example, I discovered that Montanabw is the top editor to JLAN's talk page, with double the edits of the user himself. Lengthy posts. I also discovered User:Klvankampen, who is an expert on horses, who left the project in September after three edits to Andalusian horse and several lengthy exchanges on his own talk page. That's unfortunate; he might be just the kind of editor who could really help the project. There's a long-term dispute here involving a group of articles and editors, and the recent edit war on Large Black (pig) is only the tip of the iceberg. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Although I thank Montanabw for filing this, since I was offline yesterday and didn't see the latest set of edits at Large Black pig, I also think it may be too complex for AN/I. I have been considering filing an RfC/U on JLAN, but haven't had the time/energy it takes to actually do so. I do feel harassed by this user, who seems to show up at livestock breed articles that I write just before/just after major events (GA nom, TFA, etc). Although he does sometimes have good comments, he also has major tendencies towards tendentious editing, OR, POV, undue weight and other problem editing. With specific regards to the Klvankampen/Andalusian incident, although I agree that they would possible have made a good editor, it would have taken a lot of work. The situation was complicated, but essentially they were on one side of an international legal battle over a breed, and were having a hard time accepting our principles of reliable sources and due weight. Unfortunately, they grew frustrated and left while we were trying to explain these issues. JLAN didn't help in this instance by initially showing up to make snarky comments about editors and articles with FA status, then completely dropping out of the discussing when it turned to actually trying to improve the article. So, basically: There are a lot more pieces to the puzzle than what Montanabw listed above, but as Diannaa said, it's probably too complicated for this venue. However, I do feel harassed and wiki-stalked by this editor. I have tried to avoid working on articles where he is the main editor - I wish he would do the same for me. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dana. The reason I point out the number of posts by Montanabw to JLAN's talk is because there have been many, many posts by her on his talk. Many of them are of the"tips for editing here" variety, which is great when someone is actually a new editor, but must be getting wearisome after he has been active here for over a year. It looks to me that the editor is being told by your wikiproject, especially Montanabw to judge by his talk page, what articles he is allowed to edit, what sources he is allowed to use, and what he is allowed to say. I know I would become extremely frustrated and snarky if I was treated this way, especially if I was only really interested in editing one group of articles. It's likely that JLAN is showing up on articles in a pointy way in order to show you that he can, indeed, edit wherever and whenever he wants to. However, there's no reason why normal editing cannot continue during a GA review. That's not the problem. The problem is that Montanabw came in at 21.11 on the 11th and reverted all JLAN's edits, and all of the reviewer's, too. This is a very agressive thing for her to have done, and again is done in a pointy way, intended not for article imporvement, but to send a message to JLAN about what he is allowed and not allowed to do. To say that JLAN is following you around is a simplistic way to put things; I think the main problem here is that you share an interest in a topic area and disagree on what content should be in the articles and so on. It's a content dispute that has snowballed. It's difficult to edit cooperatively with someone you are constantly disagreeing with, but asking him to avoid the topic areas that he is interested in is unlikely to be acceptable if that's primarily where he wants to edit.

The Klvankampen account is a separate but related issue. The account pointed out that some of the information in the Anadalusian article was out of date by eight years. This is a featured article, and needs to be protected from bad editing, but if the material is actually out of date like he says, then the article is no longer the best Wikipedia has to offer. I realise it's a lot of trouble to nuture along a potential new editor (especially one who may have a conflict of interest) but it might be worth it if he has access to sources that you don't have in your possession. Reading through the posts to both editors - Klvankampen and JLAN - I get the impression that your wikiproject has some rules for the articles (what is a pony, how do we describe the height of a horse, etc) that were made some time ago, and that you are not very flexible about editors who are editing differently. I can understand your frustration but at this time in our history when long-term editors are leaving at a shocking rate we really have to figure out how to get along with people. I have to go do the payroll now and will be gone for some time. --Dianna (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(initial response to montanabw; reply to Dianna to follow)

I too thank montanabw for putting this here. This is just the latest in an endless succession of accusations from an editor who has harassed, maligned and insulted me more or less continuously since I began editing regularly here early last year. I welcome the opportunity to request some scrutiny of her behaviour, and of my response to it.

I don't know where it's best to start, but will begin with the list of my "attacks" above.

• Large Black (pig): as I recall, I came to this article for the first time on 6 February after looking at the watchlist of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, edited the status, changed the engvar etc.; that added it to my watchlist. I believe dana asked for the review the following day, and made some edits to the article. I did also, and made some comments on the talk page. Until reading her comments above I had thought we were working together, though not particularly amicably, to improve the article. User:MathewTownsend also made several edits. Nine of his and six of mine were reverted en masse by montanabw, who also made a request on the GA Review page, edit comment "Please review the un-trashed version". I'm told I was wrong to enquire if her mass reversion was vandalism, so I apologise for that.
• Azteca horse: yes, I believe I was drawn to this article by the GA review. Finding a substantial US bias in the article, I tried to add some material about the breed in Mexico, and made a number of suggestions for improvement on the talkpage. Montanabw requested article protection, and when it came off reverted the article to more or less its previous state. There was no consensus. On the advice of another editor, I walked away.
• Saw that Andalusian horse was to be on the front page, looked at it. Usual story, strong US-POV bias. Tried to make some changes, some directly, some by suggestion on the talkpage; montanabw comes blundering in with a mass revert, immediately undone by dana. I walked away. Result: the article went on the front page with the height measurements all screwed up and the marginal "registries" of Australia and the USA given priority over the national stud book of Spain; story on the talkpage for anyone who can be bothered to read it.
• Percheron. A while ago some of our colleagues from fr.wikpedia suggested working together on an article, and this one was suggested. As I happen to be fluent in French, I thought I might be able to make some contribution. Made some edits, reverted by montanabw, edit-warring ensued which I at the time thought was a criterion for de-listing as GA. I was wrong.
• Lusitano. Er, no, no attack. I opposed the merger there of the Alter Real, on the basis that myriad sources treat it as a separate breed. Withdrew opposition in the light of manfred bodner's expert opinion (another expert editor driven away by discourteous treatment, but more of that anon).
• I corrected an error in the main page article, and apparently earned the undying enmity of at least one editor. The error was finally corrected with the help of User:Ealdgyth here. At that time I knew no Wikipedia editor by name.

To sum up, I believe there is substance in two of the seven allegations: I was drawn to Azteca horse by the GA review, and to Andalusian by its appearance on the front page. I was not drawn to either of them, or to any other article, by the fact that dana boomer had previously contributed to it; indeed, I tend to avoid those articles (Haflinger, for example). I believe her to be essentially a good-faith editor, hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style. I regard it as unfortunate that we share a common interest in rare breeds. Even if our relationship has been less than cordial, I believe (or believed until reading her comments above) that we could work together if it were not for the persistent interference of montanabw. I apologise unconditionally to dana for any impression I may at any time have given of stalking her; I've not done so, and am surprised she feels that I have. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Parts 2 and 3 to follow when I've had some food. Meanwhile, quick practical question (I've not been here before): am I supposed to notify anyone I've mentioned by name, such as User:Manfred Bodner, or does that apply only to those who are the subject of some complaint? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to err on the side of caution and notify anyone you have mentioned by name. --Dianna (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have chosen to make this a narrow ANI to simply request that JLAN quit stalking Dana's work. Yes, I have my own issues with JLAN, as do several other editors, I initially attempted to mentor him when he first came on board here, and explain that people need to be less tendentious, but to no avail. He has been absolutely mean as a snake to me, sarcastic, bullying, tendentious and has made a number of petty templating threats at me. But this is not about me, it is about JLAN's treatment of Dana, who does not deserve this. I was willing to view some of the tension as spillover from his issues with me until he attacked Large Black (pig) which I had never edited, it was Dana's effort, not mine at all. Thus, Please consider the following: Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Look at what JLAN just said about Dana!! That she is "...hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style." This is a self-confession of JLAN's problem and why I filed this ANI: to say Dana has no courtesy? What could be further from the truth!!! This is an extraordinarily courteous editor and one of WIkipedia's admins, who had [one of the most successful RFA's I've ever seen --120 support, ZERO oppose, 4 neutral. Poor prose? Dana is the lead editor for multiple FA articles, reviewed by separate people, if she had "poor prose" it would have been picked up a dozen times by now. And as far as her view of "all things American," I need only point you to the extraordinarily balanced (and in UK English, to boot) Horses in World War I, which she carefully shepherded over a period of months to FA and TFA, working with dozens of involved editors, many with strong POV. JLAN should be blocked on the spot for what he just said!!
• The issue at WPEQ over measuring horses in hands was thrashed to death. JLAN continued to argue against consensus for weeks and even months after the issue was settled (and the consensus was to always provide a three-way template showing hands, US inches and metric measurements so all could understand). here he has a basic discussion of the topic, which led to work on improving the template for converting hands into other measurements. Not content, JLAN brings an RFC which he also loses.
• JLAN is lying through his teeth that he avoids the Haflinger articles. See his attempt to split that article, one of his first runs at pure tendentiousness, also a GA: Haflinger fight and New round of attacks on Haflinger article plus an unrelated-to-Dana obsession with renaming things related to Tyrol: Talk:Municipalities_of_South_Tyrol, notably [136], [137] and several more, some moved some not, but if you review his contribs history circa nov 20 2011, there is a pattern
• [138] JLAN making sarcastic remarks to Klvankampen about other editors, who though well-intentioned, had a strong POV on one side of a legal issue. There is controversy, and breeders have a POV as much as anyone. WP must be neutral. There was some material that did have to be updated, and it was. The article went TFA and has been stable for quite some time now.
• The Luistano issue was another example of JLAN beating a dead horse (pardon the pun) when consensus and the weight of research went against him. He likes to make stubs and content forks, claiming many animals of varying bloodlines are a "breed" whether it's a "breed" or not. See North American donkey -- which he created and was written as a breed article where there is no such "breed." (I haven't had the time to even deal with that little disaster)
• JLAN's work on Azteca horse had little to do with strengthening Mexican information on the article, he made one set of useful comments, which were adopted. the lockdown and debate was over his insistence on also adding a detailed chart that was of undue weight. Consensus went against him. See discussion here and see what he wanted to add versus how the article looks today: diffs

I'll spare more diffs and examples for now. I admit, I've had it with JLAN, who has also attacked me on a regular basis. However, I am perfectly willing to fight my own battles with him, between us, but it's when he attacks another editor who has good faith and no dog in the fight that I must object. Note until I reverted the edits JLAN made without consensus, I have no stake in Large Black (pig), I had never edited the article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN does not require consensus to edit the black pig article or any article on this wiki; it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Consensus is only required once the material has been challenged. Characterising his—and the reviewer's—edits as "confusing the reviewer" and saying "Please review the un-trashed version"? What up? But please don't try to convince me what you did was ok; the person you need to be addressing here is JLAN. You two need to sort out how you are going to work together moving forward. Please drop the battleground attitude; you and your articles are not under attack. Gotta go walk the dog; will check in briefly before I have to go out for a family thing. --Dianna (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(part 2, written in text editor and posted here without reference to new blether from montanabw above; part 3 follows tomorrow)

Montanabw is the WP:OWNER of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine. She sits on it like a dragon on a mountain of gold - except that unfortunately much of it is dross. Many of the articles contain unreferenced material, much of it tagged, some of it untouched for years. The project appears to be totally stagnant. Any edit, almost without exception, is reverted, usually by one of two editors. It doesn't matter how trivial the edit, nor how incorrect or unsustainable the view of the dragon; see the recent history and talk at Donkey or Mule for examples.

Obviously, when it's random vandalism, reverting without thought is nothing but a good thing. But when there's a new editor trying to find his way round this minefield, it may be harmful. How likely is a newbie who reads an edit summary such as this to stick around for more of the same? It's much more serious when the editor is evidently an expert, as in the matter of klvankampen already mentioned above. It's understandable that dana should feel threatened by the arrival of someone with some real knowledge of the Andalusian, but to my mind nothing excuses the reception he received here; his talkpage shows how easily an informed and expert editor can be driven away by rudeness and ineptitude. I first mentioned this topic here. The responses make interesting reading. User:Manfred bodner was a breeder of Lusitanos in Andalusia; the reception he received can be seen on the talkpage of that article; there's no welcome template on his talkpage. I see almost no prospect under the current regime for recruitment to this wikiproject of the new editors it so desperately needs, and I believe community intervention is called for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, Justlettersandnumbers. That was exactly the impression I got when reviewing the material. I would like to strongly suggest that the current active participants in this wikiproject take this criticism as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia and not an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far. What's next? Is there some form of dispute resolution that should be tried here? --Dianna (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I'm sorry, but I can't believe you're saying that I'm the one acting in bad faith here. Asking editors (such as Manfred and Klvanklampen) to provide sources, and explaining our policies of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. is not a bad thing. Manfred at no time expressed a problem with the way that Montana and I interacted with him, and in fact we took his word as an expert on the merge issue at Lusitano. I'm not sure how JLAN gets away with claiming the project to be totally stagnant when we continue to make progress on improving articles - yes, there are lots of articles still with problems - why isn't JLAN working on any of those, instead of following me to various articles that I'm currently working on? If he was also working on sourcing and improving half a dozen other breed articles and popped by one that I was working on with some comments, I wouldn't have as big a deal. When he only seems to pop up on horse breed articles that this "stagnant" project has already taken to GA and FA with a laundry list of complaints that often include OR, content forks, tendentious editing and other issues? Yes, it gets frustrating. The Equine WP is not "stagnant". The RfC that JLAN started on horse height attracted a large number of comments...unfortunately for JLAN, consensus on many of the issues was firmly against him. The fact that consensus is often against him (see, for instance, the GAR of Percheron, the end of the Azteca talk page, etc) is not the fault of a "stagnant" project. I'm so glad you're taking JLAN's word for it that I'm an uncourteous editor with poor prose skills - it's so nice to be appreciated. You say that we shouldn't take this as "an attack on the work that the wikiproject has achieved so far." when basically everything that JLAN does is an attack on what we've achieved so far - he almost never fixes up stub/start/C class articles, instead choosing to attack articles that others have taken to higher classes. When I started editing the Equine WP had something like half a dozen GAs and no FAs. Now, we have 20 featured articles and almost 50 GAs - not bad for a small project. If that's being stagnant - producing work that has been reviewed and promoted by numerous other editors...well, apparently all of my hard work over the past four years has been in vain. I have never asked for JLAN to be topic banned - I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. My request was simply for him to stay away from me, as I attempt to do from him. Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dana, you have misinterpreted so many of my comments that I hardly know where to start. Nowhere did I say that you (or anyone else) is acting in bad faith. Nowhere did I say that anyone should be topic banned. Nowhere did I remark upon your writing skills or lack thereof. What I did say, and something you need to think about very seriously, as I am a totally neutral observer who to my knowledge has never edited in conjunction with any of you, is that the material I read gave me the impression that the equine wikiproject is a closed shop that is unwelcoming to newcomers and has gotten set in its ways. I would like to point out to all three of you that you will not begin to resolve this dispute until you stop looking at the other guy's behaviour and start looking at your own. Because that's the only behaviour that you can control. --Dianna (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, I came as a newbie to WP:EQUINE in January of 2011, only two months before JLAN did, and I found them incredibly welcoming and very, very easy to get along with. Very far from being a "closed shop", they welcomed me with open arms and nursed my early footsteps along, were very patient with me, encouraged everything I was doing, and were as nice as pie. So it's not right to blame this on "the project". Pesky (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a member of WP:EQUINE, but I have had occasion to do a handful of edits and discuss things horse-related (the Morgan breed history interacts in some interesting ways with the U.S. Army in terms of remounts). I've always found the majority of folks I've encountered in that project to be both helpful and civil in their discourse. This is dealing with a breed that has some strong POV attached, yet I've never felt dismissed or marginalized because I come at the question from a different angle. Simply because one newcomer got off on the wrong foot does not automatically make a project a closed shop.Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm the GA reviewer of Large Black (pig) nominated by Dana boomer. I'd put a fair amount of work into it, when Montanabw who has never edited the article before suddenly reverted my copy editing changes and those of Justlettersandnumbers with no warning or discussion, and only the edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer". See article history:[139] I'm the reviewer and I'm the one that made most of the edits reverted. Montanabw needs to understand that the nominating editor to GAN does not own the article and Montanabw can't revert the article on Dana Boomer's behalf. Other editors are allowed to edit GANs. Looking at article contribution by toolserver:[140] as of now, Steven Walling (35) Dana boomer (27) and Justlettersandnumbers (21) have fairly close to the same number of edits. I am next.(9) At first I was very confused by what was happening, but now I wonder if this is an edit war and the GAN should be failed on that basis. I had thought Dana boomer and Justlettersandnumbers would continue to interact on the article talk page to review the problems, but reading the above I am not optimistic. If I'm wrong in this assessment, please let me know. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Having looked through this, I'm coming to much the same conclusions as Dianna, it looks like a complex issue, better suited to something like an RfC. I do however believe that Montanabw has stopped assuming good faith with regards to JLAN, there's been at least a couple of times that she has made mass reverts, without distinguishing good edits from bad - when combined with the language used, it's clear that Montanabw cannot see clearly there anymore. I think it would be a good idea for Montanabw to step back in dealings with JLAN, and do her best to avoid him. With regards to JLAN himself, it is clear that Dana boomer does feel harassed, and JLAN himself admits that they are not "getting along" on the talk page, though they are making progress. Combined with the comments that JLAN has made regarding Dana boomer, again, it would help if JLAN could do his best to focus elsewhere, even if only for a short period, say a month? I've already seen that JLAN has reasonably backed away from the article while the review is on, I'm sure this can work out well enough. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Apologies.

1. On the advice of an editor whose opinion I respect, I have struck through my comments on dana's editing abilities. She had given me the benefit of her opinion of my skills, and it seemed to me only courteous to return the favour. I now realise that my remarks could be construed as uncivil. I unconditionally retract them, and apologise to dana. She will, I am confident, wish similarly to retract the various discourteous comments she has directed at me above.

2. I'd like to apologise to Mathew for any part I may have had in disturbing his review of the Large Pig article. That was never my intention, but to the extent that it was the consequence of my actions, I'd like to apologise anyway.

3. I invite montanabw to apologise, immediately and fully, to him for her part in that disturbance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this, and have gone out of my way to avoid any kind of confrontation or article-interaction with JLAN. However, I have seen an ongoing situation here lasting for many, many months, causing distress and disruption to other editors, and a lot of IDHT. One of the reasons that other people's contributions to JLAN's talk page may outnumber his own is that he simply doesn't respond. I tried to communicate where some of the problems were, on 13th January; it's now exactly a month later, and no response whatsoever. It's incredibly hard to try to communicate constructively with someone who just doesn't communicate back or (apparently) address the issues. This situation simply can't be seen in its entirety without someone going right back through the whole lot (which, incidentally, I have done). I've been watching for a very long time, and what I;ve seen is a number of people trying really hard to get JLAN to work collegiately and "play nice", for a very long time, and gradually all losing their patience. It's a very sad situation, all told, but it's important here not to blame the editors who have tried their damnedest to work together. There's been an awful lot of JLAN taking the exact same argument from one page to another to another, failing to get consensus anywhere, and simply not giving up and starting the same thing again on another page. Nobody can be expected not to lose patience after months and months of this, no matter how much a saint they are. And few of us are saints. Pesky (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs. I made some allegations above about the behaviour of montanabw that should have been supported with diffs. What follows is a selection, not an exhaustive list.

• insults [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]
• user warnings level 2, level 3, level 4

I've not supplied (but could on request) what would be a much longer list of occasions when montanabw has maligned my motives and impugned my integrity. Nor have I supplied evidence of hounding or harassment, as I think those are already sufficiently evident. What I'd very much like to know is whether this sort of behaviour is regarded as normal and acceptable in this wiki. And if, as I suspect, it is not, why User:Dana boomer, who was aware of much of it and whom I believe to be an admin, took no steps whatsoever to limit or stop it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Pesky: I did not reply to your post on my talkpage because my reply would have been in the form of an argument, and I had and have no wish to argue with you. A while ago you were here under accusation of discourtesy because you had asked another editor to behave civilly; you may recall that, in private, I offered you some support. It was, and still is, therefore quite incomprehensible to me that you would not offer your support when I made similar requests for courtesy. Why in your view is rudeness from BadgerDrink unacceptable, but rudeness from montanabw acceptable? Why did you not intervene?

I did, however, respond to your post by taking your advice. I continue to respect and value your opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The future of WikiProject Equine. In response to Dianna's question "What's next?", I'd like to lay out one possible scenario aimed at regeneration of the project in general, and at attracting new and expert editors in particular.

• Editor montanabw agrees to step aside from the project for a short period, say a year, and to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project during that time
• I of course agree to abstain from editing any article or talkpage within the project for the same period, or whatever other period other editors determine to be appropriate
• Expert editors who have recently drifted away from the project - Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, pitke, probably many others - should be invited to return to active editing
• A small group (five?) of expert long-term editors, not necessarily with any knowledge or experience of horses, should be asked to join the project as "trustees", to offer advice and guidance where needed
• Expert editors who have left the wiki should be contacted and asked if they would consider returning; I'm thinking not just of the two mentioned above, but of expert or professional editors from the past such as Countercanter; sadly I have little hope of User:KimvdLinde being persuaded to return
• The project should agree, quite independently of any decision reached wiki-wide, to an internal policy of zero-tolerance towards discourtesy

OK, I'm new here and I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I have, however, been astounded at the hostility of the reception I received here (first mentioned here), and believe that the horse project has some serious and deep-seated problems. Perhaps a plan along these lines might lead to some improvement? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I quited WP because of the intractable governance system in which experts are not liked and style warriors can impose their will at the wiki at large. Combined with the total lack of quality control (you never know what is right or wrong at an individual page), and the elevation of that to the gospel makes it a less than interesting past-time for me. The troubles at WP:EQUINE have not been part of my decision. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC) PS. I have no pronblems with MontanaBW in case anybody is wondering.

I stopped editing horse-related articles quite a while ago, not because of Montanabw, but rather because the project seems to attract contentious editors (the ones I had problems with have evidently left Wikipedia). A call for civility is always in order, although I see much of Montanabw's incivility being in reaction to the incivility of other editors. Nevertheless, the solution called for by JLAN seems strongly one-sided to me: Montanabw has been a productive editor for much longer than JLAN, and having them both refrain from editing project related articles for a year seems to be to be effectively a way to censor Montanabw.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This plan looks more like some sort of coup to me than an actual plan. If an area of editing interest is specialized or requires some level of specialized competence, what good would "trustees" do if they are not required to be knowledgeable about the area of work? Whether we like it or not, there are standards outside Wiki that are considered very relevant to some areas (using hand as a measurement for horse height, for example). I've had interactions with Montanabw in some areas, and have found her to have some strong opinions (not always a bad thing), but also willing to discuss those opinions with civility and even tact. I'm also "new to Wikipedia," but have never felt attacked by her. I have, however, been somewhat disgusted by the lack of respect I've seen here for established outside conventions as they apply to some subject areas. In relation to this, every time I've seen a discussion with JLAN, his ideas have been presented as fixed, unchangeable solutions with a tone very similar to the plan above.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a plan, this is a "Silence the opposition" move. Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap. And there has been a long, long history here, and it's very important to look well beyond the surface. JLAN, sorry, but I have been trying to stay uninvolved for as long as humanly possible, but your "plan" here looks altogether too much as though you are trying to "win" a war of attrition by nuking someone who's been having trouble dealing with the way you interact for a very long time. That's just not right. I suggested on your talk page, a month ago, that you try to tone down the way you deal with certain situations, and I left it at that, just pointing out that for you to do this voluntarily would be far better than for you to end up with (for example) a topic ban, or similar. I know you almost certainly don;t see it this way, but looking right through the entire history of your various interactions, the escalation always seems to start from your side, and frequently with baiting. You simply cannot try and place all the blame on Montanabw or others with carefully selected diffs; that's unjust in the extreme. It's just wrong to do that. My suggestion is that you voluntarily leave alone both the WP:Equine project, and any pages in other areas which are largely contributed-to by members of that project, and particluarly leave well alone any pages that equine-project members are bringing to GA, FA, PR, or anywhere else where your sudden intervention disrupts things. Try and focus on other areas, and be particularly aware if you are getting into similar style disagreements with editors in those other areas, and if you find that happening, just back quietly away. It really would be for the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)

Can I draw people's attention to the project talk page as it appeared in April 2011? Here's how it looked then. You want to look at the page, not just the diff. JLAN's [ earliest contributions] are here. If anyone really cares to go right through it, they'll be able to see "who started it", as it were - and not that that particularly matters - but they'll certainly be able to see for just how long this kind of thing has been going on, starting with a very new editor (at that time) confronting very well-established editors with masses of content-contribution history behind them, and getting very cross when consensus was against them. You can't judge just by what you read here on AN/I. If you're thorough, and competent, and if you really want to know, then you need to do the research homework. Adding: JLAN's talk page as at here (21 st March 2011, just under a fortnight from JLAN's first named-editor edit - see earlier) shows part of the beginning, and is worth a read. MTBW had clearly been trying to explain to a fortnight-old newbie how things worked, and got "On whose say-so?" as a response. I think that's probably just about the beginning, but you guys can see the way this started, by having a browse through the page as it was then, and then surfing the diffs around the early contributions. Pesky (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many of JLAN's actions may have challenged the status quo and rocked some boats, but that is not necessarily always a bad thing, in my opinion. Thanks for doing this research, Pesky, but it is probably time to stop discussing behaviour and pulling diffs, and time to start working toward solutions. How can JLAN and the others begin working together? Or is it time for them to part ways for a while, and if so, how long? These might be better subjects at this point in the discussion than pulling up year-old examples of newbie behaviour. Just my opinion, for what it's worth. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, my intention was simply to illustrate where things began to go wrong, and therefore how long this dissension has been around, so explaining why patience had run out. It's around eleven months now. I apologise if people didn't get what I was trying to express properly, I don't always manage to be understood the way I intended! My suggestions are as above, really; I can't see anything else working well at all. I'm not sure if you saw my response higher up the thread, but I was a newbie to WP:EQUINE only a few weeks before JLAN was, and they welcomed me with open arms and we all got along fine; it wasn't by any means a "closed shop" situation. And it's not really feasible to tell all the other editors in WP:EQUINE to leave the project. Pesky (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is also taken that JLAN is not without his faults and has been difficult to work with. What I think everyone needs to do now is think about their own behaviour and what they can do to improve relations in the future. One big problem here on Wikipedia is that we have a lot of strong-willed opinionated people. It is a strength and a weakness! --Dianna (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN has done some really good stuff, don't get me wrong on that. It's just that rather a lot of people find him hard to work with (even the ones that managed to put up with me in my early days, despite the odd kicks in my gallop, lol!) I think it really would be best if he avoided the editors he's had problems relating with, and the articles they're working on, particularly when those articles are at "sensitive times" like GA, etc. He has a lot of talent and is very intelligent, and could probably contribute very well in other project areas, just keeping an eye out for similar types of disagreements arising and maybe backing down a little earlier when consensus is not with him. That would seem to be a quiet, calm way around the situation, without anything as formal as an official topic ban or an official interaction ban with the various editors he's found hard to work with. Pesky (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I made this very clear that this ANI is NOT about the conflict between myself and JLAN, we are both big kids who can fight things out between ourselves; we have for quite some time. This ANI is about JLAN's treatment of Dana and other editors who have crossed his path. My recommendation is neither a topic ban, an interaction ban, nor any sort of formal restrictions, but rather that JLAN finally learn the following much-needed lessons and agree to the following:

1. JLAN may not realize that when he gets "attacked" it is because he has almost inevitably attacked first, or edited against consensus, or something similar. JLAN needs to quit calling or implying that other people (particularly Americans) are stupid, biased, discourteous and so on; Ealdgyth's comment to him is on point. JLAN has few friends on wiki, Pesky may be the most willing to see him in a good light of anyone, and she has commented here. I probably am the person who disagrees with him the most, but that is simply because our paths keep crossing on the same topics. If JLAN could make his points about possible errors (as sometimes he IS correct) without insults and attacks, he would not be getting back what he dishes out.
2. JLAN needs to let things go when consensus goes against him instead of tendentiously beating a topic to death and then doing an WP:IDHT or a WP:FORUMSHOP to keep it alive even longer. Here is an example from a topic neither horse-related, nor involving me: JLAN is told:"You have been very pedantic and proved wrong when you sought to actually delete the section that you now seek to edit. I think now is the time to stop vandalising this article." or where he attacks an entire WikiProject area and is shot down and continues in the face of strong opposition to tendentiously argue to rename article with American focus Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As for other comments above:

1. Matthew, I am sorry your edits got caught in my revert of JLAN, that was not my intent and for messing up your work, I do apologize. More on this at your talk page.
2. JLAN thinks I'm mean to him. Let's look at some more diffs: JLAN calls my comments " the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is."; or templating me in an inappropriate manner, where he was disciplined by Ealdgyth and I just noted above he calls my comments here "without reference to new blether from montanabw above" -- a new insult.
3. WPEQ has many participants, and I most certainly have not driven them off. Curtis, Ealdgyth, Pesky, Richard, Pitke are all still active editors, I am proud to call them my friends. I am sure Kim will return soon, she usually does. I have "met" some of these people off-wiki via email and have met one in real life. Countercanter is still my email friend off-wiki, we have emailed about coat color genetics for a couple of years now; since she got done with grad school and has a full time job, she has had less time to contribute but has continued to be helpful to me behind the scenes when I've had a genetics question.
4. As for JLAN's consistent implication that I am an idiot, which, yes, "blithering twaddle" is right up there with "stupid idiot", so I am rather hurt. While he provides no evidence of what horse expertise he actually has and maybe he's an expert (I will grant he speaks several languages, which I do not) I have in fact been a horse trainer, riding instructor (as has Pesky, by the way) and I have published actual real magazine articles on equine-related topics, so yes, indeed, I happen to have expertise in this subject area. None of us are right 100% of the time, but a collaborative approach of "say, did you see this? Should we revise the article to reflect this or not?" is better than JLAN's snide comments. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that JLAN's examples of how mean and awful I was are out of context, let's see the results:

1. this article results in a collaborative renaming, expansion and good improvement
2. [147] JLAN is shot down by other users on his point.
3. full context of Pony discussion was a consensus against JLAN's position for the most part
4. JLAN's "third warning" (what happened to "don't template the regulars?") was a response to me attempting to engage him informally, here again asking him to avoid attacking Dana, and for interfering with Andalusian horse when it was about to be TFA.
5. I do admit to losing it once for real: JLAN's "last warning" was because I did call him a jerk in an edit summary the midst of the Azteca dispute. I admit was a too-angry response on my part. I also called him a jackass that same day, a comment which, you will note, I went back and subsequently refractored because I realized was over the top. That whole day was a rotten day, I was also being attacked at the same time by a sockpuppet who has since been blocked. As Pesky noted, sometimes people who are attacked enough do snap back. I snapped. I should not have. I apologize to the WP community for that. But this ANI is not about me, it is about JLAN and his treatment of people other than me. People who do not deserve to be bullied and who need some advocacy so that they are not run off by people like JLAN. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment. I haven't been driven away, I've been busy with Finnhorse in other projects, namely assisting a full translation to French and pushing a FAC in fi.wikipedia. I do find this whole mess distasteful, but truth to be said, I've attempted to steer clear of it. I'm busy (and perhaps stressed) enough admining elsewhere. --Pitke (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to steer clear of conflict, or when I can't steer clear, try to deal with it calmly. Sadly, "steering clear of conflict" over the past several months has come to mean almost exactly the same thing as "steering clear of JLAN". Terribly sorry, JLAN, but I have been quite deliberately trying not to interact with you, for fear of being drawn into conflicts. Pesky (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN, you're more than welcome to come over to my talk page and just join in with the general natter which goes on there (but some of the natives are a bit timid, so we tread gently where we can). A question for you: who do you really enjoy working with? Could you work with them more; that would make WikiLife happier for you. Also, if you ever need a bit of help anywhere with working stuff out, I will try to do the best I can for you, but you have to be gentle with me 'coz Real Life is full of shite at the moment! (Neuropathic problems awaiting surgery; full-time carer for 83-y-o dementia sufferer, etc.) I'm not "out to get you", I'd really like to help resolve problems if I possibly can. Pesky (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, Montanabw does not understand that to revert a GAN that a reviewer has reviewed, as she did with Large Black (pig) with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 475953360 by Dana boomer: Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer .." fundamentally disrupted the GAN review process. I'm alarmed that she thinks edits to an article that is being reviewed must be made by consensus. In any case, her edit (the revert) certainly was not done by consensus, to use her logic. Her apology to me was a lengthy post on my talk page about how bad Justlettersandnumbers is (versions of which is above and posted elsewhere on talk pages, including on my mentor's page where she intruded into a question I had asked him.) She's apologized to me on my talk page for the 9 edits I lost, as if that was the main issue. It's not. Before she reverted the article to her preferred version, she did not contact me on my talk page, nor post on the article talk page or on Talk:Large Black (pig)/GA1, all of which she could have done if she had concerns about the article or the review. Thank you, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Editors following this case might be interested in reading User talk:MathewTownsend#Passing mention at AN/I and User talk:Worm That Turned#your adoptee wants advice and User talk:Worm That Turned#JLAN. -- Dianna (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

More questions. (I'm sorry, this is probably very boring for others, but it is important to me).

(1) Civility: Pesky writes above "Although it's not right to respond to baiting with incivility, sometimes the baiting and tendentiousness goes on for so long that even the most patient editor(s) can snap." That's certainly a change of tune for her, who previously (I had understood) regarded civility as being unconditional. It certainly isn't how things work in the real world: "Yes m'lud, it's perfectly true that my client chopped his wife into little bits with an axe and buried them in the garden, but she'd asked him to do the washing-up again and he just snapped. "Ah, yes, quite right, quite right, case dismissed". Here in Wikipedia, is that really what WP:Civil says? More specifically, I personally have been relentlessly baited by montanabw for many months; is it therefore in order for me to "snap", and start insulting her? I don't think so. What do others say?

(2) New editors: is this really the best way to welcome a new editor? Ignorance in itself is no crime; but wouldn't it have been preferable to conduct this simple search first? The top hit is the registry of the breed, founded in 2000. There's no welcome template on the IP's talkpage. Has dana paid any attention at all to Dianna's comments above?

(3) Moving forward: I'm more interested in moving forward from here than in going over past history. Pesky's suggestion appears to be that I should acknowledge the ownership rights of montanabw over the whole horse project and of dana over the articles she has got a star for, and piss off elsewhere. Is there community consensus for that suggestion? Is that advice that I should take? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

JLAN - for what it's worth I didn't perceive Pesky's post to be saying "put up with the status quo or piss off". On the contrary, it seemed like an olive branch to me and was couched in friendly terms. Could you see it as a compromise offer and move towards it in some way, instead of reacting against it and away from it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(1)Actually your analogy isn't really reasonable, more accurate would be using battered woman defense as a reason for diminished responsibility. I'm not defending Montanabw's actions, but you're not blameless here. (2) I do not see anything wrong with that. Dana reverted with a reasonable edit summary. She was under no oblicaton to welcome the editor. (3)Moving forward sounds like a good idea. Let's look at the next section. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Ok, I've spent much of the day looking into this. I'm not keen on AN/I, but since I'm addressing everyone, I might as well post this here. There's clearly a clash and it's escalated to the point that it's causing significant issues. As Dianna explained above, this isn't a problem that is going to be "fixed" in one go at a board like AN/I. I hoped to have a chat with the editors in question and see if sending them back to their corners would help, but it looks like we've gone beyond that point. I do think that an RfC/U might be the best way forward, though I hate the process - it should get some more eyes on the issues. I understand that editors are unwilling to start an RfC/U as it can be a time sink, however I get the impression that there's a time sink currently.
In lieu of the RfC/U though I thought share some thoughts.

• Every editor involved freely admits that every other editor makes positive contributions.
• JLAN is an enthusiastic editor, who's opinions are often at odds with other members of WikiProject Equine. Whilst this can be a good thing, there does appear to a certain amount of not accepting consensus and arguing for too long afterwards. What's more, his comments have started to tend towards ad hominem arguments, for example suggesting that editors with a number of featured articles (and therefore reviewed by many editors) cannot write without bias. Taking an interest in a non equine article seems to be what ignited this mess. Much of JLAN's problematic work appears to be focussed on criticising/improving current articles, especially those at or around milestones.
• Montanabw's patience with JLAN appears to have run out a while ago. She's taken some inappropriate actions based upon her opinion of JLAN, such as mass reverting of his (and other editors) good edits, apparently without evaluating the quality of those edits. JLAN also has suggested that Montanabw is acting in an WP:OWN-like manner with regards to equine articles, and I can certainly see that point of view.
• As far as I've seen, User:Dana boomer has acted in an exemplary manner - with an exceptional amount of patience. Once I've finished here, I intend to give her a barnstar.

That's the major points as I see them. Please do feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I can dig up diffs for all of what I've said. So, from that, I have some recommendations:

• For JLAN
  1. Do not use ad hominem arguments - implying that groups are unable to write neutrally, or that users are unintelligent etc.
  2. Focus on working together with editors, rather than criticising and changing their work. Remember, they're trying to improve the encyclopedia too. If you keep causing issues, you're likely to rub the wrong person up the wrong way, and end up blocked indefinitely. I've seen it before.
  3. If you have a larger scoped issue than in one article, then use WP:RfC.
  4. Be careful with how you are making other editors feel. I'm not saying you are harassing Dana boomer, but she has made it clear that she feels bothered by you. Take that on board and try working in areas away from her for a while. In fact, if you have non-equine interests, perhaps now would be a good time to work on them. Taking a short term break from equine is only going to improve relations longer term. Try building more articles that other people are not actively working on perhaps?
• For Montanabw
  1. As with JLAN, do not use ad hominem arguments. Attributing motives to JLAN such as him being mean, attacking editors or that he is a jackass or pain in the ass simply doesn't help anything or anyone.
  2. Back off, away from JLAN. I know you are trying to help, but mass reverts, constant suggestions about how he can and can't edit etc. are only serving to build up resentment. If you have an issue with JLAN, come to me, or any other neutral editor.
  3. Be careful with WP:OWN. Remember, no one owns anything on WP, and anyone can edit. I'm not saying you actually believe you or WikiProject Equine own articles, but the perception matters, and some of your behaviour does look like ownership or creating a walled garden.

I'm pretty sure that if you both keep to those suggestions, we won't need any formal sanctions and things should get better. If you're not happy, you know where to find WP:RfC/U - because I doubt you'll find a better solution at AN/I. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a formal WP:IBAN is out of the question because their interests overlap too much. Sadly, this is one of those cases that is likely to end up at Arbitration unless both sides learn how to deescalate... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Unless something changes, this isn't going to end well. Worm^TT · (talk)

Per the proposed decision in the recent ArbCom case on Civility Enforcement, admins aren't likely to issue an indef to either side, so besides the good advice from WormTT, I'm not sure what else admins can do here. Noting that this now the 1st ANI thread, I suggest closure to help the parties disengage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Worm's three suggestions to me work for me, whether JLAN agrees or not. I would like to add to his list that JLAN not edit any article if Dana boomer is the person who has nominated it for GA or FA, but bring any concerns to talk only. As for me,wWith the caveat that I fear that even editing and discussing content is sometimes perceived as an attack by me upon JLAN, I can take a shot at doing these things. 1) I will avoid attributing motive to JLAN, I will not give him advice, and I will not post on his talk page unless he invites me to do so or I must post a mandatory notice. 2) I will "back off" from JLAN if he also agrees to back off from me, within reason, given that our interests inevitably overlap. I will volunteer to let him have the donkey/equus asinus articles all to his little self, save where they encompass both horses and donkeys. It's where he is at now anyway, and my frustration did lead me to make a too-obvious insult related to the topic which I should not have made. I don't have the time to do counter-research anyway. I will also avoid pigs and chickens, where he has also worked. Let the community address him there, I'm out. I cannot agree to avoid him in horse articles, it's where 90% of my work is; however, should he appear, I will evaluate his edits for what they are worth, without attributing motive. If I believe there is a need to revert any edits by JLAN where third parties have also been involved, I will be careful to not undo their work and shall comment on each change on a case by case basis. 3) As for WP:OWN, I am fully aware that I do not "own" any article; I get accused of this a lot, though, so it's probably my tone, even if not my motive. I believe this occurs because people fail to understand that their edits are subject to the same scrutiny as mine and don't realize that exercising quality control is not "ownership." But, I'll watch the snark and try to be less impatient (I cannot guarantee perfection, after doing 40 kiddie vandal reverts equivalent to "Joey has a penis like a horse" I do get a bit hasty and impatient...). Let me publicly state that I enjoy a good, respectful discussion and I believe difference of opinion can ALWAYS be discussed; I could provide dozens of diffs where after a good discussion, my own views have changed, often markedly. (I hesitate to do so, though, for fear I will be giving JLAN a new round of articles to attack -- however, my understanding of how the dominant white gene works is one example that I think JLAN has already looked at, and Countercanter did most of the research on that article anyway, so probably no risk to mention that one here.) So if that works for Worm, I invite JLAN to also agree to Worm's suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues at Cold Fusion (moved from AN to ANI)

The Cold Fusion article is under sanctions. There appear to be a lot of aggressive single purpose accounts at Cold Fusion that are becoming increasingly outright hostile (including a claim that I am libeling a journal):

Some Diffs:

1. [148]

2. [149]

3. [150]

Other bad faith actions from POVBrigand: [151] The talk pages of this article and Energy Catalyzer also contain many other examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the second diff is a legal threat aimed at IRWolfie and me. There always has been a major sock problem on Cold Fusion related articles, no doubt fueled by a thirst for money and fame. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that discretionary sanctions are in force on this article, so it might be better to make a request at WP:AE if there is a problem with an individual editor. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a collection of individuals or possibly some form of sock puppetry amongst the single purpose accounts but it is getting outright hostile and deliberately uncooperative (such as arguing that a journal that has 1 day of review before acceptance for some papers can be reliable). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There has been a lot of buzz on the internet about these two topics in the last few months, and it has attracted a few new editors. Unfortunately, many suffer of WP:RECENTISM, they see some new low-quality source, and they immediately claim that the field has suddenly been vindicated, the whole article has to be rewritten, and all old high-quality sources dumped as historic footnotes.

SPA might be more aggressive in the last days because a group of sources were rejected in the last weeks. If this continues, there should be an AE report and a few topic bans. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigands arguments on WP:RSN appear to be based on attacking other editors: The sentiment portrayed by some editors here in this talk against "Current Science", based on overestimation of one's own capabilities on judging a poorly understood artifact and possibly a general ignorance of a science community outside of Europe/USA, is pathetic.. [152]. What is your next defense, that India is a country you don't like ? [153]. I will make a section on AE and link it to this page. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have filled a notice with AE: [154]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that several editors, including POVbrigand, Gregory Goble, and Selery should be notified that the Cold fusion article is under general sanctions, and the notifications logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (I think that is the right place to log them). Would some uninvolved administrator do the honors? Cardamon (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see that Gregory Goble was notified, but I don't see that this was logged anywhere. I see that Selery is currently indef'd due to an unrelated issue, but I suppose it is possible that he'll be allowed back some time. Was POVbrigand ever notified? So I am asking that users Selery and POVbrigand be notified, and that all three notifications be logged. Cardamon (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

see POVbrigands talk page were he was notified. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a logged notification for POVbrigand . Somebody should also request HJMitchell to log his official notification to Gregory Goble on the arbcom page, Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did the notification here: [155]. Maybe there is something about the procedures I am missing since I have never been involved in Arbitration. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued image copyright violations

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

---

Resolved

 – Importance of observing copyright standards stressed. No further action at this time Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Traditionalydivine (talk · contribs) continues to reupload the same two images of Gopal Krishan, which were first deleted in June 2011, now for the fourth time. The last time they were deleted after a discussion on January 31. I'd appreciate help in getting the user to understand that image licensing is a serious matter and that we can't continue to monitor Gopal Krishan for copyvio reuploads. Thank you and best regards Hekerui (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have left a welcome and a message stressing the importance of copyright. The article itself is a mess, and possibly non-notable. If the user continues to upload the files we will have to block, otherwise no further admin action required.

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.

Blind bot tagging

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

This boiled over in another thread further down the page and Kumioko is now blocked for (at least) 31 hours. Further discussion should take place down there to avoid confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

user:Kumioko has a bot, User talk:Kumi-Taskbot, which is blindly tagging anything and everything with the word America (and derivations) for the Wikiproject United States, including unquestionably out of scope, such as Americano FC (a Brazilian football team). This is disruptive and must stop. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant talk discussion between Kumioko and Marks88. Also note that Marks88 makes the claim in the same talk page that WikiProject Connecticut can remove any WikiProject Banners from talk pages as they seem fit. Kumioko opened a discussion on this at the Village pump. Bgwhite (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, since this was an approved task, for some odd reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Marked as NOTHERE. This belongs at WT:BRfA (for discussion about the specific approval) or the village pump (for discussion about the scope of WikiProjects in general). I've asked Kumioko to stop the bot until this is resolved, so it's not an urgent issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Madman has shut down the BRFA discussion, claiming it isn't about the approval of the bot to tag everything starting with "America" or "United States" as being part of WPUS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not, seeing as that's not what the parameters were either in the request or in the approval. Thanks, — madman 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, check out item 1 under discussion here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The parameters were "tag everything in these three lists". Really not my fault that you didn't think to ask him how those lists were generated -- especially since he explicitly stated during the discussion that one of the lists was "articles Starting with United States", right after Josh caught him tagging Talk:United States of China.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Bgwhite, please note that is not what I said: I said that there is no rule against removing Wikiproject tags from a page. Which there is not. I also pointed out that I was being surgical and only removing the more ridiculous tags. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the issue is closed and the bot is stopped. No more bot, no more issue and I have no more time to spend talking about these stupid petty complaints. --Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not listening to legitimate complaints because some are petty isn't a very good thing to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already admitted that some were valid and was working on identifying them to be fixed. The vast majority of the complaints were just nonsense though. I have about 150, Mark and Sarek would want me to revert them all which is just plain stupid. Since the bots dead though, there's no point in worrying about it. They'll wash out eventually. Maybe I'll fix some manually. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your above comment comes across as "I've been forced to halt the task, so screw it, someone else will clean up the mess eventually. Maybe I'll help if I feel like it." Is that what you meant? —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No not exactly but I can't stop typing replies in discussions long enough to do any research to fix the problem. Everyone just wants to assume bad faith rather than just identify the problem and let me fix it. I already admitted the bot tagged some articles incorrectly and was more than happy and willing to admit that and fix them but some editors like Mark and Sarek just kept sharpening the stick and poking me with it. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's assuming bad faith? Has someone accused you of deliberately mistagging articles? —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why this appeared on my watchlist. (American Dog was the original working title of a film released as Bolt.) American Tail was tagged too. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced/set in the United States?
Wait, I see that American Werewolf in London was tagged, and that was filmed (and the story takes place) in the United Kingdom. Does the WikiProject's scope include all motion pictures produced by American studios? All motion pictures with American characters?
I didn't look beyond the bot's most recent edits, incidentally. —David Levy 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They would have fallen under |UScinema= had I been allowed to finish. --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Was it infeasible to simply tag them that way in the first place? (Forgive my ignorance of the bot's capabilities.) —David Levy 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

Resolved

 – Indef blocked NLT Nobody Ent 23:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This started with an editor, Trojancowboy (talk · contribs) insisting that Jamie Kelso couldn't be a white supremacist because there is no such thing, and using the word libellous. I provided a reliable source for that description (I was going to go to BLPN to discuss how it should be used, but this has priority). I asked him to make it clear that he intended no legal action. His reply was that he has 'no immediate plans for a lawsuit (this is at Talk:Jamie Kelso, not his talk page. I repeated my request saying 'no immediate plans' isn't good enough, and adding that he needs to say he doesn't intend to encourage others to sue. His response is "I will notify Jamie Kelso by some means and you can discuss it with him. This is not my biography. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. I recommend the restoral of the dubious tag. It is not to be frivolously removed over a serious matter like this." Since I'm involved in this article and in another (2011 Spokane bombing attempt) where there's another attempt to remove the phrase 'white supremacist' (even to the extent of changing it to white nationalist in sourced text despite the source saying whtie supremacist' I'm obviously not going to use my tools. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no legal threat here because Trojancowboy is not Jamie Kelso and therefore would have no standing to file a lawsuit on Kelso's behalf. It is an interesting question whether it is against policy to state on-wiki that if content isn't changed, an editor will encourage someone else to sue, but I don't think that falls with WP:NLT as usually understood. In addition, merely observing that article content about someone might be libelous is not always a legal threat, although as stated in the policy, it will often be better to use other words to express this concept.

I have no view on whether the term "white separatist" or "white supremecist" should be used, or whether one is better in some contexts and another in others (that could very possibly be the case). However, comments by Trojancowboy such as "no organization that I know of wants to rule over other races. They merely want to be rid of them" are deeply troublesome. I recommend that someone take a closer look at the overall acceptability of Trojancowboy's edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The user stated during their 3rd unblock request that they usually edit science articles[156], but a further look at their contribs shows that when they are not editing articles about science or Iceland, they are editing articles on Nazis, Neonazis, holocaust deniers and white supremacists, with the occassional Jewish or African American thrown in (generally unflattering info or naming them as Jewish, but usually cited). As with this case the user has at other times objected to white supremacist being labeled as such, as well as whitewashing other aspects of their reputations: 2011 Spokane bombing attempt[157], [158] and [159], David Dukediff,[160], and [161], and Edgar Steele[162]. A few of the contribs with the article titles are problematic as a general trend:Richard Girnt Butler, Archibald Roberts, Mike Nifong[163], Approach-avoidance conflict[164], Hajo Herrmann[165], The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Ernst Zündel[166], Talk:Herbert Hoover[167], Nick Griffin, Harold Cruse[168], Louis Farrakhan[169], Naomi Wolf [170], and Sylvia Stolz[171]. Heiro 07:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NLT does state as a rationale that legal threats create "bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." One might consider a threat to encourage others to take legal action as evidence of hostility toward the project and disruption in general, so blocks may result in that hypothetical case. --Chris (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether he has legal standing or not is irrelevant. NLT is to prevent the chilling effect of threatening legal action against another editor. In this case, it's vague enough I'm not sure NLT applies, but the editor making such comments could use a stern talking to about WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The intention is perfectly clear. We have an editor who has been campaigning to keep certain content out of an article. That editor mentions a possible legal threat from a specified person, and states that he has the intention of bringing the issue to the intention of that person. No person of normal intelligence who has read the editor's comments impartially can fail to see that the intention is to imply that he intends to take steps to bring about legal action, with the intention of intimidating other Wikipedia editors into not opposing the attempts of that editor to exclude the relevant content from the article. (A "chilling" effect.) The fact that the editor has taken steps to avoid actually threatening to take direct legal action himself is irrelevant: he has clearly sought to imply the intention of bringing about legal action by proxy. The editor's actions are unambiguously covered by the spirit of Wikipedia:No legal threats. That policy also refers to "comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats", under which category this certainly falls. The editor was informed of this discussion and was invited "to make it clear there that you are not intending to take any legal action or encourage others to do so". The editor has edited since then, so it is reasonable to assume he has seen that advice, but after substantially more than an hour has not responded. If this were a misunderstanding about the intentions of someone who did not intend to "take any legal action or encourage others to do so" then he would have had ample opportunity to clarify the situation, quite apart from the fact that the editors comments make it difficult to contemplate such an interpretation anyway. A "no legal threats" block is fully justified, and I shall impose one. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just borrow a theme from meta-wiki and block for "intimidating behavior". The closest policy that I can think of here covering that is WP:DE. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good block. WP:NLT doesn't say No Valid Legal Threats, it says No Legal Threats, and encouraging somebody else to sue over the content of an article (or, IMHO, even "saying they will point somebody to an article in the anticipation they will want to sue over it") is an unambigious legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Implied legal threat in a NLTs unblock request[172]? Heiro 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I put a legal threat in your legal threat? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an explicit legal threat to me. This is the first time I've seen a legal threat within an unblock request... Probably the easiest way I know of to remain blocked.--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen them before, and it just reinforces the impression of total lack of clue. But then, the POV pushing that originally drew the attention of myself and several other editors had already revealed that.Heiro 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having once been unfairly indef'd as a newby for merely observing that an edit might be libelous (withough in the least saying that I intended to do anything about it in the real world), I have to observe here that the same kind of still seems to be doing on, despite the warnings about assuming this about newbies in WP:NLT. Worse, the policy is ambiguous. WP:NLT states explicitly that Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Okay, but it's very coy on whose reponsibility it is to carry that removal out. Certainly subjects who feel personally libeled in a BLP are invited to "contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org," but what about everybody else reading and editing the article? Are they supposed to wait for the subject to do that? WP's BLP policy clearly makes this EVERY editor's responsiblity to delele defamation first (WP:BRD) and argue later. But now the problem: if you (as an editor not the subject of the BLP) delete what you think is a libelous statement in a BLP, what do you put as a reason, on the TALK page, and in your defending edit summary? "Removed due to troublesome assertion about a living subject?" maybe? If you say anything about defamation, you are implying that the editor who made the edit you're removing has put in a defamatory statement. So that's an indirect accusation of defamation (defamation doesn't happen all by itself without a person who added the defamatory content). If EVEN this kind of indirect implication thing is held to violate WP:NLT, then all discussion of whether or not an edit is, or is not, defamatory, would need to be held in SECRET, offline. Is that what we're down to, here on this encyclopedia with BLPs that anybody can edit? Seems kind of stupid to me. SBHarris 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Go look at the diffs for that page, the talk page and the users edit summaries a little closer, paying attention to the time stamps. Although I don't doubt your account of your own experience, this users experience is quite different. Heiro 23:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(Why would this discussion be "closed?" As though followup discussion is prohibited...) Sbharris, what happened to you is indeed unfortunate. NLT states: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." My suggestion regarding an appropriate edit summary would be something like "removing possible defamation (this is not a legal threat)." The word "possible" along with an explicit declaration to make yourself clear should prevent any misunderstanding. It sounds a bit silly, but it removes all ambiguity.

Now, having said that, NLT also states: "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." In cases of ambiguity, admins should not be issuing indef blocks. If your experience involved ambiguous comments and you were blocked with no discussion, I would place the error squarely on the shoulders of the blocking admin. --Chris (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocked user here did not remove any material, they just placed a "dubious-discuss" tag on information they personally disagreed with, without providing citations on the discussion page. Another user and myself both added citations to the disputed information and removed the tag. The user then replaced the tag and began making accusation of libel and promises to tell the subject of the article so they could pursue legal action, still without providing citations or any other material at the talk page. They were asked to retract or clarify their statements concerning their accusation of libel, both on the article talk and at their user talk. They did not, so the other user, an involved admin, brought the mater here for neutral input on the matter. They were subsequently blocked per NLT by an uninvolved admin. In three separate unblock requests now, they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, but they have kind of backed away from the NLT with their last one [173]. Heiro 01:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not indicating that this block was inappropriate; I was responding to Sbharris' comment only, in particular about the edit summary issue. --Chris (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chris, discussions like this usually get closed when there's nothing else for admins to do. If you dispute the decision, that's fine, but we don't generally keep talking just to talk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTFORUM does not apply to discussions about Wikipedia policies and their potential impact, it is about discussing the subjects of articles with no effort to improve the encyclopedia. --Chris (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to alter policy, feel free to take it up on the policy page. ANI is for stuff needing immediate attention of an admin, or looking into an admin's actions. And if you're wanting to talk with just one person, taking it up at their talk is preferable. Is there anything else admins need to do here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

High database server lag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is there any cause for concern regarding the message "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 804 seconds may not appear in this list"?

I know this is a semi normal occurrence but the number keeps increasing which indicates to me that something might be going on, perhaps a concentrated attack, is that possible? N^oformation ^Talk 02:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly adds copyrighted content

I'd like some assistance with RobertHWilson (talk · contribs) / 108.204.19.76 (talk · contribs); both I and User:LaMenta3 have tried to explain Wikipedia's image policy, but he persists in adding images from the internet to articles (generally related to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football). Hopefully we can explain that it's not just lame and annoying, and that we're not trolling, it's the law. :) Disavian (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also wish there was a clearer template progression when users add copyrighted content. I'm more used to traditional vandalism where there's the distinct levels and then you report it to AIV. Disavian (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

For images with false or missing licensing/source information, there is in fact the "uw-ics"1/2/3 series. Just gave him one of those. Thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I made this edit so it will jump out better. Doc talk 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out... not sure how I overlooked that one. Disavian (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice block. Thanks for the prompt action when he added another. Disavian (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

After looking through things, I'd strongly suggest upping the block to indef until the user gives indication he clearly understands Wikipedia's copyright policy. He has exhibited WP:OWN type behavior and (as mentioned) has described the expression of copyright concerns as trolling. I don't think a 48-hour sit-down is going to get the point across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Jaobar still Jonathan Obar?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is, I suspect, not the right place to post this message. But I can't find a better one, and posting here will, I think, get the job done.

User:Jaobar, you may recall, is Jonathan A. Obar, the academic who hopes to have admins interviewed by his students. OK so far. But in view of his explicitly divulged background (complete with funding from impressive places) and his earlier eagerness to impress people with his motives and seriousness, his recent editing pattern has been odd indeed. Consider this set of edits to his sandbox ("My favorite band is Phish", etc etc). And more so, this edit, in which he compliments an unspecified Jonathan (but in the context, presumably Obar) on his "awesome" talk.

Looks to me as if his account has been "compromised" (euphemism). I hesitate to block him, as he hasn't done anything harmful that I've yet noticed; but if somebody else would like to do so, I wouldn't object. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You could contact him directly at his university address to make sure. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on me. I was teaching a grad class this evening that included a section on editing Wikipedia. I made the edits when teaching students how to make edits in their sandboxes, as well as how to properly edit talk pages (complete with signatures!) It's me, not to worry. Oh and Phish is my favorite band. :-) Best, --Jaobar (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, User:Jaobar would say that. The question is: Will Dr Obar also say it? -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Elockid. Dr Obar hasn't yet replied to the email I sent him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He's emailed me. False alarm; all clear. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Bot vs. Bot

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

 – Bots 2, humans 1

We have a couple of bots that appear to have a difference of opinion. Not sure what to do about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_Project&action=historysubmit&diff=477237678&oldid=477221948

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_Project&action=historysubmit&diff=477221948&oldid=476057120

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

CocuBot has an old version of python I am thinking. There was an old bug in it that caused certain special characters to be misread so they linked to the wrong pages in pywikipedia's mind. ie one that doesn't exist. It should probably be blocked until he upgrades his python. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Actually, both bots are correct. CocuBot deleted the link to this, whereas EmausBot linked back to this. (I don't have a clue whether the pages are related, or even what language that is, however!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh yes you are right. It looked very similar to a bug that was affecting pywikipedia with the same language types. The pages would look almost identical but the bot would see it differently. Was something wrong with the unicode. Either way he is a version behind. But I forget which version had the correction. If it was 2.7.2 or 2.7.1. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Amusing it happens on that page. (Rep rap is about potentially self replicating physical bots) Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Interwiki links are broken in a surprising number of cases. Bot wars are just a consequence of that. There's a page on meta documenting just how broken" m:IS#Automated analysis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Could someone please close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest/SPA/OWN

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.

---

Opwdecks (talk · contribs) apparently has something, as they created the article Deck stains, have edited nothing but that article, and make constant reversions to it. I'm not sure if this is COI, SPA or just plain weird — anyone got any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The username suggests to me some level of intended promotion and references a company (see opwdecks.com) so a corpname block may be appropriate. I'm not sure if the account holder has ties to the external sites linked to... there are no links to opwdecks.com (though there was one at one time). At any rate, it'll be interesting to see what the editor does after the AfD discussion ends. --Chris (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Suspicious Interwiki activity

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

---

In the post above (Bot Vs. Bot), I was what sort of hilarious mistake the bots made on each other when I noticed that Luckas-bot also added RepRap to Simple Wikipedia. This led to an investigation being done on simple Wiki. I found out that the blocked User: Shakinglord has exiled himself to Simple English Wikipedia, seen here. Shakinglord has created a slew of pages from English Wikipedia and has even started an article creating even there. I'm not sure what can be done, but I find that it is disturbing that a banned editor has escaped. Rapide (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing for us to worry about. If he's behaving on simple, great, if not, the admins there will act. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A further look shows that he's copying pages from here to there without attribution in violation of our licenses. I'll post a note over there about that. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a note about the copying at simple:WP:AN. I'll let them take it from there. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Escaped is IMO the wrong word. By and large each WMF wiki is allowed to manage themselves as they see fit and most don't automatically block or ban people just because they've been blocked or banned elsewhere (although such a block/ban may be considered in a decision to block/ban based on behaviour on their wiki). While global locking is possible (as an alternative to global blocking which isn't currently possible for accounts), it generally only happen when the user has already proven they are disruptive at more than one wiki (or when a SUL account is compromised). If Shakinglord is disruptive at simple (this would likely include copying wholesale any pages from here without modification to make them simple) I'm guessing he/she's likely to be blocked there soon. But there have definitely been cases where en blocked (not sure about banned) users have been considered fairly constructive members of another wiki. For the benefit of simple, let's hope it's the later. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, now that I have finally found this thread (see mine below), I realize that this whole thing was started by a sock of him! Good grief. Users are being blocked. Calabe1992 17:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shakinglord likely block evasion

Someone mentioned that Shakinglord recently was active over at Simple, but I'm not seeing the thread at the moment. I'm nearly certain we have activity from him here as well. ChocolateWolf (talk · contribs) was previously blocked as a sock of him. SL stated it was his friend, and asked for CW to be unblocked. An admin assumed good faith, and unblocked the account. Since then, the sockpuppet farm expanded, and I proposed and successfully banned SL. Now, CW has been active again and I believe at this point it is beyond the point of assuming good faith with the original "friend" claim. At minimum I believe the account should be blocked, but we may need a sock investigation again. Requesting further comment. Calabe1992 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying the farm expanded because of all those welcome messages? I clicked on a couple, all with no edits, but one of them was apparently a student in some educational wiki project. Last of CW's activity was two weeks ago, and I see no evidence of vandal edits. I personally don't buy the "friend" story, but Bushranger is a nicer person than I am. Now, if CU confirms that some of those new accounts are sleepers, so to speak, then I think you have proof: but I don't know if that will be considered a fishing expedition. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, lol. The sock farm expanded after CW had been unblocked - it blew up when User:BusyBlacksmith came to ANI to complain about you, actually. I suspected he was a Spotfixer sock and subsequently opened an SPI, which led us to Shakinglord. Calabe1992 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and open an SPI on this. We'll see where that leads us. Calabe1992 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Users have been blocked via SPI. Calabe1992 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As a note, I was suspicious of the "friend" story as well, but decided to err on the side of good faith; unfortuntatly, things didn't work out. Ah well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Question about editing during AFDs

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.

---

• - When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?

When should those who voiced a "delete" opinion in an {{afd}} then perform referencectomies and informationectomies on that article while the {{afd}} is still running?

It has always seemed to me, that those who voiced a delete opinion should not edit the article -- at least while the {{afd}} is still running.

Some people have told me that nominators, and those voicing delete opinions, should be entitled to remove violations of {{blp}}. I don't agree. I think in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest they should ask a previously uninvolved third party to look at it.

Recently I participated in an {{afd}} where I voiced a keep opinion, and did some work on the article. I thought it was a pretty clearcut keep, and hadn't looked at it for several days. I was quite surprised to see that not only /had several contributors voiced delete opinions, but that the nominator, and two of those who voiced "delete" opinions made extensive excisions to the article.

The nominator offered an explanation for one of their edits, on the talk page. But the other contributors favoring deletion only explained their edits in their edit summary. In my opinion controversial edits really ought to be explained on the talk page. I see justifying a controversial edit in a short edit summary is an unnecessary trigger to edit-warring, as it represents a temptation to respond with a reversion, so those who disagree can reply with their in the same place, with their own edit summary.

In general I think it would be best for the project for those who think their concerns with an article make it irredeemable state their position in the {{afd}} itself. Specifically, in this article, I thought the justifications for the excisions were flimsy.

Because I am not forum shopping, I am explicitly not naming the specific {{afd}}. I have seen a couple of people who routinely edit war after nominating an article for deletion, or voicing a delete opinion. Since this seems to me to be a problem that routinely repeated by a small number of contributors I thought I could request general opinions here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am intentionally limiting the scope of my comment to the removal of BLP violations, but I see no reason to think that those who have voted "delete" should forfeit the right to remove them. BLP issues are taken seriously enough by Wikipedia, and rightfully so, that their removal is considered an exception to, say, the 3RR rule. The very real principle of avoiding possible harm to living people far outweighs the more abstract principle of wanting an AFD to look as tidy as possible. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I normally avoid making major changes to an article that is at AfD that I have !voted to delete, with the exception of removing BLP violations or copyright infringements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with making BLP policy related edits to an article I have !voted delete on however - BLP is nonnegotiable, there is no situation where it is not appropriate to take out BLP violations. What is/isn't a BLP violation can be controversial and tricky, and if someone else goes "I don't think that's a BLP violation" than the person involved should certainly discuss the issue, but there's nothing wrong with removing something you think is a BLP violation unless it's clear that consensus is against you. There's also nothing wrong with removing a BLP violation from an article you have a conflict of interest on. (Also, I'd hope that closing admins would take a quick gander at the history of the article, and pick up on things like unwarranted removals of content.)

Also, if you aren't requesting specific administrator action be taken here, it belongs on another board. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Only one of the edits had an edit summary explanation that mentioned BLP. It was a very minor edit (changing "is" to "was") -- not one of the extensive, questionable excisions. Geo Swan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

They should be able to edit the article in any way that would normally be permitted. In fact, sometimes its practically necessary: if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process. It helps all users see immediately whether or not the baseline criteria are met, and helps explain to the article creator or others defending the article that no, in fact, the notability isn't verified. Of course, someone removing valid content in an attempt to hurt the article should be sanctioned, but I assume that's not what you're talking about. P.S.: could you change the section title? There's not a lot of room for edit summaries like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why can't the concerned contributor explain their concern in the {{afd}}?
• I had an extremely dedicated wikistalker, who used to regularly make extensive and disruptive edits to articles they had nominated for deletion. They defended these edits as "improvements". But no one should nominate an article for deletion, or voice a delete opinion, if they think the article can be improved to the point it should be kept.
• You seem to be saying that it is acceptable for contributors who can't explain their concerns to demonstrate their concerns by editing the article. It is extremely rare to see nominators or those who favor delete to edit the articles. I strongly suggest that no one should demonstrate why they think an article should be deleted through excising those portions they object to. I strongly suggest only individuals willing and able to participate in a collegial exchange of ideas should participate in deletion discussions. I am sympathetic to those with dsylexia, or other learning disabilities, or who are still learning English. But those individuals simply aren't qualified to participate in a deletion discussion. Is that what you were suggesting?

  Frankly, I have never seen anyone do so when those edits weren't extremely disruptive. Those who favor keep should have the opportunity to actually improve the article, without having to contend with edit-warring from those who have gone on record favoring deletion.

• You wrote: "if there are a dozen things in the articles inclosed in "ref" tags, but 11 of them are "references" to blogs, PR reports, or other things that don't meet WP:RS, removing them is entirely appropriate and actually helpful to the process." I accept, at face value, that any occasion when you practiced this technique you did so in good faith. I accept, at face value, it simply hasn't occurred to you how disruptive this practice is, and how it gives the very strong appearance of bad faith, and serves to poison the general expectation of good faith we should all try to maintain.

  Nothing prevents you from saying, "IMO only one of the article's N references is to a an WP:RS." But, when you actually excise references from the actual article, other good faith participants, who look at the article, will find only the one reference you left. They don't get to form their own opinion as to whether the references you removed. The contributors who follow you are unlikely ot realize you performed a referencectomy on the article, if you don't say so in the {{afd}}. There is a pretty good chance that they won't notice, or won't understand, that you performed a massive referencectomy, even if you do say so in the {{afd}}, as a lot of {{afd}} participants don't read the whole {{afd}} discussion, or don't read it very closely. So, what you described as "actually helpful to rhe process" looks like an attempt to deceive other participants in the discussion.

  You seem to be asserting that that excising "blogs" with little or no explanation is okay. But there is a lot of confusion, even among experienced contributors, as to what is an unreliable blog. Most blogs are unreliable, because they are the work of a single individual, who is not an expert, who is not supported by an editorial team, following an editorial policy. But a small minority of online publications that are called "blogs" are reliable. They are the online only side of a reputable magazine, withe the same or similar ediorial standards of their print version. There are other online only publications, like Scotusblog, which have a greater reputation than print publications. Generally print publications cite Scotusblog, not vice versa. Finally, there are individuals who are already highly respected expertes in their field. When they publish something online, without benefit of a team of editors, their writings are nevertheless reliable, even if someone calls their writing a "blog". Don't be offended, but given the confusion and disagreement over what constitues a blog, even among the most experienced participants on the wikipedia, I am not going to accept your opinion, or anyone's opinion, that a reference is an unreliable blog that should be removed, wihtout an explanation. I strongly feel that, when an article is before {{afd}} it is far better if those who favor deletion confine themselfves to comments in the {{afd}} and refrain from editing the article. Geo Swan (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a problem, see WP:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn.  However, !voting delete does not mean that edits to an article are debilitating, ref.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Short answer: when the references are bogus, misleading or otherwise unsuitable, when the information is unverifiable or an infringement of policy. Longer answer - unless and until the consensus is to lock articles at afd so that the deletion discussion is on a snapshot of the article, there is no need to stop editors editing articles at afd. Not even editors whose opinion on the article differs from yours. pablo 10:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment). Whenever I nominate an article for deletion, as a purely personal policy I then attempt to wikify it, add cats, ELs and talkpage banners. (Caveat: I am a hugeificially baleetopedian, and/or All-Round Nice Guy.) Shouldn't we be discussing this at WP:VPP?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to treat WP:AFD as Articles for discussion. Issues with an articles are raised: if you're able to fix something, then do it. That may include weeding out improper ref's, but if you're good enough to replace them with better ones, then you have probably improved the 'pedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete !voters should of course be welcome to improve the article. However, if they are editing the article to (for example) remove sources they don't like (and thus reduce claims to notability) they'd better be clearly bogus sources. I've seen cases where someone says something like "all sources are only passing mentions" in the AfD and then remove wide swaths of text (and those sources) even though they were clearly reliable sources that supported the text in question. That, IMO, is unacceptable. Especially if the keep !voters had comments like "sources in article clearly meet WP:N" or the like. Baring BLP issues or clearly bogus use of sources, folks pushing for deletion shouldn't be removing sources--and if they do feel they need to they should make it clear they _did_ so in the AfD. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• If the statement of the subject is correct, the article really needs to be deleted under DONOHARM. Saying someone with relatively minor past involvement is a leader of this organization is very much the sort of thing DoNoHarm was meant for.(While being aware that it can be in the interest of someone who is truly the leader of such an organization and notable as such to try to hide the fact despite reliable evidence otherwise). But the first step is to validate that the person saying he's the subject actually is. And the person offers circumstantial evidence he cannot be the subject based on his travel and other considerations, not all of which appear likely--was he actually only a recent learner of Arabic and yet teaching a madrassa?, which would need also to be verified. And that can only be done on OTRS, where we can deal with such evidence.

As for the general issue of removing content during AfD , it depends on the circumstances. Sometime removing content makes a stronger article, for example by removing promotionalism. sometimes there are genuine BLP concerns. But sometimes it's an attempt to destroy the article unfairly by making it as weak as possible. Since if the BLP claims are correct the article probably does need to be deleted, the better course would be to leave them in during the discussion, so people can judge that; if so, they'll be removed soon enough. If the article is kept, then they can be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order This page is for discussing particular incidents not generalities. The discussion here should therefore be closed or relocated. Warden (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Wholetruth123

There are two warning signals in a user name: something about "truth" and a set of sequential numbers. I can use your help with this one. I blocked this editor earlier today for edit warring on Islamism, where they are trying to insert an OR/synthi/soapboxy definition of islamism. Besides those problems, I noticed something else: please note the possibly revolting antisemitic language in this edit. I blocked them for 48 hours, but I wonder if that should be lengthened to, say, indefinite. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified the editor. I hope that someone will be helpful in copying their comments, should they have any, from their talk page to this thread. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall watch their page, and do so if they have any. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

48 hours? Really? You're very generous. I don't see "warning signs"--I see a hatemonger who needs to find an opinion blog to post his/her opinions on, and leave the encyclopedia alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I tell you what, Qwyrxian--feel free to overrule me! What I saw was a bunch of stuff I couldn't really make heads or tails of, and that ridiculous edit above, I only saw that after the block. Which is why I brought it here... Drmies (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who couldn't understand them! I was tempted to block after I saw what they were posting but thought it better to err on the side of caution and make sure they were properly warned first. I can't see them lasting too much longer as they seem to be here to push their view and little else. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CBW, the plot thickens. In response to their talk page message about admins with agendas voting to redirect the article and abuse the truth (whatever that may be), I wrote the following, which I'll quote in full:

"There was no vote. The history of Islamist is here. The argument is simple: an islamist adheres to islamism. Your comparison to African American is specious. BTW, you're not the first to propose what you did--this edit, by User:Coninera, and an IP in the 142 range, did the same in 2005. Odd--some other IPs in that same range had redirected the term in 2003 already. Are you quite sure that this was your first edit on Wikipedia?"

Interesting. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

American Piano Academy

This isn't probably the best place to dump this, but could somebody please take a look at the edit just before mine and figure out what, if anything, needs to be done here? Sorry to be vague but the edit summary should explain why I thought this needs another look. 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• From looking at this version, the last one edited by the editor with the supposed COI, I can't tell that it would be POV or otherwise contaminated. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • About a dozen questions popped into my mind, including: does the rather accusatory edit summary present BLP concerns? Is the article subject even notable? (I see it's not referenced.) Is it a copyvio of anything? These are normally things I would dig into but am just too exhausted to do tonight, which is why some more eyes would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, the current version with the bolded sentence under "philanthropy" is a bit unusual as well. You rightfully reverted the edit in question, but I think there is definitely some sort of agenda being pushed here.I think maybe, being it is unsourced with some borderline BLP concerns, would make it a candidate for an AFD process at the very least. Any takers? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I've PROD'd it, as the reasons given for this commercial music school's "notability" are totally unnotable - every music school in the United States has seen some of its graduates go on to study music. And some of its students happened to be in Japan during the earthquake -- well, that's certainly significant!

        It's just a run-of-the-mill music school with nothing particular to differentiate it from hundreds of others just like it. Next we'll have articles on every bakery in every town in America. ("Noted for its excellent pumpkin pie and its strawberry tart is to die for.") Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary doesn't bother me too much, given the relatively limited search exposure of edit summaries. (Added: the edit you removed is indeed pretty bad.) Looking at the academy website[174] shows the name mentioned, indicating COI, though the promotion level is fairly tame compared to what we often get. I'm too burnt out for it right now, but maybe someone could have a polite chat with the initial contributor explaining the COI and notability issues. I'm going to endorse the prod based on difficulty of assuring a neutral article with such sparse sourcing when there is an apparent controversy. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (updated).

In a strange bit of Irony and coincidence, if I would have been allowed to tag this article with the WPUS banner I probably would have noticed that myself. --Kumioko (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous personal attack

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

---

After I flagged Freedom, Inc. for speedy deletion as an unremarkable organization (the article had only one link from a library about someone making a documentary), Judge Dred Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a similar article at Freedom, Inc where he called me "an evident white-supremacist" and alleged that I "initiated a political controversy". This is completely out of bounds, and I request that action be taken against this editor. I will also be filing a sockpuppet investigation on this editor, as I noticed that they seem to be editing as in a very similar pattern to new user Riderz Tide. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I continue to allege that User:Mike Wazowski is (Personal attack removed) and anyone can see he initiated a political controversy. What's out of bounds about expressing one's opinion? (Personal attack removed) This is all I plan to contribute to this discussion at this time, I have bigger fish to fry. Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this is the comment to which Wakowski refers, in its totality: (Personal attack removed) Judge Dred Scott (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a block of JDS is warranted. If he's not a troll (and I think he probably is) then he holds strong enough views to make cooperation with other users impossible, and Wikipedia being based off of cooperation, that would represent a rather significant problem. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a two week block of JDS.--WaltCip (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Although it is not a legal threat, there does seem to be a threat implied here ("This incident is being reported to U.S. Congressman Cleaver") that seems to have the intention of creating a chilling effect. - SudoGhost 06:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To accuse this editor of being a "white-supremacist" with no evidence? Ouch. I'm seeing a lot of helpful vandalism reverts in his most recent contribs, not hate-mongering. Doc talk 06:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have deleted Freedom, Inc, and am leaving Freedom, Inc. for a moment, giving it a bit of time for expansion (maybe it should go up for an AfD, not sure if this is not notable).

Judge Dred Scott, I ask you to withdraw your personal attacks immediately. The tagging by MikeWazowski is at worst a bit quick, but chilling possible discussion with the personal attacks is not how we operate here on Wikipedia. Do come up with proper, independent references from reliable sources, and you may find that the article sticks. If however you choose not to withdraw the allegations, you may find yourself blocked, and the faith of the article may be different. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In ec, I see that the former is also deleted .. a quick search does suggest some notability, though I did not do a full search. I am afraid the tagging was a tad fast. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that Riderz Tide (talk · contribs) has a similar focus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being as "white supremacist" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Scott for 48 hours for his blatant personal attack. I should note that he shows no interest in redacting the attack. Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Since JDS appears to have no interest in removing his personal attacks above, can I get them redacted and removed from the edit history? I personally find his spurious allegations obscene and utterly uncalled for. Thanks. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It could fit #2 here, possibly. Eh. If it were me, I'd just let it roll off my back and know that this account will not be accusing you of this sort of thing again without a much lengthier block being assigned. Doc talk 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Poor Korean biographical stubs which seem to come from a model or template

If a chronic, rather than acute, problem like this is not an "incident" and should be discussed elsewhere, my apologies and please move it to the right place and let me know! PamD 14:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

While stub-sorting I've been finding a series of badly-written Korean historical biographical stubs which look as if they are all from the same template or model, although from different, usually newby, editors. They all have years in dates linked; the lead sentence mangles singular and plural (eg "Yi Jae-hyun(korean:이제현, hanja:李齊賢, 1287–1367) was a politicians and early Korean Neo-Confucianism scholar and philosopher, Writer, Poets."); they tend not to use capital letters for sentence starts; they usually have both {{stub}} and {{Korea-bio-stub}}; they use non-standard section headings. I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Mass-produced_biographical_stubs.3F, but they continue. They started Nov 11 or earlier. I've mentioned problems to individual editors, but they continue. I don't know whether a student group has been given poor instruction and urged to edit, or what, but it's sad to see such a string of poor quality additions. Any ideas what can be done? PamD 14:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like at least one of the accounts has now been blocked. Unfortunately I'm not sure what else we can do if most articles are created by new accounts and we have no idea where they're coming from. Sadly we have seen poor content work from educational institutions but it could equally be one individual running multiple accounts. Are the article subjects themselves notable? EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is not the only such case. I;'ve seen similar from other geographic regions, or on other topics. We need some better way of handling them. The ideal solution is some way to convince the originators that they need to do things properly with good referencing, and give them the needed help for that. But usually the people doing this do not respond to messages, and I can't imagine blocking just to get someones attention when they 've done nothing actually block-worthy. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If necessary we do issue blocks to get attention - remember a block is not a punishment but a technical means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, which persistent creation of large numbers of poorly formatted stubs most certainly is. However blocking may be ineffective if the stubs are mostly being created by new accounts each time. We'd be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

As I see it the range of possible responses are to:

• block the accounts anyway, and keep at it until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us; or
• delete the articles, and keep at it with new ones until someone starts listening to concerns and talking to us (may be problematic if the subjects are notable though); or
• try to make the best of a bad situation by tagging and/or cleaning up the articles; or
• see if we can write an edit filter to catch the creations (not my area of expertise); or
• some combination of the above.

I'm open to suggestions :) EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Tnxman307 has blocked 21 editors as "Abusing multiple accounts". The problem is that almost all of these stubs are created by new (?) editors who arrive, create one or two very markup-heavy article in this format on one day, and don't edit again. Will be interesting to see if it continues now. Of course I don't see them all, only the ones I happen to stub-sort (and if the editor(s) listened when I point out that they don't need {{stub}} as well as {{Korea-bio-stub}}, then I wouldn't see any of them.) They are getting past New Page Patrol without so much as a {{cleanup}} tag, despite linked dates and mangled English.

Have just spotted that a couple, at least, of these editors have a log record saying "Account created automatically" - see Special:Log/Lagnaqar, Special:Log/Jddbc. What does that signify? Is it a clue as to where they are coming from? PamD 14:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Poking around I see that Lagnaqar has uploaded a number of images to Commons where they also have an account. Although I'm just guessing, I strongly suspect the "Account created automatically" tag is because the original account was not created on en-WP and WP:SUL was then used to create unified accounts across all WMF projects. Unfortunately I don't think that gets us any nearer to solving the stub issue though. Perhaps the best thing, now there's been a cull, is as you suggest to wait and see if there's further disruption. EyeSerene^talk 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lagnaqar and Jddbc both are blocked on the Korean Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR Violation and edit warring by Markvs88

I would like to ask for administrator action regarding an ongoing disagreement between myself and Markvs88. When I attempt to make changes to an article on this users watchlist they revert it without hesitation regardless of the edits being made. Secondly, Markvs88 has violated the 3RR rule by reverting the changes too many times and rather than continue into an edit war myself I am bringing the issue here for resolution. The following 3 articles are presented:\

• Talk:American Crossword Puzzle Tournament - 1, 2, 3
• Talk:American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut - 1, 2
• Talk:American Cruise Lines - 1, 2, 3.

The source of this trouble is Markvs88 displaying innappropriate ownership over articles in the scope of WikiProject Connecticut and not allowing another related project, WikiProject United States, to add a banner. In some 2 cases above he also removed tags of other related States projects such as Rhode Island, New York and New York City. I have left the user multiple warnings but the users continues to revert any changes being made. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this might be a matter for WP:AN3 rather than here. Doniago (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, indeed, of me being stalked by Kumioko. Or bad faith that he refuses to even discuss the issue at hand. But hey, I'm happy to discuss it anywhere. Also, I could not have reverted 3RR before Kumioko did, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this goes! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the source of this trouble is Kumioko's bot tagging every article on Wikipedia that starts with "America" or "United States" as being in the scope of WikiProject United States. Including, of course, Americano (cocktail), Americano do Brasil, and Americans of European descent, that last being a redirect to Caucasian race.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If the bot's malfunctioning, I'd block it. But is this a case of bad input, or of the bot going off the reservation? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, bot stopped editing about a day ago. But still problematic. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad input. Kumioko claimed that he had removed problematic items from his lists, but it's clear he didn't review them closely enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot was doing exactly what it was supposed to do but it has been stopped, unfortunately a lot of other tasks arent getting done either but thats another matter. Sarek's comments are off topic and he is just trying to cloud the issue with bad input. I am not talking about those articles, the bot, the tagging run or anything else.I brought this here rather than get into an edit war over the actions of Markvs88. I am talking about Markvs88 violatingn 3RR and edit warring. Since Sarek mentioned the list. I tagged about 11, 000 articles of which about 150 were incorrect such as the ones he mentioned above. A very low error rate of about .825% --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For example, he tagged American Tourister as being in-scope. When I reverted that, he reverted me as vandalism, only later realizing that it actually was in the scope of WikiProject Rhode Island, which he took over with no actual community input in September 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop making up numbers, please -- you have absolutely no idea how many are incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That's absolutely not vandalism, nor are the other removals linked above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So any user is free to remove the work of other users? Thats completely absurd. Sarek you are just confusing the issue with. I have already admitted there were some errors. I am not talking about those I am talking about the 3 specific ones above and Markvs88 conduct. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review the header on this page - all edits by all involved parties are reviewed, including those of the reporting editor. And, on the merits, I'm really trying hard to find a reason not to block you outright for disruptive editing (Edit Warring and Highlighting non-vandalism edits as Vandalism). You're responding to questions about the tagging operation, and about these edits in particular, with rage and anger, and that's not helping your cause. Please settle down, have a cup of tea, and discuss the matter. If I know it's not going to continue to be a problem, perhaps we can find a solution. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, either. See Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to block me for trying to follow the rules then I guess thats your right. Personally, this all came about because I am getting frustrated by other users beging allowed to repeatedly violate policy and no one seems willing to do anything about it. If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And that right there is precisely the problem. There's a big ol' long discussion at the Village Pump on this very topic - whether the tags are duplicative, what has been (or should be) done if they are, and how WP:US can work with other wikiprojects to ensure that in-scope articles are noted as such without stepping on each other's toes. You know that this discussion is ongoing, because you are a participant in it. It's unclear what the consensus is regarding the rules, so what I see is that you interpreted them one way and reverted as vandalism an editor who disagreed. The step after that first revert would've been to post "I think this should be tagged as WP:US because X". Then you discuss it. You don't repeatedly revert, and you don't declare the project dead because a discussion may not have gone your way. You might consider discussing the issue with other projects and editors, maybe finding a path forward. Drama helps your cause and your project not at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it isn't a matter of 3RR or vandalism I went ahead andn reverted Markvs88 reversion of my edits again. I am sure he will revert that and we can go back and forth. I was really hoping that we could resolve this issue either here or in the village pump but it seems not. It seems the community would rather have editors showing ownership over articles, violations of policy, constant harrassment of other editors who are just trying to tag articles for their project (who should be able to tag articlesin their scope) rather than have actual constructive edits and cooperation. Its really a shame what is happening these days. Since the discussions are going on Mark should leave the articles tagged in their current state until the discussion is over. I have attempted to discuss is with Mark who refuses to listen insisting that any article tagged as Connecticut is out of WPUS's scope. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As that was a declaration of intent to continue edit warring, I've asked the people at WP:EWN to take a look at this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

Actually, Sarek, it goes much farther: WPUS has "borged" other Wikiprojects as defunct ((ie:WikiProject Massachusetts, with no disucssion (that I could find) at all other than a notice on that talk page. This means that those projects cannot be restored without a LOT of work to seperate them from WPUS. This started after he proposed all state projects be under a common WPUS banner, and there have been other debates on the subject with other editors such as user:racepackcet and myself, which are in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. As a note to Kumioko, I *always* leave valid Wikiproject tags on articles, and he full well knows that. That he thinks that things like List of colonial governors of Florida is a WPUS issue is the problem. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, Ultra, this is ridiculous. Is a block imminent here? I am going to revert the edits referred to in the first complaint as disruptive and overly extending the scope of these projects. Kumioko, your restraint will be appreciated; lack thereof will be blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Too late. See below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but there appears to be a similar ANI thread above (#Blind_bot_tagging) regarding the same two users and same "incident" in question; but with different admins/users participating in that discussion, as oppose to the admins/users commenting on this current thread. Thought I'd best point it out in case it had been missed or overlooked. Wesley☀Mouse 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Kumioko 31 Hours for Edit-Warring. Despite being told that their edits were disruptive and constituted Edit Warring, they went ahead and reverted 3 different articles again. They also posted here their intent to continue such reverts. I'm open to a review of the block, and I know some would've blocked longer - on that point, I defer to consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Kumi-Taskbot as a result of this edit, and have so notified Kumioko. Not sure how deeply we plan to delve into the bot issue here, despite the thread noted by Wesley Mouse. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block (although longer) "you're being disruptive, and you're edit-warring" does not mean "ok, I'll go off and do it some more" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block (and consider extending). Kumioko obviously had no intention of ceasing the edit war. The remark "If reverting another users edits, that improve the article isn't vandalism then I guess I don't know what is." is quite telling, as it indicates unwillingness to even consider the possibility that an opposing viewpoint (Markvs88's belief that the tags don't improve the articles) is defensible. Oddly, Kumioko complained that "everyone just wants to assume bad faith", which is precisely what he's doing by deeming edits with which he disagrees "vandalism". —David Levy 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block blind reversion of users edits, regardless of quality, is something that's so bad I've heard people complaining about it off-wiki. Edits that just don't improve the article (in your view) aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support block - almost did it myself when I saw this a little earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support and since he has now used his bot to get around his block I would either extend his block or make it indef as abusing multiple accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Bots belonging to blocked editors should also be blocked ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Seems a bit over the top... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Which is why I suggested the less over the top method of lengthening the block. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  True :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  NOT a good general rule --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block and regretfully propose extension - the continued assumptions of bad faith, combined with edit-warring, declarations to continue edit-warring, block evasion using a bot account, and the overall "I know what is right and you are all wrong" attitude lead me to no other conclusion. I've been somewhat involved at WT:BIRDS trying to discuss things with Kumioko; I thought I might have been getting somewhere but apparently he decided he wasn't going to listen after all. (For those not following the discussion there, his response to his bot willy-nilly tagging bird articles starting with "American foo" with WPUS banners, and then the project pointing out a large number of said taggings weren't appropriate, was to willy-nilly AWB away all the tags on "American foo" bird articles - including completely approprately tagged organization articles and categories - and start tossing around accusations of WP:OWN.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indef blockClearly this user is no good for the community and never did a useful thing in 7 years and 300+ thousands edits (according to their userpage). WPUS is a huge project with lots of articles and few active members. This one user tried and failed to do it all themselves. Just ban them, (which seems to be what the user is suggesting on their talk page) and disband the project. Thats what everyone wants, quite pussyfooting around the issue and just man up and do what needs to be done. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Based on the contribs of this IP I am pretty sure it is Kumioko evading his block again. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Concur - I've struck through the comment above. I'd also note that apparently Kumioko - ironically considering his comments regarding other WPs - believes he WP:OWNs WPUS and it won't survive without him. One of these days I'll get around to writing WP:THEWIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yep. Blocked by MuZemike. —David Levy 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: but no extension for an editor with an unblemished record and incredible service to WPUS. Something like this has been building for a long time: Kumioko has been under intense pressure to keep the momentum going at WPUS while simultaneously dealing woth those who oppose his leadership and vision. He has resurrected a dead project and created a mega-project, almost single-handedly that is the envy of every wikiproject coordinator at wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly his leadership and vision appear to have been somewhat...strained by the pressure, apparently, judging by the accusations and overreactions. However, it's entirely possible a WikiBreak (enforced or otherwise) might help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this unblemished record either. I remember much bogus ANI drama and dead-horse flagellation surrounding Kumioko's misuse of AWB a while back[175] so this seems like more of the same. I don't understand the purpose of those banners anyway. It used to be that if an article talkpage tab was a bluelink, that meant there was actually some discussion there, so if you clicked it you'd find out something relating to the article's past or ongoing development. If it was a redlink you knew there was no point to clicking it. Now the tabs are mostly bluelinks but when you click them you too often just see those damn banners that tell you nothing. Maybe there's been some past discussion about that, so I don't claim to know what is or isn't established practice, but I find the banners pretty annoying and IMHO it would be better if project tagging were done with hidden categories. Certainly I would urge withdrawal of the bot approval for this particular tagging operation. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's very long-established practice, and in most cases the banners themselves add the hidden categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment See past ANI here (June 2011), another conflict over same issue between Kumioko and Markvs88 under subheading "Requesting help with a disagreement". Deja vu all over again. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The original issue

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to have been addressed whether or not Markvs88 should be blocked for 3RR. I'm not stating my position regarding this, just pointing out that it may not have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On what page? None of the three examples cited in the original complaint are 3RR violations. 46.208.215.98 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I defer to consensus, but I chose not to block Markvs88 because he stopped reverting once the ANI discussion got under way. Had he reverted again despite being warned against it (from someone not a party to the dispute), I would have blocked him as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting another person's edits (except special circumstances like BLP) counts under 3RR. A bot is not a person, so in general, reverting a bot should not count. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ip Editors above: If I implied that I thought he violated 3RR, that was not my intention. I was just pointing out that it did not appear to have been addressed yet.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the start of this thread yesterday and was writing up something recommending a thorough WP:TROUTing for both parties before I got called away. Obviously events then overtook my intended response. However, both parties have misapplied the term "vandalism", both parties have edit warred, and both parties are experienced enough editors to have known better. Although Kumioko has now been rightly blocked for continuing to edit war, I hope that Markvs88 doesn't take that outcome as a vindication of their handling of the dispute. I see no need for a block but up until Kumioko resumed reverting, conduct was equally poor on both sides. EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vindication? No, of course not. I did what I did becuase the other party refused to talk, and has refused to do so on other occcasions. This is why I've not been replying to any of Kumioko's posts/goads (nor those of his various alts, nor allies), and why have I not done any more untagging work (as the bot has been stopped) because I don't want to escalate the issue and cause more drama.

All that I want (and I think there are not a few other editors in this camp too), is a proper discussion regarding the scope of the WPUS and it's practice of "assimilating" other wikiprojects. Every time I've tried to discuss this, the problem dies down for awhile and then resurfaces after awhile... sometimes with other editors, sometimes with me. I'm not against valid tags on articles. I do not revert blindly, and only do so when I feel it's clearly out of scope. If an admin (or someone) is interested in creating such a discussion (so it would be "neutral ground") I would be happy to discuss it there. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a discussion seems to be brewing a bit at WP:US's talk page, but obviously that's not exactly neutral ground. A Request for Comment might be the best bet, particularly if you're drawing comments and suggestions from many projects at once (US, the State Projects, some of the larger locality projects, US History, maybe the US-centric task force of MILHIST, etc). Consider also inviting comment from projects that have dealt with this issue in the past (I want to say WP:Computing?). Obviously, it could end up being a big discussion, but could provide a path forward. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's hopeful at least, though I agree that an RfC might be better. Markvs88, I do appreciate your obvious frustration; my main concern was that by engaging in tit-for-tat reverting (to the extent of using the same edit summaries) you were escalating rather than defusing the situation. I can't think of many talk-page templates that are so disruptive that they need to be urgently removed and then edit-warred over. A better solution might have been to revert once in each case, then try to discuss the issue with Kumioko when they reverted back, then come here if that failed. It wouldn't have mattered much if an inappropriate template stayed on the article talk page for a few hours during that process and would have saved unnecessarily muddying the waters. Basically we expect editors to both be interested enough in a subject to want to edit about it, and disinterested enough not to get hot under the collar when their edits are challenged. Unsurprisingly this is a very difficult balance to maintain :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A bit of edit-warring is problematic, but I don't think it's a crisis and it's not what concerns me here; what I find more worrying is the blanket criticism of people who point out problems with many of kumioko's edits, often in the same edit as nonchalance or dismissiveness about actually fixing the problems. In a community-built encyclopædia, that's really corrosive, and will erode a lot of goodwill. Pointing out bad edits is part of the solution, not part of the problem; I hope kumioko will take a bit more responsibility in future. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My responses to the comments and accusations on this page

Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussion I have responded to all comments on my talk page. I doubt anyone wants to continue this discussion or solve the actual underlying problem of inappropriate article ownership that caused me to come here in the first place but if you do please do so there. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POINTy disruptive editing

• Kumioko wants to break up WPBIO
• Kumioko doesn't think a bot should help convert a WikiProject to a task force of another WikiProject
• Kumioko thinks there are too many admins
• Kumioko doesn't think anyone wants to solve article ownership problems

And that's all just in the past 5 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me respond to each in order. Next time use numbers please its easier to respond too when you have multiple items.

First, its not what I want. Its what the "community consensus" is according to editors here and in other discussions. WPUS is too big and unmanagable at 179, 000 articles. I now accept that. As such WikiProject Biography, with more than 800, 000 articles also fits in the category of a too big to manage project. If you don't like that Sarek that is your opinion. Your opinion does not seem to meet community consensus however.

Second, I still don't. That discussion is still ongoing. The bottom line is there are quite a few bots that can do this task and others like it but moreoften than not they declinen or ignore the requests because WikiProject tagging is inherently dramatic. I was warned as such when I started and it turned out to be correct.

I do think there are too many admins and I think that Wikipedia is better served giving people the tools they need rather than a toolbox full of stuff they never saw before. Additionally, most admins specialize in one or 2 areas, few use the entire package and therefore my conclusion is they don't need them.

I don't and again that discussion is still ongoing. Maybe someone will prove me wrong, I hope so.

I added these comments recently because I have decided to spend my time in other areas besides editing articles and working in WPUS. There are lots of other areas in WP to invest my time in such as these discussions. I have lots of free time now. :-) In the end Sarek I am afraid is just crying Worf (a little Star trek pun there sorry I couldn't resist) and only proves I added a comment of how I feel. Nothing more. Live long and IAR (sorry another borderline innappropriate joke). Additionally I would suggest that this discussion be broken off into a seperate one. The original 3RR issue I submitted due to Markvs88 breaking policy was determined to my shagrin to be acceptable conduct in this new Wikipedia environment and my personal feelings on the matter aside is behind us and this is a seperate matter. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any of the comments here or on your talk page? Any at all? Because your comment here sounds an awful lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Theres a policy for everything and an interpretation in everything. I heard every word although it seems like a lot of folks have selective hearing about my comments. I am just trying to follow the policies that you and others have been explaining to me. Or should I instead opt to IAR. I have tried for years to be a productive editor. The community doesn't want me to use my time and abilities to participate in WPUS and do actual article developement so I am trying to find another niche to see if I even want to continue to use my time here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Stop pouting. Sometimes we get what we want on Wikipedia, sometimes we don't. There is plenty of work you can do that will receive absolutely no objections from anyone, so there is no point in endlessly mourning the loss of the work that some people do object to.
2. Knock off the obvious WP:POINT violations (e.g. trying to disband WPBIO despite "not wanting to") or someone will block you for disruption. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its fine, you can block me if you want to. Thats what admins around here do when they don't want to discuss the issues and have a conversation. I'm just going on the direction of what everyone is saying here at at the Village pump about WPUS having too broad a scope. All bios is a pretty darn big scope too and it isn't even broken into 70 pieces like WPUS is. It doesn't really matter this place isn't about building a pedia anymore anyway, just drama, discussions and policy blocking every comment or suggestion with whatever policy suits our needs at the tim. This place is a waste of time. I shoulda played World of Warcraft or something. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in blocking you. I just want you to stop pouting and being pointy. Why won't you consider doing that? 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am compiling an essay response to you Kumioko outside of Wikipedia to avoid edit conflicts.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,341,926) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wrapping things up anyway. This place will be better off without me and my bot and our 20-30 thousand edits a month. --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't want you to leave, we just want you to be OK with the fact that in a wiki, you don't get your way 100% of the time. That's really not so unreasonable, is it? 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well ya'all have a funny way of showing it. Actions speak louder than words and right now your screaming at me to just go away. --Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your content work is appreciated and you do contribute but these are issues that may cause problems and not help them and why are you bringing your bots into this. They were malfunctioning and had to be disabled. It's not like you can't use them anymore. Fix the code and resubmit a WP:BRFA. Still compiling that essay.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,377,192) 00:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sick of saying this. The bot was doing what it was supposed to do the list I gave it had a few bad article titles in it. I was identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it but Sarek and Mark wanted to open up discussions all of the Wiki about it and start edit warring over it. Then I got blocked and said screw it let em fix it themselves. The bot tagged about 11, 000 articles and I had a list of about 150 that were mistagged to start. There were probably more but now I guess well have to let them work themselves out. The bot is fine, the code is fine, the list was 99% fine. Had anyone actually taken the time to ask I could have explained it but everyone started jumping to conclusions and making bad faith assumptions. The whole show is pure BS and a perfect example of why Wikipedia is dying. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the above statement is that when you were "identifying the bad articles and trying to fix it" you were AWB-ing the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, removing the tags from Talk:American Eagle Foundation [176], Category talk:American ornithologists [177], Talk:American Racing Pigeon Union [178], etc. - the contribution history clearly shows that you simply went in, selected the bird-themed articles that had "American" in the title, and blanket untagged them, using an automating tool, without checking whether the untaggings were appropriate - which is not acceptable editing behavior. And then you essentially accused the project of acting in bad faith/WP:OWN behavior [179] for simply having questioned the appropriateness of some of the taggings. (And "Wikipedia is dying" has been declared for years now; reports of its demise are, obviously, greatly exaggerated.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly part of the problem is that the scenario is difficult and confusing but here goes...yet again. At the time of the incident I was converting the tags of Texas to WPUS at the same time the bot was tagging articles. I had 4 different tasks running concurrently as can partially be seen from the edit summery. The articles you refer to that I removed the tags from were because Jimbleak (I think thats his username) of the birds project said thats what needed to be done. So I took it at that and didn't argue it (because article ownership these days is allowed and I didn't feel like fighting...yet). Then the discussion turned because you said otherwise (there were 43 articles total affected). So the 43 articles I "untagged" were in fact because Jim from WikiProject Birds told me too and eventhough I felt it was an article ownership issue, didn't fight it because no one cares. At the same time Jim was griping about my tagging and you were griping my untagging, Sarek and Mark were griping about a similar related issue in three other places. About then the bot finished the run. But someone started jumping up and down and made me stop the bot. Eventhough the task effected was completed and it only affected other, unrelated tasks. Mark started reverting every edit I made to any article that pertained to Connecticut and Sarek began deleting talk pages with the WPUS banner on them because he didn't think they were in the projects scope. Eventhough, with the exception of 2, they clearly were. So I reverted a couple of Marks 2nd and 3rd generation revertions and got blocked. Now there are still about 161 (maybe a few more) articles out of 11, 000...Eleven thousand (that is about 1.463% error by my calculations) I consider to be mistagged as WPUS. But since all anyone wanted to do was run at me and the bot with pitchforks and torches and assumptions of bad faith and article ownership rather than let me explain and fix the problem everyone, expecially me, got all pissed off and frustrated. --Kumioko (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from unregistered user

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

IP 78.86.217.250 has been vandalizing V (science fiction) over and over again since late November. 18 edits in total and every one of them vandalizing the same page. Could someone please block this character? DigiFluid (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified the user. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really look liked WP:VANDALISM to me, just a newbie who doesn't edit properly. Maybe you should try talking to him a bit. There's been no real discussion on his Talk page (one warning from another editor), and no discussion on the article Talk page (the only article he's edited). Certainly doesn't look like coming here was warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, genuine vandalism should be reported at WP:AIV, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-read the edits. Every one of them is to interject that the article's content is false and incorrect without changing anything else. But I'll take Bushranger's advice. DigiFluid (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did look at many of the edits (and you've provided zero diffs here), and some are clearly inappropriate (mostly annoying commentary), but some are not. In addition, the IP has received only one warning, and it's hard to get an editor blocked without proper warnings. Plus, at the point you posted here, there was one bad edit (commentary), but there had been no edits for a week before that. Good luck at AIV, but I think you're going to need more before an admin will impose a vandalism block. I do see you've engaged the IP in a discussion - that's a good thing, although I'd stay clear of the discussion of whether the edits constitute vandalism and just focus on the content and how editing should be done. For example, your comment about WP:COMMENTARY is constructive, whereas your comemnts about vandalism (e.g., "obvious nonsense") are not as helpful. I'm not sure you will convince the IP of the errors of their ways, but you have more chance to do so if you leave out the inflammatory accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV

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

---

This deletion review was closed by User:S Marshall, who is not an admin, four-and-a-half days after it opened. He appears to argue that it was a snow closure, but of the 28 comments, not including my own, five people voted for relisting or around 18%. Of those votes one came from someone who had voted keep in the deletion discussion and another two comments were from admins. Indeed, one of the admins, made a point of noting that the first twelve votes endorsing the close of the discussion did not address the deletion discussion at all. Yet when I raised all this to the user who performed the non-admin closure he responded:

“ I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. ”

That seemed to be an admission that the editor was monitoring the discussion with the full intent of closing it as an endorsement from the beginning. Notably among the last six comments on the discussion, three were supporting a relist. Given that this was a non-admin closure (violating the criteria at WP:NACD and WP:NAC) by someone who appears to have been biased towards a certain outcome from the start in deciding to close I would like an admin to re-open that so it can continue for the remainder of the seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it have been closed any other way? Probably not. So how cares how it was closed? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The DRV certainly could have been closed another way and the MfD as well. Discussion appeared to be turning towards a relist given the last six comments. Instead of allowing things to play out for the whole seven days, it was closed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you also raise this on Jimbo's talk page, on Wikipedia Review, on the AN noticeboard, and on at least five WikiProject talk pages. Perhaps an RfC is in order here. If all else fails, send a letter (registered) to ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, almost any decision is possible with pages involving the ARS--the divisions within the community about it are pretty clear, & it may take some different approach to settle them, if they can ever be settled. But the best way of avoiding further conflict in any contested deletion process is to let the process run for the normal time. 71.125.252.218 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The results of the MfD which was snow-closed by other users, twice in quick succession, and the DRV which I snow closed, look crystal clear to me. I've never been a member of the ARS and I doubt if they'd think of me as sympathetic to their aims, but on reading the DRV I felt that this user might be being a bit overzealous in his dealings with them, so I decided to examine the background more carefully. After reading around I was confident that this user was conducting a campaign or vendetta of some kind and I felt strongly that it should be brought to an end. I was probably a little sharp with Devil's Advocate on my talk page, and for that I apologise, but I really don't think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to reopen the DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to state in the strongest possible terms that S Marshall is among the most competent editors we have and that he is far, far more qualified to close a DRV than most admins, myself included, and that any complaint about him closing a DRV based on his lack of an admin bit is completely and wholly without merit. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if he were an admin his comment that I quoted would suggest that his close was anything but appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, I say, "is there a chance it would have been closed as overturned"? No. There were many, many more Endorses than Overturns, and less than 24 hours remaining. I echo Drmies' roundabout way of saying this conversation is a waste Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are "less than 24 hours remaining" because Marshall closed the discussion over twelve hours ago.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ho hum, another "ARS is teh evulz" thread on AN/I...must be a Thursday. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, these assumptions of bad faith have got to stop. I am not pursuing a "vendetta" against ARS. What I have been witnessing are non-stop shenanigans, often by people who should know better, that have allowed very little time for these issues to be discussed and so I have been looking for the appropriate venue to have all these issues aired fully within a reasonable time frame given that the last discussion we had over the rescue tag went on for days and involved nearly a hundred people jumping into the fray. The longest discussion we had about the rescue list involved that DRV and it was closed just as more editors were coming to support having the discussion relisted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop opening these pointless "ARS is evil" threads all over the place. Quite frankly, this behavior of repeatedly restarting an old discussion is disruptive. Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass already. It hasn't been four days since we last got done discussing these issues. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alpha, point to a single time where I said "ARS is evil" in any way. This isn't even directed at ARS, but the closure of the DRV. I am not even trying to say anything about the editor. I just want the DRV to last the whole seven days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion contesting this close because it was closed by an non-admin is an absolute non-starter. The reason that admin closures are often a good thing is there has been some assessment of their ability to correctly asses consensus. S Marshall's ability to do so has been more than adequately proved by other means such as the respect he's held in at DRV. It's is my opinion (and I believe that of many others) that the only reason he's not an admin is because he does not want to be. I'd be very surprised if an RfA was anything but very successful. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and insisting on an admin close when an equally well qualified editor has closed is nothing other than bureaucracy. Dpmuk (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, read my entire comment. It is about more than just him not being an admin. That just adds insult to injury.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Well, thank you Dpmuk and 28bytes for your votes of confidence, which have me tickled pink, but I must say that I don't think this should be a referendum on S Marshall's qualifications to close DRVs. I've made a lot of contributions there in the past but I'm just as capable of making a mistake as anyone else. I think this should be about whether this particular snow close was appropriate, not about the identity of the closer.—S Marshall T/C 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite right, and I'm expressing no opinion on the merits of the close itself (I've had my fill of reading any more ARS-related debates for quite a while, I think), but the "non-admin closure" aspect of it is, as Dpmuk says, a non-starter. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, I get no joy out of talking about this at all either. There are many things I would prefer to do, but I can't just ignore a group that appears to be, intentionally or unintentionally, little more than a tool for canvassing deletion discussions, or any discussion for that matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you don't like it. Should we delete the Deletion Sorting pages too while we're at it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, my reason is very simple. I have very little tolerance for people trying to game the system in any way whatsoever. Other delsorts notify interested parties who can provide knowledge that is particular to that subject area without regard to their perspective on whether things should or should not be included. The ARS delsorts do nothing like that. If you can point to one of those other delsorts being used in the same manner then I will be just as quick to persistently criticize that. However, at this point I am only familiar with the ARS and not out of any agenda. Two articles I have nominated for deletion got tagged by the ARS and the result each time was that the discussion got flooded by members voting keep while making no significant change to improve the article or establish its notability. In other words, my bringing them up at ANI is only because they have been repeatedly drawing people to deletion discussions using questionable mean and I just happen to keep noticing it. For heaven's sake this list was created the day after the rescue tag got deleted by the very same editor whose use of the tag created so much controversy. Suffice to say I find that rather unsettling and even more unsettling that numerous people who make their bias clear seem intent on shutting down any discussion about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I have my own reasons for not wanting to comment here but felt strongly enough about the NAC bit of it to comment on it. I'll leave discussion of the the close to others. Dpmuk (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just want to add my opinion that S Marshall is certainly capable of closing DRV's as well as anyone. And that in this case his close was entirely reasonable. Nothing would be gained by reopening this debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. There's no way this close was going to go any other way, even if it had run its full course. There's no point in prolonging a bureaucratic process past the point where the answer is completely obvious. It wastes the time of everyone involved. The amount of time and effort spent on ARS related threads recently is ludicrous, and I hope that this is the last ARS related thread from TDA in the near future. If not I feel like it's getting to the point where a topic ban would be warranted to stop wasting everyone's time. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had say, more evidence of much more blatant impropriety involving this list, would you really suggest that? That evidence was something I planned to bring up at the MfD, in lieu of yet another ANI thread. Also, I will say that until the DRV we got barely 20 hours of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had this evidence, why have you not mentioned it before? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've had eons to produce said evidence. If you have it, produce it. Otherwise, stop murdering the dead horse. If you suddenly solid produce evidence that something horribly horribly wrong is going on, then of course my earlier statement doesn't apply. But if you produce another noticeboard thread about the same set of issues without producing additional, solid, convincing evidence of wrongdoing then it will be wasting the time of everyone here. It's clear that the community is okay with the idea of the existence of ARS, and is okay with the idea of a delsort like this as long as it's not in the main space. I do not personally like ARS. But it's disruptive to refuse to respect community consensus. Kevin (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This evidence only came about because I kept looking over that list during the Deletion Review, something that might have surely been noticed sooner had there not been attempts to conceal the discussion altogether. It concerns a different AfD than the one that most recently brought me here. Do you want me to start a separate ANI thread for it?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's, like, indisputable evidence of an ARS member secretly orchestrating a malevolent, malicious, cross-wiki campaign to bring about the new world order, I would suggest that you avoid creating a new AN/I thread. Unless you have strong evidence of some form of actual wrongdoing, I would suggest just stepping away from the dead horse for a while. I would suggest sending any strong evidence of wrongdoing you have by email to a sympathetic administrator who can evaluate it and then act on it themselves or bring it up on a relevant board. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything said about S Marshall above, but do still think it was wrong-footed to close this early. Better to have let it run its course. Not as a paper-shuffling excercise, but to get along nicely with each other. Give that little bit extra to someone, "let the baby have his bottle," if I may paraphrase without prejudice. To do otherwise causes discussions like this one to occur. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron Brenneman, I normally agree that it's best to let discussions run their course. In this case I do not: TDA has had many opportunities to have his say, and he's just repeating himself. There's nothing new being added to the discussion here, it's just dividing editors along tribal lines. The only objections to my close have been process-based, and that's not a strong objection to an IAR close bearing in mind that nobody's actually supported TDA's position. The DRV was also creating needless drama and interfering with the process that ought to be going on right now: reasoned and collegial debate about the reform of the ARS proceeding in an orderly manner. I'm quite keen that we do begin to make progress on that.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? It is just a "process-based objection" that you appeared to state that you were intending to close it as endorse all along but just waiting for "enough votes" to prove what you believed was the "correct" decision that just happened to be right as the discussion was turning towards relisting? I honestly do not see the DRV as having created any drama that was not created already by editors who were creating drama from the outset. Honestly, allowing it to follow its natural course was doing the exact opposite, as letting things take their natural course tends to achieve. Rather than being subject to frequent disruptive closures by involved editors we had four-and-a-half days where people actually had the time to discuss things and raise concerns (not to mention allowing people time to realize there actually had been a deletion discussion as CrossMR's comment at DRV clearly indicated), as well as allowing everyone to focus on other things since it was not a constant battle just to be heard. I can say right now, the DRV left me feeling more calm and allowed me to focus on other things under the belief that a fair decision would be reached.

You say that it is "interfering with the process that ought to be going on" as though somehow there was no effort to have such a process. In fact, that is exactly what I tried to get involved in at the Village Pump right after the rescue tag got deleted. There was hardly any participation and the discussion about reform quickly died off as everyone lost interest. My problem is that North didn't even wait for discussion about reform before creating this list and it is being used just like the rescue tag was used. The fact is, I wasn't even looking for this. I nominated an article for deletion, ARS showed up just like the previous case, and I was all "Again? Are you kidding me with this?" Seeing that North had completely disregarded numerous concerns raised at that first ANI discussion and the TfD, I went straight to ANI since it was obviously the only thing that could have any effect on that editor's tendentious activity. Also, are you kidding me with that "no one's supported TDA's position" comment? I can direct you right now to several people who commented in clear support of my position in every single discussion. Honestly, I shouldn't have to since an editor who closed the DRV should have paid enough attention to the comments there to realize that claim is just plain false without even considering the two ANI discussions about the list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Really? "The discussion was turning towards relisting"? Really? Are you and your "several people" reading the same discussions that I am?—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban discussion

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_proposed

Nobody Ent 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of ARS canvassing

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

---

Since Drmies has decided to make this discussion about allowing a DRV another 36 hours to finish into one about banning me from bringing up any misdeeds on part of the Article Rescue Squadron, it seems it is appropriate that I leave this here now.

The article concerned is Keerthi sagathia. It was listed at the ARS page before the article on Sal's Pizza that I nominated and was clearly nothing more than an emotional appeal bemoaning that a "new Wikipedian" was being "bombarded" by deletion nominations and described this as serving to "chase away a newbie" from "a part of the world" we needed to attract and so on. One thing that sticks out is the user that created the article who only made one contribution, creating the article, also happens to have the same last name. A ten-second Google search turns up that it matches the name of the artist's manager. User:Ginsengbomb clearly noticed there was a WP:COI issue within two-and-a-half hours of the listing and expressed difficulty finding sources. At the deletion discussion only five votes were made, the four keeps all being from people who clearly arrived from the rescue list (the only one who doesn't appear to be an ARS member is the person who listed it there), who would have all reasonably seen Ginseng's comment. Despite this, not a single one of them thinks it worthy of mentioning that there was a conflict of interest issue in a promotional article for which they had trouble finding sources. The one delete vote happens to be from someone who is from India, part of Wikiproject India, and interested in Indian music.

Despite pretty much all of them indicating they did not really know much about the subject, they still voted keep basically arguing "well this person must be notable we are just having a hard time proving it" and all the while failing to disclose a very serious issue with the article they had every reason to know about. Undoubtedly thanks to their involvement, the decision was keep. Why would they not disclose a WP:COI issue they clearly knew about? Of course, mentioning that would likely strengthen the case for deletion and it is clear the listing at the page was worded to evoke sympathy for the user creating the article who clearly joined just to use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting the artist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "clearly noticed" link points...here. On that AfD, there is nothing mentioned by Ginsengbomb about COI, but on the list, he hinted at it - while agreeing with the "bombardment" comment and voting !Keep at the AfD with an assertion that notability was established. From the above it seems you're misreprensenting Ginseng's position on the matter, and as there was no CoI assertion, by him or anyone else, on the AfD until you brought it up at the very end, the assertion that they "clearly knew about" potential CoI is disinguious at best.

I hate to say this, but the appearance that you are conducting a campaign against the ARS is extremely strong. Whether or not you actually have a beef/vendetta/etc. about them, it has reached the point from your actions that other editors are no longer able to reasonably assume good faith that you do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleh, fixed the diff. As to your "hinting" comment, there is no hinting about a conflict of interest involved in saying the article appears to have been created by a family member. That comment was made five hours before anyone said anything at the AfD. I brought it up because I saw it had been brought up on the list almost immediately upon it being listed yet not a single editor from ARS commenting there apparently thought it worthy of mentioning at the AfD after over a week of it being up there (all of them had commented at that section of the list days before I said anything).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The power of numbers can make anything look different. Undoubtedly Wikipedia has a bias towards the group and against the individual more often than not so a large group are more likely to be heeded than a single outspoken voice. However, sometimes that voice just happens to be the first one to notice or speak out about a problem before others take action. Every time I initiated a discussion involving ARS it was mentioned at the project's talk page. In some cases, like the deletion discussion and deletion review, I am specifically required to put a big old notice at the top of the page to notify people frequenting that page about the discussion. Effectively, I am expected to ask that something be deleted while at the same time required to notify a large group of people likely to vote keep and being unable to offset that as to do so would be seen as canvassing. That is one of the reasons why consensus is not supposed to be a vote, and in this case a clear demonstration how it often is just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: The author's COI in itself neither strengthens nor undermines the argument for deletion. If the article is written neutrally or is non-neutral but not to the point that a full rewrite would be required, COI is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing the problem. The article was nominated for deletion, with a rationale that it fails GNG and is written like a puff piece. Four editors - maybe from ARS, but I don't see why that matters - came forth with additional sources or evidence of additional coverage, while !voting to keep. One editor !voted delete with a simple statement that it fails GNG, without addressing the source that had already been brought up in the discussion or the sources that others were able to find. Another editor !voted keep for non-policy related reasons, which one of the other keep !voters pointed out. So basically two editors favored deletion on the basis of GNG, but that claim was disparaged by the unchallenged evidence of coverage from 4 of the editors favoring keep. The tone of the aricle was problematic, but that was not a valid reason to delete in light of the evidence of notability that was presented, that is a reason to edit the article further, as pointed out by the closing admin, which is probably also the reason any !voters who were aware of the comment to that effect on the ARS list didn't bother mentioning it - because it was irrelevant to the discussion. So basically, the article was appropriately kept, and if that was the result of this ARS list, then it is a demonstration that it is being used appropriately, hardly evidence that it is a problem in any way. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, there is no evidence of canvasing keep votes because some of those that regularly appear say delete, and sometimes no one goes over to say "keep" at all, even among items listed at the same time. Hopeless articles like this one [180] I pointed out I did a thorough search, and listed reasons why it shouldn't be an article, and suggested redirecting it. Articles like this [181] are obviously notable, and its a good thing people showed up to take at least a second to click on the links at the top of the AFD for Google News archive search, book search, and scholar search, all showing ample coverage of this. Its good to catch bad nominations from people that don't follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering about WP:CANVASS if you think success rate means anything. Above all else, intent is what matters. Can anyone honestly say that the discussion I listed above did not involve a partisan message targeted at multiple editors who were perceived to be inclined towards a certain view and that it also resulted in multiple votes consistent with canvassing?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that everybody knows about the existiance of this page. Anybody can watch it - pro- or anti-deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I only have two things to say, and they're simple. 1) COI is, as Goodvac rightly points out, not really relevant in deletion discussions, so I have no idea why that was brought up. I'm certainly not about to raise a major reason to delete an article and then turn around and vote keep because of the seductive and insidious canvassing power of the Rescue List (avert your eyes! run away!). 2) At what point does this endless crusade of TDA's become an actionable disruption? Talk about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am utterly confident he's acting in good faith, but this is getting well beyond absurd.

  Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute to this. Cheers, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The ARS canvassing? I'm shocked, shocked. ThemFromSpace 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Curious editing activity by User:Bisexual Orchid, User:69.171.160.39 / User:69.171.160.12

I'm not sure what's going on here: under normal circumstances, I'd report this to the edit-warring page, but the circumstances, with the accusations and counter-accusations and mentions of ipsocking and User:Justamanhere, are sufficiently curious to make think this might be part of some larger pattern of behavior. Could both ends of this actually be the same entity, self-editwarring for the purposes of creating confusion and drama? -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Folks, I'm not sure I can really puzzle out what's going on here. Yesterday I saw Bisexual Orchid (talk · contribs) reverting some constructive edits by an IP from earlier in February. That user appears to be a single-purpose account. But if those IP addresses are the socks of the blocked user, then they should be dealt with. It seems to be a dynamic IP in the 69.171.160.xx range, e.g. 69.171.160.39 (talk · contribs) is the most recent one I've seen. See Masdevallia for an example of the disruptive edit warring. Don't really have the time right now - anyone else want to unravel it? Rkitko ^(talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the section above, so I merged my note here! I wondered the same thing about the self-editwarring. Curious. I'm glad someone else has noticed. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bicurious editing, perhaps? —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the UAA report on this user in the mean time to await the outcome of this one here. It does seem strange, the IP is reverting this user back with similar accusations of sockpuppetry or trolling in the edit summary. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some research on this account and cross referenced through some of the wikipedia tools. User:Bisexual Orchid is a sockpuppet of User:Pfagerburg, an account previously banned for wikistalking and repeated harassment of wikipedia users. His pattern is to raise sockpuppetry and banned allegations claims along with a group of trolls from a message board called SCOX, then troll wikipedia. One admin in previous wikipedia posts referred to these users from SCOX as 'playing wikipeida like a cheap flute'. Seriously, I am just here to write good articles about plants when I have some spare time. I don't have the time for someone who trolls around looking for people to harrass. Life is too short to waste time on trolls. There is another account, User:CanadianLinuxUser who is a sockpuppet of another user banned named User:Kebron who appears to act in tandem with this user to harrass wikipedia users and disrupt editing on the site. It's clear this user was here solely to harrass and disrupt. Better to just ignore trolls. Paying attention to them and reacting it what they want. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This account is a sleeper account for these trolls that has managed to get itself granted rights to read and distribute IP information for this group on SCOX. This account should be investigated -> User:CanadianLinuxUser. Access patterns of this account indicate it is used mostly to track wikipedia users by IP and maintain an offsite respository of IP information in violation of wikipedias policies. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Their pattern and motive appears to be to use wikipedia to create scrapable content with high page ranking by piggybacking wikipeida which is then used to manipulate search engine results using SEO link farms. Review of Google webmaster tools shows 41 links from blogs.wikipedia.org to this page already placed to create a spamdexing entry. See [182] 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And you, 69.171.160.168, wouldn't happen to be Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, would you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is that? 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I reviewed links on google and found that numerous wikipedia postings do point to 'Jeff Merkey' on google. The purpose of the trolling is to promote links to this name in order to promote wikipedia entries to high page entries. Most of them appear above the facebook entry for 'Jeff Merkey', which indicates deliberate spamdexing, with wikipedia being used as a link farm. 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This entry alone has 181 links, some of them on blogs.wikipedia.org, all of them hidden links with artificial keywords littered throughout wikipedias domains. [183] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.168 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the following as a suggestion on the talk page at Wikipedia Criteria for speedy deletion which will prevent this type of misuse of the site in the future and protect site users -> You should add that user pages which are excessively linked to by blogs and appear to exist solely to be used for search engine spamming in user talk space such as this page should be treated as WP:BLP issues and deleted on that basis [184]. Many SEO groups who promote deragatory content can and do use wikipedia user pages which are not normally visible to search engines and can link to them through SEO. Any user talk page which appears in googles listing should be treated as BLP and deleted to protect the user and wikipedia, and to prevent misuse of the site for spamdexing. This page has 181 links from external sources whose sole purpose is to promote derogatory content and is exposing an innocent user of wikipedia by promoting this page above even facebook entries. 69.171.160.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Obvious sock is obvious. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all user talk pages are now noindexed and nofollowed. User pages are still indexed and I'd support noindexing all of them. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Apart from the socking above, Bisexual Orchid made a legal threat here [185]. Can someone block? A checkuser would probably also be helpful in wrapping up these shenannigans. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It just says "I'll take action" (albeit in ALL CAPS), so it's a bit too ambiguous for an NLT block, but a CU wouldn't hurt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am not this troll user Bisexual Orchid or this other nutjob he is apparently after. Don't you people realize that by joining with these trolls you are just posting more garbage for them to use to link to and spam google? Life is too short. Find someone else who has grown orchids for 30 years with a PhD in Botany to clean up your orchid articles. Life is too short for this type of stress and to subject valuable contributors to this type of treatment and trolling. You need to get rid of most of these trolls on your site,and I hate to say it, but user like this one The Blade of the Northern Lights and some of your so called 'admins' are as bad as the trolls based on the things they post. Have a great day. I am writing a letter to our Dean recommending that we ban this site from the University of New Mexico as a research resources. Our students will only be subjected to ceaseless trolling. 69.171.160.194 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what I did that's so horribly wrong? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize UNM had an extension campus in San Diego. Or are you a "pretend" student? Personally, I think you and the Orchid account are both banned user User:Pickbothmanlol. Night Ranger (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Jeff Merkey. All of the 69.171.160.xxx addresses are from New Mexico and are banned user Jeff Merkey.JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Sudar123 (talk · contribs) keeps adding some copyrighted material to the article Lies Agreed Upon [186] [187], despite being clearly warned. The section he continues to add is a verbatim copy of the following articles: [188] [189] [190]. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I know that is a copyright violation, but the article Lies Agreed Upon is created based on, as a major source the "Lies Agreed Upon" a documentary by the Ministry of Defense of Sri Lanka and was critisised by International Crisis Group as a propaganda piece. The Ministry of Defense is the line Ministry and waged a War with War Crime Charges. Considering above factors only I have added the Critsism of the International Crisis Group on Lies Agreed Upon and requested other editors in dispute to copy edit it.Sudar123 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note I have informed the user now that any user not supposed leave copyright works on the page even for a minute.Further I have removed the copyright violation from the article and put the NPOV tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued legal threats by blocked user

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.

Looks resolved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Trojancowboy was recently blocked for legal threats. He is continuing to make them on his (unblocked) talk page.[[191]] Can somebody revoke talk page access? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the edit to which you point. What legal threat? I don't see one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

He states that he is trying to contact the subject of the article he was blocked on with the purpose of initiating litigation for libel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that he is trying to contact the article's subject, but at no point does he state he is doing this to initiate litigation. He says he wants "his thoughts" on the matter. That said, the continued refusal to retract the legal threat should be enough reason to close down the talk page at some point.--Atlan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've revoked talk page access. This continued "discussion" (it isn't) is going nowhere, and what we should see on the talk page if we wish to reconsider anything is a retraction--and that's still not there. If I'm wrong I gladly stand corrected. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a user who "doesn't get it". I would propose restoring talk page access, and making it clear that they need to edit co-operatively. Also that they need to get a handle on their behaviour, blustering about "rights" on WP usually ends in tears. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Rich, if you feel inclined to do your proposed come to Jesus speech, feel free to reinstate TPA and tell them where it's at: I don't mind. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to TPA being restored, I have asked that other editors stay off his talk page now unless they want to discuss his past edits. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but to quote a former Navy Senior Chief who posts on a discussion board I'm on, "that might just be me - I'm funny that way". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I already did the speech, I'll restore TPA shortly. There's been some cooldown time, we all know that often these sort of things are prolonging the agony, but sometimes they work. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

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

Disruptive IP needs admin look-in

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.

Looks sorted to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Yes, went to revert this IP's peurile edits to video game controversies [192] but Achowat beat me to it, same for the warning on the talk page.

Please see this user's talk page as there are serial warnings from Cluebot and editors about their behaviour and I was surprised to see that they had not been severely warned or blocked yet.

96.5.162.75 (talk · contribs)

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not enough recent vandalism to justify a block - they come on once a week, make some random edit (this diff shows they are experimenting) and leave again. If they persist, please use WP:AIV. You also need to notify editors about ANI, which I have done for you. GiantSnowman 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops, been off-wiki for a while, will remember AIV for this sort of behaviour, thanks for your time. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems! GiantSnowman 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

A serious issue needing to be dealt with.

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

 – 1 month interaction block between Abhijay and Dave1185.

• Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abhijay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 14th February, there has been a hot showdown of dispute on my talk page. It all started with a simple mistake, only to be told in an extremely belligerent way, then proceeded to a blame game of who did what and all that. This as many would know is not Civil on wikipedia, and neither is it appropriate or accepted in this community. I have continued in my actions not to forgive the editor for his vulgarity because never In my life on Wikipedia I have been greatly insulted by such abusive remarks. Therefore, I would endorse the idea of an interaction ban with this user and possibly a block/warning for this user's actions because this issue between the both of us will never seem to stop and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. As much as the editor I've had a disagreement with looks like a good guy with a sensible humor and all, this user has the tendency to deliver personal attacks and hurl vulgarity. If you are asking for diffs, please refer to these: ([193]), ([194]), ([195]), ([196]), and then with this ([197]). Please deal with this as soon as possible because this is starting to get on my nerves. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm plowing through your contributions, hoping to find the 14 February diff that started this all--and what I'm seeing is an editor who probably needs to stop making those automated "test/vandalism" edits. On 16 February, at 10:16, you made nine of them. This is the problem with reporting: it opens one up to investigation, and you might lose your rollback as a result. Also, your talk page gives me a bit of a headache, with all this stuff on the top (you've covered over the User talk:Abhijay?) and two things floating around on the side. Please stick to convention. And now I'll continue to search for the spark that started this fire. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• I gather it started with this? (Dave1185's talk page is also enough to send me for aspirin). I think I can make this easy for you. Your interaction ban is granted. Both of you may not interact with each other for a whole month, starting now. Maybe then you will have cooled down. Dave, I hope you're listening. Also, Dave, tone it down. Your language and approach leave something to be desired--seriously, what was going on in your mind when you added this? Also, Abhijay, just drop it already. Someone insults you--well, consider them an idiot (softly, to yourself) and move on. Let it go. One more thing: if anyone wants to have a second look at the enormous amount of semi-automated edits ("test/vandalism") made by Abhijay on the 16th, please do. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Their interaction certainly got off track. I agree an interaction ban is the simplest thing here, since I don't think there's much of an overlapping interest in articles that should be easy. But I would add that both editors should also stop talking about each other to third parties, otherwise it isn't going to work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This thread is particularly troubling to me. --Chris (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec--to Floquenbeam] Are they? And can that sort of thing be muzzled under an interaction ban? That's a difficult thing to police, I reckon. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are they talking about each other, you mean? Yes. Chris' link is what I was thinking of, but Abhijay has been asking for help from several admins too. I think if the ban is to work, they both need to go beyond not talking to each other, and not talk about each other either. And sure, I think we can prevent that as part of an interaction ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. I have no objection to that additional boundary. Abhijay, Dave, are you listening? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Apparently Dave had not been notified. I do agree that an interaction ban is the best solution. —Dark 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
          • He was notified, and removed it as read: [198]. An interaction ban with Floquenbeam's "extension" does seem best, imo too. Begoon ^talk 01:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Drmies, Floquenbeam and Chris, I have carefully listened to your thoughts about this and are both reasonable. I have to admit that at this point, a block on Dave1185 sounds a bit too harsh of a punishment in regard to what he has done. I agree with your point Floquenbeam. We need to stop talking about each other. If that's done, what about the other editors on User talk:Baseball Bugs? To admins: If it's still an persisting issue, should we impose a block on Dave 1185? Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
              • You can leave Bugs out of it. If Dave hadn't been complaining there, nothing would have happened. Alright, I think we have a deal. Abhijay, Dave (in absentia), you are to refrain from contacting each other on talk and article talk pages, and you may not discuss each other anywhere else either. Violators will be blocked temporarily. I guess violations may be reported here, with reference to this section. Dave, I sure hope you're reading this. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Thank you Drmies. Please contact him and tell him about this as well. Have a good day. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Fleming Facebook post

There's been a discussion going at WP:BLPN#John Fleming (U.S. politician), and the article talkpage, about a post on his Facebook page linking to an article in The Onion as if it were factual. I feel that without evidence that Fleming personally approved the post, it is a WP:BLP violation to mention it. Given that evidence, it would probably still be WP:UNDUE, but that's a discussion that could go either way. For the moment, I believe it needs to stay completely out. I'm bringing it here because once people start using edit summaries like re-writing section to appease SarekOfVulcan's misguided and unreasonable objection, further discussion on the talkpage isn't likely to help.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What type of admin intervention are you requesting? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No admins can't really assist here. This is basically just a cry for help. Sadly - there is nothing here to help you Sarek. More and more I see partisan users, in groups - over-riding simple npov, policy driven editorial control. En wikipedia policy is not fit for purpose and a group of half a dozen POV driven users are almost insurmountable. Youreallycan 03:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we need a policy allowing for an easier way to sanction political POV-pushers. (I'd add ethno-political POV-pushers to that list, but ArbCom's got those under control.) Our job is to be a neutral encyclopedia, not the rope in a political tug-of-war. Nobody bring up the SOPA blackout, please; it's been debated to death and any more will be counterproductive. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What can we do about users like User:Wnt that repeatedly reject WP:BLP policy as the day the project died and yet continue to vote in opposition to any BLP discussions about disputed content - can we topic ban him/them from opining in such discussions? What can we do about users that continually contribute in a partisan way - a user that likes porn and votes keep keep keep all porn and rabid illusionists inclusionists that vote keep keep keep for anything - users like this make good faith NPOV contributors feel commenting or editing articles is just a waste of time. - NPOV experienced editors need to step up to the mark and opine more in RFC and content discussions or en wikipedia will be a cess pit of POV content. Youreallycan 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U? Oh, wait... Those work so well in cases like this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those dastardly illusionists -- always fooling people with their tricky magic tricks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

When people cite "BLP" as a reason to remove very well known, very significant facts about politicians simply because they look bad, that is an abuse. It is enough of an abuse that I think we seriously need to go back and ask ourselves whether a special policy for this one class of articles was ever a good idea at all. If we were to allow those who believe BLP should be expanded to opin in such discussions, showing apparent obliviousness to things like the WP:WELLKNOWN part, because they happen to have the "right" WikiPolitics, while excluding those of us who think it needs to be rolled back, then it is pretty clear that the outcome of such discussions will not be consistent with the policy as currently written. So far as I know, Wikipedia has not yet descended to the level of snactioning editors for their views on the direction in which policy should be headed. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument there is that it is not "a significant fact", not that it's a (mildly) negative one. I'd say the same thing about a positive "fact" if it were as trivial as this one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Very significant facts" ? That is not the case at hand, thus is a rather weak argument, if it is an argument at all. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Wnt's comment about "Very significant facts", Collect. Anyhow, in my view what's pertinent to the case at hand is WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But I suggest the discussion continue where it started at Talk: John Fleming (U.S. politician). Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Youreallycan is referring to my Support vote at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Santorum, and it was about that which I responded here. Prior to being mentioned here I was unaware of John Fleming. But at a glance that situation appears very similar. I should point out that, at least in recent months, I have not been taking the initiative on articles about politicians - rather, those looking to strike out inconvenient information create disputes which become widely publicized here, and when I notice them or am notified about them I respond as seems appropriate. These conflicts originate from the deletions. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments are not related to any specific vote of yours, but to all of them, considering you very vocally and at every opportunity completely reject wikipedia WP:BLP policy - as such - imo, if you reject current policy you should you should stop voting on anything. Youreallycan 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because I want to get rid of it doesn't mean I can't read what it says, interpret it, and alas, even follow it. And what's really odd is that every once in a blue moon there's a time when I'm thinking BLP applies while its usual heralds deny it, because the issue involves keeping in information which is sympathetic to a living person, rather than taking it out. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the primary issue with your interpretation of BLP - such as you express there is not a consideration - it's not about if the content reflects on the subject well, or not so well. Undue weight is a BLP violation, if an article is not neutral its a violation of BLP, if you over emphasize a minor event in the life story of a living person its a BLP violation, its not about content removal. Anyway, your stated position is total inclusionist without any editorial control, hence you don't support en wikipedia policies and guidelines and as such please stop opining in content discussions, especially related to living people, until you do. Youreallycan 18:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As User:Wnt states - Users that don't support current en wikipedia policy are influencing content discussions. Also, as you all know, we have a massive problem with users simply voting on the side of their personal bias. A solution for this is that experienced NPOV users and users that are willing to opine in regards to current policy vote comment more in discussions, thus providing a balance to the biased and policy ignoring comments. Experienced editors have a duty of care to the project and to the living subjects of our articles, to contribute to these content and policy interpretation discussions, so, please , please please, no matter how lengthy and laborious the discussions seem, have a read and post your policy interpretation. To quote Casliber, the "more independent eyes the better, even if (actually particularly if) you don't have a strong opinion one way or the other."Youreallycan 12:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the talkpage, I think this error was freaking hilarious, and most of my family would refer to me as a flaming liberal -- and I still don't think it's appropriate for the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

On the incident named at the top of this section: If nothing else, the incident is way too minor to warrant its own section heading. If Fleming's spokesman is being accurate when he says the post was "taken down within minutes," then necessary coverage consists of no more than a single sentence, perhaps nothing at all (since this really isn't, and won't be, notable - unless he starts to become known as "that congressman who thinks the Onion is real"). On the newly important issue being discussed: Much more troubling in this incident, though, is the strain of BLPartisan thought that says that people who think BLP policy is over- or mis-applied should be muffled. Trying to topic ban those who don't hold the most restrictive possible interpretation of BLP policy from even being allowed to comment on BLP threads? You're shitting me, right? Editors are proposing we should have Soviet-style ideological purity tests of people's opinions on BLP? This idea doesn't even deserve a reasoned rebuttal - the only possible response is a profane and ludicrously impolite counterattack. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 02:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuos and purposeful false editing.

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.

---

With regards to Newcastle United and their ground the Sports Direct Arena. I have amended the page several times only for admins to incorrectly change it back as part of a fans campaign. Several discussions and links have been deleted and topics and subjects locked when they should not. Some contributors to Wikipedia are knowingly giving out false information. The stadium is the Sports Direct Arena which was formerly St James' Park, they might not like the name change and it is not simply a sponsors name it is the actual name of the ground. As of 16th feb 2012 all signage referring to its former name have been removed and its postal address updated. As someone involved in promoting North East football can the person who is knowingly vandalising the pages be removed and prevented from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.130.113 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• A complaint without merit, on a matter already answered at Talk:St_James'_Park#Edit_request_on_4_January_2012. I semi'ed the article last year--see Talk:St_James'_Park#semi-protected_again, and it is move-protected as well. IP, I think you should stop this campaign: it's obvious that you've tried this before (with different IP addresses), and this disruption is getting irritating. We have rules on names; live by them, please. Also, please don't accuse admins of knowingly giving out false information, and please don't accuse other editors of vandalism. Your last sentence contains a terribly dangling modifier, but if you are actually acknowledging that you're a promoter of some kind, you should probably stay away from the article in the first place. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter is already well under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Newcastle United - stadium name in infobox; I suggest we keep the discussion there, in one place, and would advise another admin (I'm involved) to close this thread. GiantSnowman 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies. You may not be aware that matters have moved on. Yesterday the ground signage for SJP was removed (a major article on BBC News - Look North). Also, the club's official website now refers to it as "formerly SJP" and the Barclays Premier League official website club page for NUFC also calls it Sports Direct Arena. This is not as black & white as it appears and the IP may have a point as I have encountered intransigence myself which GS has, unfortunately, contributed to. Leaky Caldron 16:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

NPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved to WQA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I prodded Wizard (band), which seemed fairly uncontroversial. User:Ruud Koot remove the prod without comment. I asked him, "Please do not remove prod tags unless you explain why." which got a very rude response of "As you clearly are incapable of determining whether a nomination is uncontroversial or not, please do not use the PROD template in the future." I could do without the attack. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ruud Koot has a wonderful set of hair on that fairly recent photograph. Still, nice hair doesn't mean one should phrase it like that. Hammer, I've often agreed with you in deletion discussions, but I have also found you a bit quick on the draw. Then again--is this really a matter for ANI? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Further attacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band), saying I have a "bad track record" when it comes to finding sources. Cherry picking fallacy much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:WQA, surely then? GiantSnowman 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Manson48

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Manson48 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Manson is a disruptive user whose contributions, such as they are, are far outweighed by his incompetence. He has previously expressed anti-semitism on his user page. He uses his user and talk pages to promote his book. His edit history shows that, of his 145 edits, less than 3% of them have been to articles, the rest mainly to talk pages of one kind or another. Finally, one of his most recent statements was to threaten sock puppetry: "More threats, you guys are really good at that. Block me, I have a whole list of alternative proxies. I've been on this site for several years, if that's the way you treat those you disagree with, so be it." ([199]).

He should be indeffed as a liabilty to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That was after I'd warned him for deleting someone else's edit on a talk page (for the 2nd time) and adding a forum style post which was irrelevant to the article (on a different subject). Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. As the diff above shows, he removed your warning and replaced it with the sock threat, kind of a double whammy. You've been dealing with him a for a bit now, and, frankly, I think you've shown remarkable patience. I'm not as patient with editors who appear to have no redeeming qualities.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking indefinitely now. If they do somehow snap out of it, I'd consider an unblock, but I won't hold my breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Resolved

 – User pointed to WP:BASC if he really wants to be unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone could review this post by Rapide and take any action they feel appropriate. This appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord. As I'm possibly involved, I don't want to hand out any blocks, etc. TNXMan 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll deal with it. I think I know what I'm going to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Three occurances of vandalism from the same user

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

---

Resolved

All three of these instances of vandalism involve the same IP address: [200] [201] [202] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.27.112 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked. Please report to WP:AIV in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:hudicourt personal attacks on User:Nick-D and recreating lists

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

I'm bringing this to ANI as User:Nick-D is away on holiday. There is a fairly unpleasant smear and innuendo been posted tonight accusing Nick of agenda based editing [203]. User:Hudicourt has also recreated all of the lists that were previously removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to see Godwin's law in effect at least. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell, User:Formats changed the name of the article from Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), then goes on to claim that the article he just renamed "is unfairly biased against the US and ISAF for it does not list the victims of the Taliban". On that same day, User:Nick-D, using the article's new name as an argument, states that "The news reports are also heavily weighted to incidents caused by the Coalition forces, when it is the Taliban who have actually caused most civilian casualties" and proceeds to delete most of the article. I explained the whole thing in detail and the articles' talk page and its all there for verification. Now, it is me that is accused of personal attacks although I explaned the whole scheme, and I am also accused of re-creating the deleted lists, which I approve of, by the way, but which I did not do, as can be easily verified. Hudicourt (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[204] Another of hudicourt's diatribes. One of the main reasons I went to ANI, is that unfortunately I've had dealings with Hudicourt before. If an uninvolved editor wishes to stroll by the page in question, you can see for yourselves the problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The recent chronology here is:

• The material listing incidents where civilian casualties occurred was removed from the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article as a result of the discussion at Talk:Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#This article isn't neutral at present.
• A 'new' editor (AFPK (talk · contribs) then popped up and recreated this material as a series of articles (all purporting to be lists of civilian casualties by year, when they only contained those caused by NATO/ISAF forces, which represent a minority of the casualties in recent years). I redirected these articles to the Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article, and they reverted me to recreate them. To date these are AFPK's only edits, and it's pretty obvious that they're a sockpuppet account.
• Hudicourt appears to be continuing the same trend of creating articles on civilian casualties of the war that only actually list casualties caused by the NATO/ISAF forces judging from the most recent article's content. The personal abuse and declarations of bad faith are really unhelpful.

Given that these articles are basically POV-pushing (in that they were recreated in bad faith as they attribute all civilian casualties to the NATO/ISAF forces and no efforts have been made to balance the articles by the editor who created them) and also violate WP:NOT#NEWS and I'd suggest that the articles be either nominated for deletion or be redirect to Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)