Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716

Threatening edit summary

Resolved

 – User blocked by Salvio. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary contains an explicit threat of violence. I have emailed the appropriate Wikipedia mailing list as well. My76Strat (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked (by me) and edit summary revdeleted (by Ironholds). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:24.56.43.213's Talk page

I have just stumbled across User:24.56.43.213's Talk page where it appears to be being spammed with lists. Could someone take a look and see what you think. I can't see why you would want to spam it but hay - vandals. It appears to be done by multiple users and must be flooding the database by increasing the page size. Would there be a way of removing these or could/should we archive the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodyWerm (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cleared out the usertalk page and replaced it with {{OW}}. The most recent edits and warnings to that page were over two years old; there's no impending need to preserve all that mess anyways. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow that was faster than I could write the notification. Apologies for not signing last. WoodyWerm (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, you don't need to report really old IP warnings, or pointless text like this, to admins. You can feel free to clear this out and replace it with an appropriate template like {{OW}} or {{Older}} or {{Old IP warnings top}}. --Jayron32 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this can be denied right away

Resolved

 – Not an issue for admins at AN/I, those at ReqForPerm will evaluate. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, I think that Katarighe's request can be denied right away and may need his editing looked into. I assumed good faith until I noticed that User:Katarighe/Awards are awards given to himself and looked at the editor's talk page. His reason for rollback is an almost complete version of mine. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin may need to watch how this is handled because according the editor's user page if it is correct, the member was born in 1995. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joe, the gang who reviews requests for rollback are pretty thorough, so I suspect they'll see your note there and act accordingly. Perhaps this thread can be deemed "closed, being handled on RfP/Rollback"? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about them being thorough, but I just thought that I could get some extra eyes on it. I had the best of intentions, but you are correct in your reasoning, so this can be closed. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rude to not notify a user who is the subject of a discussion. User notified. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from Atanu das biswas (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked by 5 albert square. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:JohnCD#Naadu Das Biswas. I will explain to this user why his autobiographical articles have been deleted, but someone else had better do the block. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind - user already indef-blocked as VOA by 5 albert square. I have put a note about the threat on his on talk page in case of an unblock request. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. I had already blocked them for vandalism but I've changed the block settings to a legal action block.--5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackgaia02

Blackgaia02 is acting like a spoiled, uncivilized child, harassing editors on Talk:List_of_My_Little_Pony_characters and even having the nerve to request that I submit it a deletion process. I have zero tolerance for nonsense such as this. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for a week, which should help Blackgaia02 calm down. Given that the editors she is 'harrassing' are IP editors making vandal edits, are you saying that the edits are not in fact vandalism. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Harassment from Tao2911

• Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been alleging a user was the subject of an article (and personally attacking) after being asked to stop.[1][2][3] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[4] They persisted.[5] Block please. Jesanj (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The same user has attacked me as being a both a sock puppet and a meat puppet[6], despite never initiating an investigation or providing any evidence as to why I may be either, accused me of an edit war and being in bad faith[7], and has been overtly rude with myself and a number of other users (notably, just about anybody who attempts to improve the Marisol Deluna article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is Tao's standard operating procedure. Rudeness, name calling, sarcasm, covered over with a sprinking of alphabet soup. I've had a similar run-in with this editor, and there were many before me. Apparently it hasn't changed. Anyways, since I have a past with them (and since, as it turns out, we've both edited this particular article), I won't be stepping in with tools--but I do want to note that the above two editors, exasperated and all, have a point, and I think it would behoove an uninvolved administrator to look a little bit deeper than this recent spat. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

drmies has a history of coming after me, and being senselessly combative. Not an independent assessment, as drmies admits.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Tao2911. Fat chance anything is going to change about his behavior. While Tao2911 was technically not found socking on the last SPI round, [8] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [9] so he may have just become good at it.) It's entirely possible that the other camp in this dispute is also socking/meat-puppeting, [10] but that does not excuse the consistently abusive behavior from the Tao account. This has all the signs of an outside WP:BATTLE being continued on Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Accusations of socking when found not to be socking, and trying to say "his hardline friends" were socking is a grossly insufficient reason to indef block anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of sanctions would you support for the user who, in case you didn't read it from above, says things like this[11]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And this[12]? Jesanj (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Socking or not socking has nothing to do with his behavior and lack of etiquette with other editors on Wikipedia. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- "Marisol Deluna" is not particularly notable - the NYT notes her wedding (usually a sign of important parents - and definitely not establishing a lot of notability per se). A purported list of users is nearly worthless -- see Web Sheriff for another article where the "list of clients" is not utile. I see no reason for a draconian solution - and no sign that the person is abusing a sock. I read the case - and the block was iffy as only WP:DUCK was cited as a rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, in my opinion. As Drmies says below, this discussion should be focused. And, as you see below, I'm not advocating a Draconian solution. Are you implying personal attacks don't matter on talk pages of questionable notability? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reading comprehension or clicking problems? He was blocked for sockpupptery last year, see 02:25, 3 March 2010 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tao2911) I already gave above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I read it - note my position above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Block? Are you kidding? I've not made a single threat, used a single expletive. I've been sarcastic, sure. I defy anyone to read ECb123's transparent sock history and blame me. "Accusations of socking when found not to be socking" - I was accused of such, and found not to be such, by MrBrown above, because before making the accusation he didn't look at anyone's history - but does have a history of editing and defending the Deluna page in question, fighting for the inclusion of uncited hagiography and promotional material. I, along with user MtKing and others, have uncovered the most concerted effort toward self-promotion I've ever come across here. There continues to be no action on the Deluna/ElizabethCB123 sock investigation, which is unfortunate. If anyone objective were to look into it, ECB123 would be the one blocked, along with 6-8 or her aliases and/or likely socks/meats. And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor.Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

comment from MrBrown on my talk - there are other examples: "And oh yes, I have Deluna on SPEED DIAL and I'm in CONSTANT contact with her <eyeroll>! Ridiculous." He calls me ridiculous elsewhere. Why not block him for sarcasm and insults? (Which would be stupid, and I am not seriously suggesting.) Note that he has admitted to know Deluna personally, as have other editors on the page battling for previous promotional page versions...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the difference between "knowing" somebody and "meeting" somebody. I've stated I have met her. Don't put words in my mouth. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

and "outside battle"? What? That's just ridiculous. Look at the history. I made one edit over a year ago to the Deluna page (when I found she had inserted herself into the page of a former professor of apparently both of ours, though I don't know her - she inserted herself as the sole named student of a guy she admittedly never took a class with). Never came back. Came across again when surfing three days ago, found it to be transparent self-promotion, checked history and saw evidence of socking, and started editing. Period. Some other editor seems to have some problem with the actual Deluna in real life and apparently created socks, but again, look at history - ZERO cross over. I am free to independently find the Deluna page delete worthy - as do a number of other editors.Tao2911 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tao, do you think saying "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous"[13] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[14] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

turns out I was vindicated by being proven absolutely correct in everything stated here - though I admit I could've stayed more cool, as it were...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor." Thanks, Tao! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I must be a terribly unsuccessful bully, though, since I haven't been able to stifle you. In the meantime, I'll put my block log up against yours anytime. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment You claim not to know Marisol Deluna, so how is it you "factually" report that she did not attend classes with your former professor? This was never stated by her or others as you mentioned above. Many of your edits are based on assumptions in a combative tone- Even after repeatedly asked to keep civil. Your comments towards me and other editors supporting the rebuilding of her article (which you had reduced to one sentence and one reference) is poor form and counterproductive with good faith editing. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good faith editing? Pot. Kettle. Black. Here's an example of why some of Tao's concerns don't seem that unreasonable to me. It's delusional to think this barely notable scarf designer can make a short list with Kissinger, Haig and Cronkite. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this thread is not about good-faith editing, or about ElizabethCB123 (who didn't start this discussion), or even about adding possible fluff; it's certainly not about a scarf maker whose notability is very questionable, IMO. It's about one editor's incivility. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose With respect to Jesanj and those that support, the issue at hand is one of WP:CIVIL, and IMO more appropriate for another venue than for immediate administrator action. I suspect Tao2911 is frustrated with the Marisol Deluna article, and there has been a history of WP:PROMOTION with the person who is the subject of that article (search for articles containing "Marisol Deluna", a shorter list than it used to be, and also examine the history of the Marisol Deluna article for some insight). I do believe Tao2911 could be more polite henceforth on talk pages. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC−6) (Note: Restoring Oppose edit deleted via edit conflict) JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with JoeSperrazza's analysis. Toa hasn't picked a fight all by himself in an empty warehouse, he's just frustrated. It's a bit unfair to judge his behavior without considering the history of the article, the questionable sources we've waded through and how overrun the debate has been by WP:SPAs, as seen, e.g., during the recent AfD. I thought it was spam lacking reliable sources to establish notability then and if anyone cares, I still think that. Furthermore, Toa has tried to work within channels, for example, by following procedure to file a request for a sockpuppet investigation which has been endorsed. He's also reached out to the admin who closed the AfD before nominating the page to a new AfD or initiating a WP:DRV, exactly as the guidelines suggest. So my bottom line is that I'm inclined to cut Toa some slack. Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been SPAs and SPI-proven sockpuppets on Tao's side of the debate as well, and he was blocked for it. I fully endorse checking user Elizabeth's side as well, but it's clear to me there are various accounts here, both supporters and detractors, who know a lot about the real world doings of this rather obscure fashion designer. Although none of them credibly disclose their real-life involvement in this, you'd have to be really dopey not to smell the WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. Look how Tao describes admin User:Drmies, whom I found quite respectful and collaborative in several AfDs, "And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor. .Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)" Drmies was promoted admin with Final (205/2/3) supports/opposes/neutrals in May 2011. [15] If he is so "terrible" how comes almost nobody noticed?! Something is very fishy here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block (did my originating comment imply that's what I was asking for?), and support some sort of formal warning/sanction from an administrator to straighten out the harassment. FuFoFuEd and Drmies are right to highlight Tao's own description of Drmies. It was horrible. How do we expect to keep contributors around if this is what we're expected to deal with without any formal acknowledgement of how wrong it is? Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care about this case I leave it to other with the time, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna#Editors_claiming_to_be_Marisol_Deluna_and_contributing_to_her_article

Has a whiff of WP:NLT and probably nasty off-wiki harrassment that perhaps needs WP:OFFICE attention, this being a BLP etc... Just asking, but this all very odd.--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ElizabethCB123 and at least 3 other socks and IP's have been blocked. User then evaded block with open IP one day later, which has also been blocked. Thanks for the support from other clear-eyed editors who saw the situation for what it was. I did get frustrated - I could have kept my cool better. Lesson learned - and hopefully not just by me.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you could have kept your cool better. But you were also alleging ElizabethCB123 was the subject of the article. And this recent reply to an edit of yours makes me doubt you've learned much. Jesanj (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RickK2

Already indefinitely blocked. Nothing else to discuss here. –MuZemike 01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be RickK (talk · contribs) has created a new account at RickK2 (talk · contribs), but another person has posted on the en-wiki mailing list saying that they are RickK, and the new person is an imposter. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Philippe's blocked the new account. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You beat me. :) Yes, I blocked it. I confirmed the email addresses against archives and matched the syntax to my satisfaction. The user is welcome to write me and make his case, but I didn't want to take a chance on user impersonation being allowed on wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) RickK's account was hijacked, so we do need to be sure that his (old) email account wasn't hijacked as well. Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, if RickK2 is impersonating RickK, should there be some attention paid to 71.131.14.150 (talk · contribs), the IP RickK2 was editing under. I'm out of my element (and, frankly, any interest) here, but if 71.131.14.150 is actively impersonating Wikipedia Editors of Note whilst participating in an active Arbcom case, that's awfully fishy... — Scientizzle 02:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention is being paid. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism" above (closed)

The forum shopping by the NYyankee—Jorge Peixito—Haymaker—Lionel nexus to make trouble for Roscelese has gone too far.[16][17] [18] This is harassment. Compare also this comment by Roscelese from a few days ago. I will block the next person who moves these baseless complaints to yet another board, or otherwise pesters Roscelese, unless there's a consensus against it by uninvolved users here. Feel free to comment below. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

You speak of four user as a "nexus", as if the four were a conspiracy. Any evidence for that? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A variety of editors have complained that a user who has been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks is edit warring and committing personal attacks. At some point doesn't occam's razor come in here? - Haymaker (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A variety, is it? More like an echo chamber of editors. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

If that's how you're going to choose to look at this there is nothing I can do to dissuade you. - Haymaker (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If your complaints against Roscelese resulted in the turning of uninvolved editors against her or in some administrative action against her, then your "occam's razor" explanation (i.e., Roscelese is the troublemaker) might be persuasive. But in the end they were all found to be petty, frivolous, and unactionable complaints designed to drive a user off this website. Quigley (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy user references for those interested:

• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mis-attributed above to non-existant)
• JorgePeixoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (no space)
• Haymaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (fixed username... Lionelt seems to use "Lionel" in his signature line (sans "t") ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating very good common sense, Bishonen. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say that Haymaker's recent 3RR complaint against Roscolese [19] is so palpably absurd as to qualify for a block for disruptive behavior on its own. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, but I'm always reluctant to block without some form of warning. Now Haymaker and the others know they're in the danger zone, and will hopefully desist from further badgering. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Excuse me, I'm the one who asked that the Wikiquette and ANI threads be closed at User talk:NYyankees51#Editing priviliege. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On your talkpage, yes.. not really a power place for such requests. You're also the one who started both threads. But I'm very glad to hear you now think that was a poor idea (and, presumably, not one you'll repeat). Bishonen | talk 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

I reserve the right to report if the user makes any more slanderous accusations. For the sake of everyone involved, I dropped the last one. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Objecting to "slander" is not what I meant by pestering. Petty complaining over several fora is what I had in mind. (OT PS: why is the section editing all screwed up?) Bishonen | talk 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

Corollary: I am not in the involved users list, but as I heard a similar complaint, I have to mention that Roscelese some days/weeks ago also referred to my arguments and language to be "idiotic". And an uninvolved admin also found it definitely uncivil[20]. Or incivility has absolutely no relevance here or you have realized that I am not more idiotic than anybody else. Perhaps none of the both options given to choice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Things are going backwards here. This is profound injustice. One user hurls at us "idiotic", "nonsense", "stupid", "n00b", "antisemitic", and we are threatened with punishment? By Jesus! If you had the time to look at all those diffs and talk pages you would see the real situation. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:DeusImperator's personal attack and legal threats

User:DeusImperator has legally threatened me on my talk page. see User_talk:Sehmeet_singh Commenting on pages section. deusimperator has also been blocked by administrators for his personal attacks on [[21]]. Sehmeet singh  Talk  03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
his comments on [22] also personal attacks towards me Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like user is vanishing. Atomician (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing/retiring or not, the contents of the edit to Semheet singh's talkpage are enterely inappropriate as ethnically-based WP:NPA. I have blocked for 60hrs. There is no violation of WP:NLT as it was a poorly-phrased warning regarding copyright. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Phanuruch8555 and his disruptive editing

Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm seeking opinions on whether this user should be blocked for on going disruptive editing, or any other more lenient disciplinary action. As mentioned last month on the 3RR noticeboard, this user "seems quite proud of [edit warring] and has even made himself a flag boasting about it". [23] He also proudly displays a "I hate disambiguation" on his talk page,[24] and has acted upon it frequently.

To wit:

• This user edit warred on Sebastian Vettel and was subsequently reported on the aforementioned 3RR noticeboard archive discussion.
• In his "I hate disambiguation" campaign, he attempted to change the PF[25][26][27], ESC[28][29], and Georgia[30][31] pages, among others (and bluntly used "I hate disambiguation" in the edit summary of one of the Georgia edits[32]). These edits were reverted and he was subsequently warned.[33][34]
• In a dispute with the Eurovision redirect (whether it should point to Eurovision (network) or Eurovision Song Contest), we tried to explain our reasons for disagreeing both on his talk page[35] and on Talk:Eurovision. But he has continued to revert over claims that are not consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.[36][37]. And he also attempted cut-and-paste moves twice.[38][39] And then after he was warned[40], there was a third time in which he clearly entered a false edit summary[41] instead of a normal page move because it did not show up in Special:Log/move and it was not reflected in the page histories of both Eurovision and Eurovision (network).
• A checkuser confirmed that User:Markschmitz, a now-blocked user, used the same IP as Phanuruch8555.[42] Phanuruch8555 claimed that he was not Markschmitz, so the former's autoblock was lifted.[43] But now because of these disputes, I question whether it indeed was a sock.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. His immediate conflict is the dispute regarding the Eurovision issue, so any further reversions on his part should constitute as edit war blocking, yes? As per the guidelines, the 24-hour time limit for the 3RR can be extended indefinitely if a user continues to revert against consensus of previous discussions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the consensus is pretty clear on where the Eurovision redirect should point, I have protected it instead. I get the impression from reading the editor's talkpage that English is not their first language and they are a little confused about certain things that other editors are trying to explain to them. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also noticed that he edits on the Thai Wikipedia, among others. So it's probably better for the page protection than an outright block. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that his userpage on Thai Wikipedia contains two image which seems to be glorifying edit warring (which appears to be from the English Wikipedia), then I don't think being active on another project counts much for him in this incidence. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is far more lenient than I would be. There are so many serious problems here that in my opinion there are far more than enough grounds for a block. Phanuruch8555 has not only edit warred numerous times, but has openly announced the intention of continuing edit warring, including declaring the intention of gaming the system by such methods as waiting for 24 hours before making a fourth reversion. Phanuruch8555 has deliberately tried to conceal the nature of edits, including blatantly lying in edit summaries. They have also repeatedly shown total contempt for consensus, making it quite clear that they intend to push their own views no matter what anyone else thinks. As for the sockpuppet issue, it was I that gave Phanuruch8555 IP block exemption to avoid the autoblock, but I have now looked further into the matter, and I believe I was mistaken. Apart from the checkuser evidence, behavioural evidence strongly suggests to me that Phanuruch8555 and Markschmitz are indeed the same person. Almost all of Markschmitz's edits were to pages that Phanuruch8555 has edited, and it looks to me very much like a matter of creating a separate vandalism account in a sort of "good hand/bad hand" way (though I think "bad hand/extremely bad hand" would be a better description). Some other problems with his editing exist too. Phanuruch8555's edits in the past amounted, in my opinion, to vandalism, and it looks as though they decided to segregate their vandalism into a separate account. As I have said, I think there is more than enough reason to block, but I will interested to see if anyone else has anything to say about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had a number of experiences with Phanuruch8555, and to be frank I would question whether he has the maturity to be a productive contributor of this project. I immediately reverted his cut and paste moves on Eurovision and Eurovision (network) yesterday given that such inappropriate moves need to be got on top of quickly, and he temporarily stopped after I left a message on his talk page. Personally I have difficulty maintaining an assumption of good faith in his latest attempt to move the pages, given that it should be obvious to him that a move that involves cutting and pasting is still a cut and paste move, and the edit summaries look too deceptive to be innocent. CT Cooper · talk 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• A disruptive, uncommunicative editor. I'm with JBW on this. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to very interested in responding to the points raised on this page. On the issue of Markschmitz (talk · contribs), given that (s)he vandalised the same articles that Phanuruch8555 edited and Phanuruch8555 seems to be almost glorifying his/her edits [44], I agree that this incident is rather suspicious. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, that there are sufficient grounds for a block, and consensus seems to be in that direction. However, the user has had only mild warnings, unless I have missed some others in the talk page history, so I have given a final warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in these circumstances a final warning was justified. CT Cooper · talk 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Lloydbaltazar

Resolved

 – User:Elen of the Roads blocked User:Lloydbaltazar indefinitely. He can appeal the block if he's willing to communicate with other users. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How much time should we all waste reverting a user who never discusses, just reverts for ever? The talk page messages on User talk:Lloydbaltazar speak for themselves, but the user does not - just reverts. He just wastes time that could be used for productive work. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that administrative intervention is needed here. Here are just two diffs in support of the request: [45]. The edit removed a tag via an IP identified as a sock-puppet of this user. Also, this edit. A visit to User talk:Lloydbaltazar will provide evidence of a long history of disruptive editing. At the very minimum, a stern warning from an administrator is needed. This might be backed up by a block. The last block was 48 hours. The next one might need to be a week. If this continues on much longer, we should move to ban this user. However, it would be preferable if we could get him to change his ways. Maybe mentorship is what's needed here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship, cooperation and all that require a "conversation" with the user in question. The appropriate background music for that talk page would be The Sounds of Silence. We have never heard from that user - ever. Just seen reverts. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

His user contributions list confirms that he has never edited his talkpage in all the years that he has been here. He has only three edits to article talkpages, one from 2008 and two from 23 July 2011 [46] and [47] that have the unfortunate effect of making him come across as a religious nut, which can't have helped matters. Since he manifestly takes no notice of anything placed on his talkpage (all the way back to 2008), I have blocked him indefinitely - ie until he starts talking, and left a nice clear message for him. If he starts to communicate, any admin can unblock him and start a discussion about his editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Elen of the Roads. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good block, I would have done the same thing. -- Atama頭 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Brave, thick-skinned admin required to close edit request on contentious page

Resolved

 – edit request closed

A request for a policy-based edit to a fully protected page has languished for over 24 hours now and become yet another venue for debate in a tedious dispute. The page in question is Luke Evans (actor) and the edit request is Talk:Luke Evans (actor)#Edit protected request.

Fair warning, this is a page that was edited by users with a strong smell of COI, prematurely fully protected, drew the attention of several media outlets for that protection, attracted an influx of new users, is part of a long-running discussion at the BLP noticeboard, was the subject of an edit war, was fully protected again, suffered the involvement of a well-known sockpuppeteer, and looks like it will be the subject of more media attention if this continues to go unresolved. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're making this sound very attractive. If I hadn't been sideways involved with it (before it was this big a deal, just half as big), I would jump right in. Tell you what, let one of the recently promoted admins take care of it, bwuhaha. I vote for Qwyrxian. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ahem. Someone called for a suicidal/reckless/brave/utterly batshit fucking insane administrator? Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yep, that's pretty much the accurate description, Ironholds. LadyofShalott 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I believe Ironholds just paged you. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

*bites down on the first five responses that want to come out of his fingers*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Personally, I think the disputed categories should have been removed until the issue was resolved, but at least it is closed now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, what was supposed to make this more difficult? The main culprit managed to get sidetracked into ranting at Jimbo (and I'm beginning to understand that if for nothing else, user talk:Jimbo Wales is a crucial part of this encyclopedia simply because it acts like a pitcher plant for kooks and miscreants) and the actual matter was a stonewall (pun not intended) BLP violation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Userspace forgery

4 (talk · contribs)

User:4/VVWDDHDAUÜDWEAKAAUDMDAEBSASADBNDSDS/Mitglieder has forged signatures, which I feel is in serious violation of the policy. The page should be speedy deleted ASAP. (User is retired, so is a block necessary?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor decides to come back for whatever reason, a block could be done just in case. I brought it to MfD because before he retired, the editor was an active Wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the editor has been active and creating articles right up until the present (notwithstanding adding the 'retired' template in March). Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that a few seconds ago and that he said that he was retired months ago. Odd. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They're indeed active. I say delete ASAP and block. This could be harmful to the project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, guys. The German text says "Look, guys, this page is so long, you really expect me to translate it into German?" This is clearly intended as a joke - yes he very patiently wrote all the comments and forged all the signatures (except User:Diego Grez (go figure)), but an admin even moved the page in 2009 - with all the signatures - when the creator changed names. I've declined 10 pound hammer's speedy - it can go to Mfd--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • While it is true that it is a joke page, it was created to insult editors that he disagrees with. I also wonder what the editors that are mentioned would think about this just being a joke. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also think that all user pages are automatically transferred to the new name when a username change occurs. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ten Pound Hammer - edit warring to put the speedy tag back on is probably not the smartest thing you've ever done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

... fairly common recently, unfortunately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I just saw this come up - where was that discussion? It was about edit-warring CSD tags back in so another admin would look at it, effectively admin-shopping, and/or the first step to wheel-warring. Why is the second admin coutnermanning the first? Have new circumstances arisen? If not, leave the original decision be. I'm not satisfied with the outcome here, even though I think it's long-term correct. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I had closed the MFD based on the speedy deletion, but Athaenara reversed course and reopened it (along with undeleting the page) per Franamax's objections, so the MFD is back on course. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this. It was basically a translation of the meta association AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD because the German translation wasn't yet linked, so I wasn't aware of its existence and created one. I went a bit overboard though, so thank you for deleting it, and I'd like to put this behind me. Sorry. Currently I use my userspace only for mathematical-scribbling purposes that won't harm anybody.--4 T C 07:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson about this and won't do anything like that again. It was exceptionally poor judgement on my part to put in a translation of that page with all those comments. Sorry. --4 T C 07:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not have the intention of insulting anybody, was just translating the whole page. I didn't even know who they were. I sincerely apologise for what this has become, and request that all these pages be deleted as soon as possible and that I am not blocked for this. 4 T C 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the translation was by Babelfish and was fully automated. I don't even speak German. --4 T C 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me, I've learnt my lesson. --Sincerely, 4 T C 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not support a block in this case. As per WP:BLOCK, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The page in question was created two years ago, and other than auto-edits (caused by username changes, etc.), there were no edits made to that page since its creation. The user in question has indicated that he has learned his lesson, and that it was in poor judgement. Also, the user in question's behaviour since the page was created two years ago has been constructive. It seems to me that the only pupose of the block would be as a punitive measure over something that was done two years ago (which has not been repeated since). Singularity42 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The sky is falling!. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The answers to Ten Pound Hammer's original post seem to be (1) yes, the page needed to be deleted, and has been, (2) the editor is by no means retired, despite the user page banner saying so, but the editor last edited the page in November 2009, and no block is necessary. I suggest that we can now drop the matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image issue

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Wikipedia:Non-free content review would be more appropriate as no admin action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to bring this up, but as it only concerns myself and another editor at this stage, I believe that this is the proper venue for the time being.

SchuminWeb and I have been disagreeing over the inclusion of fair use images on a series of pages that are lists of fictional characters within Power Rangers; full list below

SchuminWeb has, over the weekend, continually orphaned the images from these articles, as well as off of other pages that they may or may not have been used on, and tagged them for deletion through the orphaning as well as adding one image to FFD from the last article on the list. I disagree with his assessment that the image on each article is only decorative, because it is a long standing practice that singular images of fictional characters are fine so long as they have the proper fair use rationale. He claims that because the article lacks "sourced critical commentary" on the image itself, then the images are decorative. His much stricter interpretation of the non-free content criteria clearly does not match with the actual practice on the project, because this would mean that any TV title card, any movie poster, any book cover, or any album cover that is not critically discussed by someone and then that commentary included on Wikipedia should be removed from the articles they are featured on and summarily deleted after they have been orphaned.

What should be the proper practice here?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to open a request for comment on these images, in order to stimulate further discussion on the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never actually opened up an RFC, nor do I think it's possible or helpful to make one for 8 pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to pursue dispute resolution, so your posting here? What administrative action do you think would be appropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know where to bring it because WP:NFCR doesn't seem like the right venue (also it has low turnover which would not be helpful if the images are orphaned) and I don't think this is necessarily something for WP:DR to cover at this stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It may actually be a sound idea to remove Ryulong's rollbacker access, at least temporarily. Ryulong has used the rollback feature repeatedly during this content dispute. First instances were here and here, after which Ryulong was warned about this behavior and its consequences, which he subsequently acknowledged in an edit summary. However, Ryulong has continued to use rollback in more than one instance in situations where it is not permitted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's easier to do several MW rollbacks in a row than it is to do several Twinkle ones in a row. And I severely doubt that removing orphaned image deletion tags from image pages when they have been put back onto articles constitutes abuse of MW rollback. And in the instances where it was done to replace fair use rationales that you removed, I clearly statd my reasoning on your user talk page afterwards, which is fully in line with what I have been told is acceptable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And it would help if SchuminWeb did not constantly send these images through the various deletion processes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be starting an RFC on the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please block this account

Resolved

I have already reported Crapton Gay (talk · contribs) at WP:SPI but frankly this account is also in WP:AIV territory (vandalism-only account) and also WP:UAA (disparaging username). Rather than cross-post at all 3 I thought I'd come here for the quickest action. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The account has already been reported as a VOA at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I'm betting he go bye-bye fairly soon. I have NOT notified him of this discussion; I'm invoking WP:DENY as a rationale. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; already blocked. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Squeaky wheels get noticed. Wheels that quack get noticed faster. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Barry Larkin page

We have a user over at this page continually adding unsourced/poorly sourced information detrimental to Larkin's character and of no apparent notability both under the user name Arom1221 and from the IP address 74.215.251.150. He has been advised both in edit summaries and on his own talk page by myself and others that this behavior is not appropriate and is not only unrepentant, but vows to continue until everyone gets sick of reverting him. We could use an admin to try and reason with him and, if that fails, take appropriate action. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a clear WP:BLPVIO, not to mention both an actual and stated intent of busting WP:3RR in order to keep the questionable material in the article. I've warned Arom1221 regarding 3RR and watchlisted the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Alan: clear-cut case of unreferenced addition of controversial, defamatory information about a living person, also WP:OWN ([48]) and stated intent to edit war. I'll WL this as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note on Arom1221's talk page regarding the continued BLP violations (to compliment Alan's 3RR notice).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the IP editor is Arom1221, logged out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

User:Willem Dafoe22 is a new account that has made 2 blatant vandalism edits to the BLP....you guessed it...Willem Dafoe. [49] and [50]. Possibly an issue with WP:BADNAME policy as well. User notified of this thread [51]. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

I got a notice that there's something going on here that I should be looking at, but I don't see it. Here's the message as it was posted to my talk page:

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone tells me otherwise I'm going to assume that it either was not important, or the message was left there in error. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to relate to this [52] archived thread. The discussion seems to have fizzled out unresolved though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting block review

Resolved

 – Reaper unblocked, I'll give it a try --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello, since it appears that users both find my block appropriate and inappropriate, I am asking that users review my block of Ctwoman. Since I do not wish to color people's opinions too much I will just point out the various places that this discussion has been taking place: my talk page, the only place I knew about as of the time of the block; Joe Chill's talk page, and Sphilbrick's talk page. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What you've done is pretty standard practice with promotional accounts - just ask User:OrangeMike. This appears to be the tell - why would a newbie who was trying to navigate our rules blank the page rather than make some effort to respond to the offers of help? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the extent I have commented on this matter, I do not impute Reaper Eternal for the discretion used in blocking the account. I merely believe Sphilbrick has introduced equally viable conclusions which if considered would indicate a less antagonistic approach has merit. I entirely favor good faith assumptions when they are reasonably applied and for conduct which propagates a welcoming environment for new users. My76Strat (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy myself about this. Sphilbrick's comment on his talk page seems to be an assumption that I did not try to help since I didn't add a rationale in my reverts. I did try to explain to the editor what my rationale was on the talk page of the now deleted article, but Ctwomen removed my comments and then continued adding stuff relating to the organization to articles without asking questions about it. I'm saying seems because I am not sure. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, Reaper has kindly unblocked, and I will try to discuss this with Ctwomen. Just to be clear, I don't think this was an inappropriate block, in the sense that I think many admins would have handled this the same way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper's block was accompanied by this cleanup of WP:UAA. Sadly, the user has yet to engage anyone in constructive discussion.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nickyp88

Please can you report Nickyp88? He insists in removing music genres without a consensus and I've noticed from his talk page that he has already been blocked before. Thanks. 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.212.145 (talk)

• User has been notified. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

86.181.212.145 is an IP used by the banned editor User:CharlieJS13. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User Eagles247

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

This user violated WP:TPNO when he called me ignornant on user talk page. I sent an e-mail address to an one i found on here but i was reffered to here after i warned him about be being reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG, cause this might bite you on the rumpus. You were on Eagles' talk page, continuing to hammer on the same point, and it didn't seem like you were paying attention. This is one of those cases where editors have said "Fuck off" and been dragged to ANI, only to see the case being laughed out of court. Do not persist, is my advice to you, lest your edits and tone are given closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is i admitted i was wrong and was attempting to calm it down, then he popped off with calling me ignorant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it. Atomician (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?? I have done nothing wrong here. I realized i was being stubborn about something so petty and i was trying to back off then he decides to make a personal attack. I'm not dropping anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignorant = lacking in awareness or knowledge. If you find this offensive is nobody problem. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But we're to understand that you're not being stubborn anymore? You argued with Eagles on the same subject last week, using intemperate language, and have returned to the same subject to chew on it some more. Having received a short answer, you now want some form of administrative action? I'm a bit mystified as to what Muzemike's done, by the way; you were going to "report" him as well [53]. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike asked him if he would still report me if I was not an admin, he answered with "more than likely." Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that: all MuzeMike did was ask a question. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. You persist in hypothesizing what might be happening in certain scenarios, on the talk page of an editor who has repeatedly tried to explain that there's no point in such hypotheses and that edits shouldn't be based on them. (And I didn't see much backing off in your comments, and it seems to me that Palmer is a Bengal until he is no longer a Bengal--case closed.) In fact, they told you in bold print. You go on, and Eagles says "ignorant". It's not much of an insult, and I think some might say it's justified. Is it a nice thing to say? Maybe not. Then again, even after that you continued to hang out on that talk page, until you found a way to anger not one but three editors. And so I said, Do not persist. And Atomician says, Just leave it. Well, take our advice. Drop it and don't respond. I hope someone will find it in their heart to close this. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignornant is just another word for stupid which is a personal attack. And yes i am trying to back off on, you guys are just completly misunderstanding what i was saying. And the user you mentioned, i never said i would report him. Im not dropping anything because i've done nothing wrong. U can define ignorant however you want, but the point remains, it means lacking knowledge the same defenition as stupid. It is an insult.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Futhermore, last week it was about carson's roster status this week, its if updates should be made to his page.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First to make a point, lacking knowledge does not mean stupid. Babies lack knowledge. Babies aren't stupid. And by pursuing this you're just going to wind up being scrutinized and as Drmies said, you'll be shot down here, it happens quite a bit. Do yourself a favour, don't interact with this user again, I'm sure he won't bother you? Move on to somewhere else, there are millions of articles and other areas of the pedia out there. Go to them. Atomician (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignorant ≠ stupid. I'm ignorant of brain surgery, for instance, but that doesn't make me stupid. Really, take your own advice and try some conciliation. There's no administrative action to be taken here, and Eagles took no action in an administrative role in this matter. This is not an appropriate matter for AN/I. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Eagle, fine work on Greg McElroy. We'll make a Tide fan out of you yet. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this? No administrative action needed and nothing will (or even should) be done. Atomician (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Im dropping this, but only cuz im sick of typing a long post then having it cleared out because of these BS edit conflicts. And you guys are looking at ignorant from a technical point of view, not from a slang point of view. So yeah go ahead and close the damn thing. Im done--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Not properly archived . . .

Resolved

 – removed the already archived topics.--Atlan (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Coca-Cola_Company was archived, it seems that the old data was not removed from the current file. Thus, we seem to have the same information both at the above page and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Coca-Cola_Company/Archive_1. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me.--Atlan (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it quite obviously isn't. This is the problem. Just delete the sections which haven't changed since they were original archived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I only checked the top thread, which was different from the archive and from 2010.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive emails

Resolved

I have just received an abusive email from Ttstlkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 'new' account but obviously some sort of sockpuppet. Can appropriate action please be taken? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion already blocked it. Pretty obvious 't t stalker'. Syrthiss (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obvious troll, email blocked. SPI might be needed if more appear. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns at Falkland Islands and Talk:Falkland Islands.

Hello, I would like to bring it to general (Please note, I am not naming any users for obvious reason, I'm targeting no one) notice to the current discussions and editing practises on the Falkland Islands Article/Talk page. Please note, I have no personal opinion on these situations - I am merely going by what I have seen on the talk page and such - After observing the page over three months now as an anon user I am, I find the general tone to be unpleasant, and unwelcoming. It doesn't speak well to someone uninvolved initially who may want to improve the article in question. I get from the page a very "Grinding teeth, Mexican-stand off" atmosphere. I don't know if anyone is POV pushing, playing games and all the other accusations being thrown around very recently, but nothing ever gets resolved from it, nothing gets seriously discussed about it, and the unpleasantness continues. Edit warring often goes unchecked, seemingly baseless accusations are thrown around and nothing ever comes from it in a productive sense. Observe the current discussions on the talk page, and review all the evidence. Thank you. I just want to see this page have a friendly, more civil, more productive and more engaging level of activity. If it's a problem that I haven't named specific editors or edits, please say so. But I think it speaks for itself at the moment with minimal searching needed. --85.210.104.98 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This needs admin involvement right away. My last WP:WQA request has gone nowhere.Alex79818 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An SPA I would susgest that this is a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course its a sock. BTW its an election year in Argentina, the Falklands articles will take a battering for the next couple of months. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue, however, may well be real. It would not hurt for more eyes on that article in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in Joseph Jordania and related articles?

• Josephjordania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ketih King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charles J. Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.188.26.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These four accounts seem to be operated by the same person, not a native English speaker. All the accounts appear to be promoting the work of the Georgian musicologist Joseph Jordania on wikipedia. The first version of the BLP, still largely unsourced but containing detailed personal information not available elsewhere, was uploaded here.[54] I am reporting this here because it appears to involve both sockpuppetry and BLP puffery, which extends to many articles. Eminent musicologists, like the Harvard Bach scholar Christoph Wolff, do not normally get this kind of coverage on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Premature RM closure of Crepe

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

---

It seems to me that a discussion that is so active that it received over 25 edits today alone is way too active to close. I reversed the closure and requested that the page move be undone, at least until the discussion settles down, but that was reverted (along with removing a post-move comment).

I hereby request an uninvolved admin to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move accordingly.

• Talk page history showing how busy the discussion is: [55].
• Closing of discussion: [56]
• Revert of closing: [57]
• Post-move comment [58]
• Re-close of discussion and removal of post-move comment: [59] (also a personal attack, referring to "sore losers").

Discussion closed prematurely tend to be followed by another proposed move... This is already the second such proposal discussion within one or two months - obviously there is more to talk about before consensus is truly established. Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following response to Born2cycle at the talkpage of the closing admin; it is relevant here also:

Born2cycle, if you are concerned about some anomaly in the closure of this RM, why were you not concerned about the closure of the first RM, which was based in large part on manifestly flawed evidence from you? Why have you said nothing in answer to my painstaking refutations of that false evidence, absenting yourself from the present RM for the last five days or so? Why do you feel free to inconvenience so many of us so much, over such a tiny issue as a hat on a pancake? Please adopt a more mature and less disruptive attitude. Through your unanswerable carelessness, you have been the immediate cause of my losing a day's full-time real-life work, while you stayed silently away. Don't do that!
The closure of the present RM was a straightforward matter to be achieved expeditiously, once that faulty evidence was exposed. Please leave a good outcome alone.

I suggest that this disruptive affair is better left behind us, and that all involved now move on. And learn some lessons from it (especially about how to do real Google searches).

Noetica^Tea? 08:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I closed that discussion because the evidence was overwhelming, and nothing new was being said. Born2cycle said I was "not uninvolved", but the only comment I had made in the discussion was basically "this is an interesting discussion, because of the issues involved," when I was relisting it a week ago. I don't care one way or another what the title of the article is, but like I said, the evidence was overwhelming, and nobody opposing the move was actually presenting anything new. I was even wrong about how interesting the issues were, because as it turns out, both COMMONNAME and ENGVAR point to the same conclusion: that the name for those thin pancakes is spelled in most reliable sources with a circumflex.

I don't see how letting it run for another week would make any difference, but if the community feels that the discussion should continue, I won't revert or have anything further to do with it. It is, I think, worth noting that the editor who reverted my close had been involved, but had basically dropped out of the discussion upon thorough refutation of his evidence. The discussion is educational to read, indeed, but I believe that it had moved past the point of diminishing returns, and into deceased equine territory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Amendment: What I said is not entirely fair. Born2cycle did not "drop out upon thorough refutation of his evidence"; he had simply been largely away from Wikipedia for the last week. I admit, I had kind of wondered what happened to him, and I'm glad he's okay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think the details of the pro/con arguments are irrelevant here. All that should be relevant here are facts pertaining to the process. My main point is that the discussion was obviously ongoing and extremely active when it was abruptly closed. Maybe it was a dead horse situation - I don't know, because I didn't get a chance to read it and evaluate it before it was closed.

My other point about the closing admin being involved is that he expressed a strong opinion about there being an ENGVAR problem on the page about a week ago[60], and then closed it a few days later saying he was convinced by Noetica's common name argument.

If you look at the history you'll see that there were lulls in the discussion. For example, only 3 edits on August 9th, and none on August 10th. Yesterday, the day the discussion was closed, there were over 35. The evidence that the closing admin found to be so compelling was only presented a couple of days ago (based on that being the first time Noetica - the one who presented it - edited the talk page - I still haven't read it).

How can we say that the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages when we close discussions before all major participants have even read, much less responded to, the latest salient points? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, exaggeration is almost never helpful. "he expressed a strong opinion about there being an ENGVAR problem on the page," is absolutely false, and I don't enjoy being misrepresented. What I said was, "This is an interesting case, because we're feeling out the boundary between WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, or at least that's what I think we're seeing here." If that's a "strong opinion" about "an ENGVAR problem", then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I'll thank you not to do that in the future. Exaggeration is almost never helpful; don't you agree? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that "crepe never should have dropped the circumflex" is an expression of a strong opinion. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote out of context, much? Let's have the full sentence, "Per that decision, crepe never should have dropped the circumflex, at least as I understand the issue." According to my understanding that it was an ENGVAR issue, which I "thought" it was, then the ENGVAR guideline would oppose the dropping of the circumflex. I didn't say I was certain that it was an ENGVAR issue, and I never said that I was fully in support of the ENGVAR guideline. I think it's a compromise that has worked pretty well, but if something else is better supported by the community, I'm all for it. Please include context when you quote me in the future, Born2cycle. It will avoid a lot of misunderstandings. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss premature closure, the real problem was the first move that this one undid. It was based on horribly flawed evidence and a strange close rational for an evenly divided opinion; even the guy who closed it admitted as much. Everyone else who had a chance to look at the evidence pretty much agreed, it appears, so that was indeed a dead horse (Kauffner remained obstinate, even after admitting that the usage is about equal, however – of the last day comments, he was the only one in opposition to moving it back, for reasons never articulated after his counts of online hits were thoroughly discredited by looking at them). At least we're back to a good starting point, if someone wants to try again to claim that for some reason the article should be moved to the diacritical-free title. I recommend that Born2cycle read the evidence before makeing more noise about this; his flawed counts were a big reason it went as wrong as it did and took so much work to undo. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A Wiki editor counting up cooking book titles on Google Books vs. a bunch of fuddy-duddy dictionaries and encyclopedias? It was never any contest. Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Britannica etc, etc., who would use such discredited sources? I don't what I was thinking. Kauffner (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't admit quite that much. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply asking for an objective opinion about the facts here - discussions that are so active should not be closed. There is no evidence that this discussion was going to go on and on without end and so had to be closed now. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, I honestly don't see how you can make a case that GTBacchus was "involved", at least not based on Talk:Crêpe—did GTB say something somewhere else? Surely you are not claiming that being involved is implied by relisting? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page [61]. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread is about your opinions on titling, not about pancakes. I suspected there was an ENGVAR issue there, and that made me curious to ask your opinion. I have never had a "strong" anything regarding circumflexes for English breakfast, and only a tortured reading of my remarks could make it appear that I have. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all I see there is support for wp:ENGVAR, not an involvement in this particular case. I'm not commenting on whether this was closed too early—frankly I'm glad it's over, either way—but I don't think GTBacchus was "involved". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally support ENGVAR, but I'm not married to it. What was going on in that discussion was me trying to figure out the extent to which Born2cycle favors COMMONNAME as established by Google searches above all other naming criteria. (Born, please note the phrase "the extent to which". I don't think that you absolutely favor COMMONNAME as established by Google searches above all other naming criteria, but I get the impression that you lean some distance in that direction. Context, context, context.)

As it turns out, I believe the discussion established that it's not an ENGVAR issue at all, because American cookbooks tend to use the circumflex, too. At least that was my reading of the discussion. All it takes is someone uninvolved deciding to re-open it, and it'll be open again, and I will not object. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that your stated opinion about the previous close being improper based on ENGVAR introduced a bias in favor of supporting the proposal to move it back, and may have affected your reading of subsequent comments.

If any discussion was ever prematurely closed, this one surely was, given the high activity at the time of the close. That no one is acting on this clear objective fact shows that WP is not governed by rule of law at all, but almost exclusively by "rule of man":

The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."[24] According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".[24] ... The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[25]

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR played absolutely zero role in my decision. I learned in subsequent discussion that it wasn't an issue at all, so far from introducing a bias in favor of supporting the proposal, I decided that it was completely irrelevant. COMMONNAME prevailed; isn't that your preference?

I suggest that you wait and see if anyone from the community - not already involved - has anything to say about all of this. Your comments about rule of law are very interesting, and to my mind, irrelevant. There's a colorful history of people who wish that Wikipedia be more rule-bound. These people have, historically, always left disappointed. Make of that what you will, but I'm not going to argue another word with you about this. It's in the hands of the community, so let's see what they say. Okay? Good day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The role of the rule of law is irrelevant here? I take it as a given that people understand both the seduction and inherent fatal flaws in favoring the rule of men over the rule of law, but perhaps I assume too much. I posted this simple request over 10 hours ago. The lack of action in all that time is making it quite clear that there is probably little understanding, much less appreciation, for the role of the rule of law here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Darn it. I said I was done, but I feel compelled to reply to this. Wikipedia is not a formal legal system, never has been, and probably never will be. It's not about lacking understanding of "rule of law"; it's because we chose not to do it that way. Our very first policy was Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and it is still of top importance. Wikipedia is not here for lawyers, and rule-lawyering is strongly discouraged. If we were rule-bound, one could use rules and loopholes to create no end of red tape and nonsense. The way we do it, you have to actually convince actual human beings in the context of an actual editing issue.

Please do not try to make Wikipedia rule-bound. I'm not worried that you'll succeed; I'm worried that you'll burn out and leave. It's much better and easier to, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

When I see that I'm not getting any traction on an issue, I accept it and work on something else. I recommend that as a practical strategy. Many have come to grief trying to play this as a rules-game (i.e., a game governed by well-defined rules). Please don't be one of those people. Go learn some history: we used to have an editor here called badlydrawnjeff. Study his example, and learn from it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and before you start telling me what ignore all rules means, study the history of that essay. It's in the archives at WT:IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The alternative to the rule of law is akin to spinning a mouse's wheel in its cage. Burnout, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the alternative is the most successful amassing of free knowledge in the history of history. Millions use this encyclopedia every day, and we're really good at what we do. We just do it in ways that often surprise people who are accustomed to formal systems. Look how many of us haven't burnt out. That means something. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• This ANI by Born2cycle is without merit. First, one can not make a compelling case for undermining a clear general consensus by offering up an observation that the Talk:Crêpe page had been received over 25 edits today alone. As the revision history clearly shows, the vast majority are just ones by me; that is the nature of how I make posts: I get in quickly but am seldom satisfied with what I have and typically expand and revise; thus, a whole bunch of edits, but they are for one post. As can clearly be seen at the edit history, the majority of the latest edits are just Born2cycle and GTBacchus doing back & forth “No… you’re the poopy-head!”

  It’s just this simple: By nose count alone, there was a 15-to-9 balance (forgive me if I miss-counted) in favor of making the article title consistent with how the word was accented throughout the body text. Nothing about that action is unusual. Makes sense, in fact. Moreover, if one looks at what people were arguing about and what the issue was really about, the quality and consistency of the arguments by the “supports” exceeded that of the “opposers”. As GTBacchus was quick to point out (refuting Born2cycle’s allegation) he is not an involved admin; he merely commended the approach and methodology used by seemingly grown-up-types when he wrote This discussion is where I'll probably point people in the future as an example of how Google searches should be treated; that's good work..

  Well, sure that is going to be of great disappointment to Born2cycle. But the bottom line is this ANI is just a matter of “But… I still want my waaaaay.” Just pardon me all over the place for pointing that much out here, but Wikipedia being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, this phenomenon occurs all the time and this is just one of those cases.

  I suggest speedy close of this ANI; it is without foundation and is an utter waste of everyone’s time, who are merely an all-volunteer group of folks who want to go about engaging in an enjoyable hobby without disruption.

  To Born2cycle: Just because Infinite electronic white-space is now available below for you to now refute my statement that the “quality” of the arguments by the “supporters” exceeded that of the “opposers,” I suggest you not avail yourself of opportunity. Your argument about “25 edits” in the last 24 hours amounted to a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium. Give it up; this is going nowhere. Greg L (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Poopy-head"? Hmm. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User keeps adding OR despite warnings

Magoohoo (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding original research and unsourced claims to articles, and a bunch of talk page warnings to go along with it. After being blocked for 48 hours back on July 11, his very next edits today are to again add original research and the names of non-notable authors and their books into articles. He/She also appears to be editing while logged out as 173.212.190.209 (talk · contribs). This editor shows no sign of understanding or learning and I think should be blocked until such time as they can demonstrate that they understand. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User using Wikipedia space as a course overview?

Resolved

Prof M Johnson (talk · contribs) seems to be creating user space "articles" for use in their classroom courses. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yepp, and that's what the particular subspace is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? We encourage non-encyclopedia use of Wikipedia? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It took me two clicks to find out about this. You could have done the same — no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be a jerk. You could have pointed that out without being nasty. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be a jerk indeed. I see you apologized. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Koavf

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

Resolved

 – AWB access has been removed pending further discussion; Koavf indicated other editors are free to exercise BRD on this series of edits and that he would be refocusing efforts elsewhere. Further administrative action does not seem necessary; editorial actions may be discussed elsewhere. –xeno^talk 02:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see from this board that this editor User: Koavf has been sanctioned before. He's back. Looking at his contributions list over the last few days, he is making the same repetitive edit into thousands of articles, reporting bare links. He is making several edits a minute, there can be no possible quality control or checking in his work. It is simple defacement that now appears as a top banner above every article he has touched in the last few days. As I suggest in his talk page, IF he has a problem with the content of an article, he should present specifics in the talk page, rather than a bold announcement on the top of the main article. This vandalism now displays his one man's opinion above the work, in the case of some articles, made over years and multiple editors. He should be stopped and a bot designed to revert all of these mainspace edits. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this and notify him of its presence, he has gone back to revert my cleanup of the articles I specified in his talk page. Trackinfo (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This isn't a major issue as far as I'm concerned: Koavf is simply implementing current policy by adding cleanup banners. He's using a semi-automated tool to do so (WP:AWB). Adding WP:TC banners isn't "defacement" or vandalism. The whole point of adding them is that the problem with the content of the article is the use of barelinks in references, and no "specifics" need to be provided. It is no concern that he can do a number of these a minute: that's what AWB is for. It's not "one man's opinion" of the work, it's a cleanup banner. No admin action required. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

edit conflict with Tom Morris from above

Okay First off, this provides some of my rationale. In sum, maintenance templates make it easier to fix the problems that exist in articles (especially obscure ones) and this particular maintenance template highlights a very straightforward issue which is altogether easy to resolve (versus, say a POV dispute, which would require discussion on talk--this does not.) Also, semi-automated tools make it fairly easy for users to fix these problems.

That having been said, I decided that I would simply ignore the more bombastic parts of Trackinfo's posts to my talk and give him as much charity as possible. Since he's now posted at AN, I'll go ahead and address those more outlandish claims.

First off, he initially said that I added {{cleanup-linkrot}} to pages that did not include bare URLs. This is a serious assertion, so I took a look. Sure enough, I couldn't find any. I took this opportunity to improve a few random pages and then posted to his talk asking him to give me an example of a mistagged page. The example he gave was Never Let Go (live), which sure enough, has a bare URL as a source. (He reverted the tag erroneously claiming that there are no bare sources.) This is a simple empirical question and he's provided no proof that I've actually done what he claims. On the contrary, I took my time to go back and review my edits and found no substance to this allegation.

Then, the made the much bolder claim that adding maintenance templates at the volume and frequency with which I added them constituted (what he considers) vandalism. I suppose that his reasoning is that I am "adding, removing, or changing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" because maintenance tags "defame [sic] [deface?] the look of every article." Of course, this is not the case. I am not trying to make Wikipedia worse off by adding maintenance templates--I am trying to make it better. The aesthetics of the templates themselves are there to draw attention to the potential problems of articles for the benefit of readers and editors. This doesn't constitute vandalism per WP:VAND nor per common sense.

He went on to claim that rather than using maintenance templates, I should post to talk or fix them myself, which would be far more productive. He's half-right: fixing them myself would certainly be better, but I am not interested in that, nor am I obliged to do so. Fixing it is a good idea, but one that I am not interested in doing, except to articles that matter to me. If I tag articles that don't matter to me, the users who care about them can fix them. As I pointed out above (and as Trackinfo was concerned himself), obscure articles|this is more likely to improve the quality of obscure articles, as it brings attentive and skilled users to them. This is partially mitigated by the fact that there are plenty of resources and tools to help with this problem in a semi-automated fashion, which would be impossible with (e.g.) unsourced biographies or articles with peacock terminology. Also, Wikipedia isn't on a timeline and since there are no due dates, we can address problems on our schedules as volunteer editors. However, we cannot address problems (such as link rot) if they are never specified by other users in the first place. He is also half-wrong: posting to the talk pages of all of the articles with link rot issues would be a huge waste of my time as it would require me to point out in detail very straight-forward maintenance issues and they would be far less likely to be fixed, as they would never be added to Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. What purpose would it serve to post to the talk pages of all of these articles and only a small minority of them would ever be addressed?

He ended his initial message by saying that "this streak of damage does nothing positive but discredits the work of thousands of editors and the wikipedia project itself." I find it hard to believe that even he believes that. Tagging articles that have bare links as URLs undermines the integrity of Wikipedia? How could pointing out its flaws in an attempt to fix them in a systematic way be bad for the encyclopedia?

His second post to my talk continues a similar line of argument ("what you are doing is wholesale destruction"), but with this post he seems to misunderstand the entire point of tagging a page as vulnerable to link rot. As he points out, Never Let Go (live) has two links and both of them are live, pointing you to the proper source. This is fine and well, but the purpose of {{barelinks}} is not the same as {{deadlink}}. The former alerts you that references are written in a poor manner that makes them unverifiable; the latter alerts you that a link is dead. It's irrelevant whether or not the links are live now or whether or not they always will be: {{barelinks}} lets you know that the links could die and that the presentation of attribution in the article as it stands is insufficient.

The real meat of his problem might be here: "At the speed you are leaving these announcements, there can not possibly be any quality control to your edits." Certainly, this is a serious criticism as well, but let's take an example of adding {{dn}} to pages. If an article has an ambiguous link in it--say to Georgia--then the quality of the encyclopedia is only enhanced by replacing [[Georgia]] with [[Georgia]]{{dn}} and adding them immediately enhances the quality of Wikipedia immediately. If I am reading an article about Mikheil Saakashvili or Magnapop and I run across the text "left Georgia for the Netherlands" I know which Georgia they mean and many other users will likely know, but will everyone? If they click on those links, will the dab pages be helpful? I can (and have) disambiguated hundreds of pages in long runs before and it really helps to have {{dn}} added to instances like this--otherwise, I would have to trudge through instances of "What links here" and see all the instances of [[Georgia]] on each page. The same thing goes for those who like to to fix linkrot issues: if {{barelinks}} is never added, they will have a virtually impossible time finding that problem to fix.

Finally, he makes this allegation which shows that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing: "[the articles that I have tagged] are not deserving of having their credibility questioned on their header by your un-researched one man's opinion." Articles that have statements with no attribution constitute original research and Wikipedia cannot have that and any original research can and should be removed immediately. Articles which give poor or unverifiable attribution are susceptible to original research. These are two of the core content policies and are non-negotiable in every instance in every article. Every article which has bare URLs has either a dead link in it (meaning that the claims are unsourced and constitute original research) or they have live links (meaning that they have claims which are on the cusp of being unverifiable and since they do not feature full attribution of authors, publishers, etc. are not clearly credible sources.) By adding {{cleanup-linkrot}} to articles, I am not claiming that verifiable and credible articles are no longer credible, I am claiming that unverifiable and in-credible claims on articles must be sourced properly or removed. This is not "a small wikipidian oriented technicality" that is essentially my "opinion"--this is a key problem that affects every claim on every article throughout the project.

I really didn't want to have to go to all of this trouble and I wouldn't have to if my interlocutor could simply point to an actual mis-tagged page (again, I haven't found one, but I'm willing to believe that it's possible) or if he understood exactly how important it is to have credible and verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Including bare URLs as sources is not a trivial aesthetic problem that's a matter of my opinion--it's a crucial issue that needs to be addressed precisely for the strength and integrity of the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Right Tom essentially said what I was trying to say in a more eloquent manner. Read my lengthy response if you want a fleshed-out and possibly less intelligible ramble. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment 1 Tagging a whole article for a single bare URL seems less desirable than tagging the specific section. Note that I'm an anti-fan of bare URLs as much as the next editor.

Comment 2 Since it's AWB, can it not invoke reflinks and just try to do the desired repair, and if it fails, then tag the article?

Just sayin.' --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the specific case of Never Let Go (live) the "bare link" he was supposedly reporting, and reenforcing with a reverted edit, happens to have an internal link on it which takes you directly to the information that is obviously a source to the original article. here. Because he was too lazy, or better phrased since he obviously is taking less than 20 seconds on average to look at an article, in too big of a hurry to post these tags, he never looked below the horizon of the article. He probably never even clicked on the source article in his first stab at it. The absence of an internal link is common amongst external web designers. We can't control the formatting of external sources. Some articles are sourced by one paragraph buried in the midst of a huge pdf. The fact is, the source information is ON THE PAGE THE ARTICLE LISTS AS A SOURCE, without the internal link being needed. He didn't read it or look for it. Instead he indiscriminantly tagged and moved on to thousands of other articles that he defaced in the same fashion. It could take editors months or years of effort to break down each individual article and look at the case by case situation he is supposedly reporting. Meanwhile every one of those thousands of articles is defaced with a tag ABOVE THE CONTENT. His poorly researched, one man's POV, over and above the efforts of all other editor's work, advertising to every reader that is might be bad information. These tags might be intended to improve article quality, but they are for Internal usage by the few wikipedia editors who understand what they are talking about. They should be on talk pages and more importantly should specify what the problem is, rather than this repetitive GENERIC complaint. This announcement at the top of every one of these thousands of articles is a public scream that brings down the look and reputation of the entire wikipedia project. Trackinfo (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So, my take is that you don't like article cleanup tags in general. However, that is not vandalism, plain and simple. In fact, such tags might actually encourage readers to the fix the issues related to them – in fact, that's what encouraged me to cleanup a few articles when I started here some 3 years ago. Also remember that nobody owns articles here, so before you start making cries about the "efforts of all other editor's work", their "work" can be edited at anytime by others – that is what the open editing nature of a wiki is all about.

All that said, I fail to see the need to take any action here. –MuZemike 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The only appropriate action I see is a quiet warning not to falsely accuse others of vandalism, which I think I'm doing now. That is potentially sanctionable behavior. -- Atama頭 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

An unnecessary tag does bring down the value of an article. In gang culture, spray-painting a gang reference onto an available public wall is called tagging. To the general public, it is just vandalism. And it does bring down the property values where it is placed. The lie that exists here, is the accusation that an article that this individual has detected as having a "bare link" when it does not. It is an indirect accusation that this article is somehow unsourced, unverifiable and not credible. In the one case I gave as an example, it was hit and run, another gang term, where this editor (as his contribution history shows) spent seconds on the page, NOT taking the time to check the source he accused of being a bare link and leaving a tag on the article. Subsequently, when I did check the link (a link I might have even placed years ago) and removed this tag, then on his talk page identified the error he had made, he came back and reverted my correction. While I have added to this article in question, I didn't create it. I certainly don't act to own it. But I do watch it and seek to protect it. I'll assume the thousands of other articles that received these tags have someone who took the interest in the articles or they would not have been created in the first place. The other example I gave National Lampoon's Animal House is a significant movie. I have participated in editing it along with literally hundreds of opinionated editors over the course of years. There is an equilibrium of consensus that makes this article, like so many articles on wikipedia, accurate and credible. It has 47 sources listed. If one or two of them might qualify as a bare link, don't you think that the article as a whole has been through the public scrutiny to avoid an accusation of it being unverifiable and not credible? A bare link could exist just because people have dedicated entire websites to this one movie. But here comes this editor, and in one flash of a visit, he posts this bare link accusation on the top of the article, does not identify which of the 47 sources has attracted this accusation, and leaves to do the same across thousands of other articles. So the many other editors who watch the article, or the thousands of visitors this article attracts, are supposed to guess at what is wrong and fix it to solve for this one person's POV of a technical issue with this article? Or do we need to depend on an additional editor on each of these thousands of articles to be bold, step forward and remove this garbage? There are far better tools to fixing a problem, the most obvious one being to fix the problem. That takes time and effort. A 20 second visit CAN'T substitute for research. Years of work shouldn't be discredited in the same amount of time. If a page is so badly written on a subject that an editor does not understand, perhaps a tag might be warranted. One tag for one major problematic article. And perhaps a discussion on the talk page, explaining what does not add up. That would serve a valuable purpose. Compared to that single bullet, what this editor is doing is carpet bombing. Trackinfo (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you aren't taking the hint, I'll make this clearer. Falsely accusing another editor of vandalism is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and if continued will lead to a block. You can discuss the merits of such tags without personally attacking the person leaving the tags, I strongly suggest you take this tact. -- Atama頭 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am clearly accusing him of is misuse of the tag function. Unresearched repetitive edits by the thousand. He is acting like a BOT, but with a POV perspective of enforcing a wikipedia formatting technicality. What word do you choose to use? I am trying to address the subject of the damage this blind editing is doing to the overall wikipedia project, and you nit pick on the descriptive and now clearly defined word / context I am using to describe this work. Trackinfo (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Atama and MuZemike here - discussion with, and calm suggestions to, a tagging editor is appropriate. We are discussing. We can see that you feel strongly about this. I can attest that I felt the same way about what I felt was "driveby" tagging last year; after discussion, the tagging editor and the rest of the discussing editors resolved the issue amicably, and this can happen here. But your harsh rhetoric earlier definitely crosses the line of WP:ATTACK. I earnestly suggest you read WP:TIGERS and consider striking through (but not deleting) some of your language. Going forward, tags are part of the Wikipedia ecosystem. They should be used carefully and accurately. WP:BRD says be bold, but don't be surprised if there's a revert, then discuss. The same is true of complaints about editors: they should be done carefully, accurately, and civilly. Finally, my strong suggestion is that article tags should always be accompanied by specific item tags, to help editors identify the specific problem area. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your view on article tags, and you haven't been the only person to express this view on Wikipedia. However, at this time it's normal Wikipedia process to make use of the tags that you object to. For this reason, directing your frustration at Koavf is inappropriate since Koavf is acting within the norms of Wikipedia. Your energy might be better directed towards calmly and rationally arguing against these kinds of large cleanup templates in a more appropriate venue. You should be aware, however, that this argument has been made a number of times before and last consensus is that the tags do more good than harm. That said, you're still welcome to open a friendly discussion on the topic somewhere appropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

'directing your frustration at Koavf is inappropriate since Koavf is acting within the norms of Wikipedia. '

Koavf is not acting within the norms of Wikipedia. He may be acting within policy, but his rate of editing (look at the total edit count, he's one of the highest-count editors) is such that it's outside any sort of norm. Certainly so far outside them that it would be wrong to criticise another editor (as here) for seeing his edits as being qualitatively different from those of other editors. Additionally, bulk edits are rarely well-considered edits.

I would also echo the calls here that an excess of tagging becomes counterproductive. The perception of WP quality is low enough already without us advertising the fact, and using banner headlines like this over the most trivial and undamaging of issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If what Koavf is doing is out of the norm it is only because other editors don't have the patience to do such a tedious and thankless job. He is doing a lot of good work here, in pointing out article issues to both readers and editors. If he isn't making many errors he should continue unobstructed. ThemFromSpace 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That pedantic tagging is of no value whatsoever to the readers. If he wants to do something useful, he should fix them instead of tagging them and expecting someone else to do that actual "tedious and thankless" work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some editors like finding problems but not fixing them. Others like fixing problems but not finding them. Both are free to do the tasks they like and avoid the tasks they dislike, there's even an essay that says as much (though I forget its name). Both are useful contributions to the advancement of the project, we should be careful not to make insinuations about the relative value of different types of contributions by different users. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so arbitrary break

Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for these "link rot" templates to appear on the talkpage of an article, or in some other far less conspicuous and distracting place than at the top of the articles themselves? On balance, given the choice between no template and one that defaces the article in such a garish way, it would be difficult to defend the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. {{Barelinks}} is not like {{BLP unreferenced}}; it hardly affects a C-class or below article if its links are perfectly formatted using {{Citation}} or are just the link with no formatting. Perhaps users who are interested in adding these templates might consider designing {{Barelinks-inline}} and using that instead, or even cleaning up the links themselves? NW (Talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which leads me to recall what used to be one of the more commonly used responses to complaints on Wikipedia; {{sofixit}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well-played. NW (Talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(modest blush) Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Nothing looks more beautiful to me than the quincunx pattern templates on top of Reconfigurable Supercomputing! And a quote from that article may even apply to our less reconfigurable editors: "Algorithmic cleverness is the secret of success." FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay This helps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you ruined the article. The quincunx pattern was the only thing I liked in it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What? "A main hurdle on the way to new horizons of cheap highest performance are CS-related educational deficits causing the configware / software chasm and a methodology fragmentation between the different cultures of application domains". I suspect that maybe the "Algorithmic cleverness" is writing articles about itself - no rational human being could write grammatically-challenged metaphor-mangling gobbledygook like that. We need a "WTF?" template... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The {{sofixit}} solution is of exceptional beauty when applied to those who tend to be on the generous side of article-tagging. Adding a templated-suggestion on the talk-page of a template fan can impossibly be considered bity in any way... On a more serious note: proportionality should be the real guideline here: if a a template is the first thing every visitor sees to avoid the irritation of a formatting-problem (ugly and unpracticle; but working bare links) , we are doing something wrong. I therefore agree with changing it into a talk-page template... L.tak (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who do I have to *cough*kitten*cough* to get all templates replicated in miniature forms like this one?:

I do not agree with burying issues on the Talk page - that's where issues go to die, or at least be ignored for years. Where tagging is needed, I prefer section tags, so that the issue is localized. And I would support and use an ecosystem of miniature tags, where possible. I don't think {{bareurls}} importance merits the sheer size of the resultant tag. This is made much worse on modestly sized screens (tablets, phones, 1024x768 LCD monitors, laptops, notebooks, which yes, are still running and are therefore used in 2011, thank you very much). --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Demo Like this? This would be placed by the link/ref in question. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the talk-page option, where it will be seen by editors but not by readers is the best so far. If a small article tag such as this was to be used, putting it over the Reference or EL section is a much better idea than having this boxes interrupt the flow of an article for the reader., Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Neat - see by section demo2 here.

--Lexein (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

--adjusted text from "this section contains bare links" to "this section has references with bare links" for clarity. --Lexein (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If wwe are going to use them on article pages, the smaller templates, and for sections not the whole article, and, following Beyond My Ken's suggestion-- on the reference or links section are best Normally what I really support is the placement on talk pages only for all maintenance templates, but at the references or links section makes sense--especially since it's down a the bottom. True, for references it will need to be edited by editing in the section where the reference is made, but anyone who has figured out how to edit Wikipedia reference sections has figured that out previously. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything that gets those huge banners off the top of articles is fine with me. Small templates in the sections if you must but the talk page is where they really belong. RxS (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is sounding like real progress. Which project manages/validates/blesses new templates? The "Expand group?" or another one? The last step before publishing should be to switch from "This article" or "This section" when invoked as {{Expand-barerefs}}, similarly to the big templates. --Lexein (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Shameless spam: User:MuZemike/Cleanup proposal. –MuZemike 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that he's still adding that huge template to the tops of article. Anyway to stop that? RxS (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No Since my actions are within policy (and in point of fact, helpful) there is no mechanism to stop me, nor should there be. That having been said, this should keep everyone from being worried about the templates being at the top of the page (which is where maintenance templates belong per Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance.) I'm assuming that this should finally be over with now and I can get back to doing what I was doing before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow that sounds like "famous last words". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also templates for discussion for stuff like that. –MuZemike 07:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm the original poster. I took abuse for vehemently trying to point out the damage that is being done. You've let it continue. Since that time, barely 4 days ago, this one user has made over 12,000 edits (I counted as many as 9 edits in just one logged minute), the vast majority of them reporting barelinks. And he has done this primarily sticking to one subject, recorded albums. If there are this many articles with "bare links" in just this one category, then reporting this fact on each of them is not NEWS, it is the NORM. DOG BITES MAN. So what? As I have tried to research this subject further, bare links, by the wikipedia definition, seem to be a formatting issue. A bare link is not, as I had originally thought it was, a link that takes you just to a web site where the information used as a source for an article is kept, somewhere non-specific, rather than the specific page. In my estimation, that would be a bad thing. Who would know where on that site the information is housed? But by placing the address of the actual web page, the actual source is given. That's not good enough for him or other elite wikipedians. His reporting is whether the name of the author, the date it was published, titles etc are properly formatted amongst your parenthesis and pipes. ARE YOU KIDDING? Because that complicated technicality is not met . . . on each stub article on every audio recording of notability ever made . . . each one of these articles need to have that huge banner, or even maybe the small things you are discussing, placed on it? Because the many editors who have placed this valuable information into the wikipedia database do not conform to the narrow view of technical formatting of their source information, the whole article is bad, not credible, not to be believed? Its so bad you need to beg people fix this? But its so complicated, that this guy who makes 3,000 edits a day, can recognize the problems but can't seem to fix these problems himself? I've been editing here for well over 4 years (and haven't made the number of edits thus guy has made in 4 days). I still have not found an easy way to format sources to this standard. I've tried a few times and have determined it is not worth a half hour of my time trying to get it right. I've got a backlog of stuff to write up as it is, I'll be damned if I'm going to waste more time filling in some awkward form each time I post a source. I post a link to where I got my information, or verification of my information. You can see it is sourced, you can click the link and read the source yourself to verify my interpretation of the facts. These facts are not improved by me making up a title, author, posting date etc etc that at best might be marginally accurate, but more likely would just be conjecture. The hardest thing to fill out on any form, is something you don't have the answer for. As I look at the majority of articles, where I travel, posting a link to the web page used as a source is the NORM. This is what average wikipedia editors are able to figure out and adhere to. Get used to it. You are not going to teach new skills to the thousands of editors, in order to conform to a rigid formatting technicality that satisfies just a few and worse yet, serves no real purpose. If you forcibly make editors waste this much time for each source they post, you are going to have far fewer editors. You'll be left with the few administrators who understand this stuff and very few minions to do your work for you. He is just reporting that thousands of editors have failed to adhere to a rigid formatting technicality. In the process, he is damaging the look of every article he touches, If what he is doing with these thousands of ill considered edits is within your policy, your policy needs to be changed. Trackinfo (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, this brings us full circle with WP:BEFORE. If I, for instance, were to add a {{notability}} tag to the top of an article in which I don't think is notable (such as, if I am NewPage patrolling) after not finding anything to establish notability, in hopes that someone else might, am I doing the right thing? If we follow the same logic the complainant uses, that would be my own opinion, as well. However, I could propose deletion on said article instead if I wasn't allowed to tag it for possible notability concerns; but then, people would yell at me at AFD for not following WP:BEFORE. I mean, it seems that some people want it both ways. –MuZemike 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's about becoming the first editor with 1,000,000 edits: let's be honest here. At 750,000+ edits and counting he's already over the hump; and sometimes you step on a few toes when going after the brass ring. If he had to change all the tags back... thousands of more edits! Doc talk 09:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Freeze on automated tagging suggested

• Support freeze on the automated "because I can" addition of pointless templates. The point has been clearly made that there are lots of articles that fall short of best practice, and editors wanting to fix them do not need any more automated templates. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze on automatic tools without a clear consensus. When automatic moves are discussed or its use is disputed, they should not be used until that's resolved (someone have the policy link for that?). This is clearly the case and should stop immediately L.tak (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Johnuniq and L.tak I suppose that there's something I' missing here (and I'm being honest, not sarcastic)--please show me the flaw in my reasoning:

• Link rot is a problem that affects to core content policies
• Link rot can and should be fixed in all instances
• Link rot cannot be fixed if it is not first identified
• Maintenance templates help editors to identify problems with articles

Adding maintenance templates isn't done simply because it can be done--there are all manner of far more pointless formatting edits that one could make--it identifies actual problems with articles that need to be addressed. Yes, there are a large volume of articles with this specific problem, but should we stop addressing problems whenever there are 100 such articles? 1,000? 1,000,000? If any article is poorly-sourced, orphaned, formatted improperly, contains unsourced claims about living persons, is written like an advertisement, etc. that issue needs to be resolved on the article in every instance. Maintenance templates and categories are a way of systematically resolving those issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely true; and I imagine some people take up the task to tag; and others to solve the problem. That is no problem (although we have a policy somewhere saying that tagging should be done if you don't feel confortable solving the problem itself; so the problem somehow be a bit substantial), no one is required to do something specific. In this specific case however, there seem to be 2 problems when addressing pages with only 1/2 bare reference:

• • the tag creates very much attention for a relatively small problem, which is given undue weight (content rot is a much stronger problem, but that's not the point ;-) ). I therefore would support smaller templates or different places (talk page) for this smaller issue
  • The application seems often to be not in the spirit of link rot. In the case of You Take My Heart Away (album), all info is available to recognize the link (author, title) and it is just a formatting issue, because the concern (from the tag) "so that the article remains verifiable in the future." is not the case at all. Then especially, I feel the tagging is aimed at a virtually non-existent problem (which can be solved just as easily) and seems to be done in quite a haste. L.tak (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze of automated tools, Koav (though a fine editor) has simply tagged thousands of articles for linkrot because s/he can. Everyone is aware we have a massive issue with crap referencing however tagging articles as such is not particularly helpful... specifically when an article might contain over 90% formatted references. or worse still where an article contains just one unformatted reference. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze as per the above. I see that another editor is now systematically reverting Koa's changes, or at least some of them. This is a consequnce of Koa taking the lazy way. If he actually fixed the problems instead of just tagging them and expecting someone else to fix them, this discussion wouldn't be here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You should know that in another circle it has been determined that referring to another editor as "lazy" is considered a personal attack. My76Strat (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't call him lazy. I said he took the lazy way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:Cleanup-link rot for WP:TFD; please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 15#Template:Cleanup-link rot; we might as well get that over with. –MuZemike 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that seems like a pretty pointy and unnecessary nomination. I don't see people here saying that the linkrot tag should be deleted, I see them saying that it should be put somewhere else, perhaps in a different form, and also saying that automated tagging is not necessarily a good thing. Where in this discussion are people suggesting the tag be deleted?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Freeze per above discussion. A lot of these articles are being worked on. A "bare references" tag isn't necessary just because one reference doesn't meet MLA format. This isn't helpful and I would consider this POV-pushing. Why not take a few minutes and fix them yourself? I, for one, am tired of people pointing out THIS IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY XYZ!!! DELETE IT!!! KILL IT ON SIGHT!!! when a simple typo is the problem or they don't take the time to actually fix a simple problem. Using the template a few times is one thing, but 12,000 in 4 days? That's not vandalism, that's POV-pushing spam. Buffs (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Freeze per Baseball Bugs. I know that I fixed the articles on my watchlist that were tagged, and it didn't take long, or any particular expertise on the subject matter. If instead of mass-tagging articles, Koavf was fixing them, his edit total wouldn't go up as quickly, but he'd do a hell of a lot more to "protect core content policies" then he's doing with his current behavior. Tagging is essentially leaving a Post-it note on the refrigerator and hoping that your spouse or roommate will do the dishes instead of doing them yourself, it's a goad to other editors to fix something instead of fixing it yourself. As such it's only barely a positive thing, especially when you consider the defacement of the article by the tag. (The reader doesn't give a damn if there's a bare link - if the link is still working, it takes her where she wants to go.) It would be best if Koavf stopped on his own, but I do not believe that will happen, such is the self-righteousness of his attitude here, so the community will have to do it instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've asked Koavf, on his talkpage, given the emerging consensus here, to desist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The above was a consensus-jumping request, and out of order. No such thing as "emerging consensus" until sufficient time has passed. Usually, what, 3 days (72 hours)? Less than one day (09:44 14 Aug - 02:58 15 Aug) 17 hours is ridiculously short. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine I have no interest in fighting about this anymore, especially with users who claim that I'm self-righteous. If someone wants to undo all of my edits and make it harder for other users to fix the problems on Wikipedia, I'm not going to stop him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement to stop at this time. I want to see Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup full, and this template is a way to achieve that. I do not want to be forced to navigate to the bottom of each article just to check for bare URLs. I do not give a damn about specific formatting of citations, but I do want the actual article title and date; both make recovering dead links easier. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing

• Oppose Freeze - Koavf has been tagging sections, which was consensed as a suitable remedy. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Then they'll keep getting reverted. So you'd better get busy fixing them, as those banners are of no use whatsoever to the viewing public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Pay attention: placement in sections, or under References was consensed as viable. Threatening to , or actually reverting, a valid, on-policy tag without fixing the bare URL(s) goes against the WP:Five pillars - to build an encyclopedia, based on reliable sources which can be verified. Part of that is the use of publication name, article name, date, (page), author, which bare links lack. To actively hide bare links from the appropriate cleanup category mechanism is an act of bad faith, and is disruptive on the face of it. --Lexein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Freeze - While I tend to agree that the template should be placed in the references section, I think it is unnecessarily heavy handed to suggest the actions of Koavf are disruptive, counter productive, or which ever way one can express "they don't like it". I monitor the associated category, and "I like it". My76Strat (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you also fixing them? By the thousands? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• We do what we can. But removing valid, on-policy tags without expanding the tagged references, is purely disruptive. --Lexein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, most maintenance templates serve little purpose when left viewable to casual readers who just happen to Google in on a random subject, and are not specifically logged in for the purpose of editing. On the other hand, if someone is a registered wikipedian and logged in for the sole purpose of editing the project, there's really no reason why corrective issues shouldn't be brought to their immediate attention, in full view, at page-top, rather than hidden elsewhere or otherwise swept under the rug. Disabling the visibility of most tags to unregistered (or otherwise not logged in) users would completely toss the issue of defacing an article (or its perception) out the window. Though I don't have the link on hand, it is written somewhere in our wiki-documentation that maintenance tags are not a badge of shame, they simply serve the purpose of attracting attention from editors who may have a particular knack with resolving issues the template refers to. If we don't understand the issue, have difficulties dealing it, or simply lack the interest in dealing with it, it doesn't mean that we should remove or otherwise object to the tag simply because it we don't like the way it looks. If we don't want to format our references and external links with text, we don't have to... but leave the tag in place to be addressed by others who are more efficient in dealing with it. The {{cleanup-link rot}} tag, for example, serves absolutely no purpose to a first time reader who just happened to stumble in looking for information about a drug that has been recommended by their doctor, and should therefore remain hidden from their view. With that said, I personally see no problem with the template or Koavf's edits, in fact, this (and follow the more recent history) is a fine example of where Koavf's contributions went-off like clockwork... and I should add that I only discovered this article because it had been reporting an ambiguous link. The problem is not with Koavf, the template, or what we think of the template and edits of others... it's a small problem with the BIG MACHINE, and the fact that it continues to serve the same content to everyone, whether they are here with a user-name or an IP. If many of those tags magically disappeared once we logged out, most of the concerns discussed in this thread would pretty much be resolved. If we see the tags while logged in?... well that just comes with the territory.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion IMO. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support freeze Banner tags are ineffective because of banner blindness. If this activity is being done primarily to increase the tagger's edit count then this would be disruption contrary to WP:POINT. Warden (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the TFD was snowball kept. Does that mean we'll be here again to bitch and complain when some other sorry bloke decides to put the tag or a similar one to usage (which amounts to collectively acting like a dog chasing its own tail around) instead of being pragmatic for once and doing something about it? This is ridiculous. –MuZemike 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I think you well know, the issue was never about whether the template should be deleted or not. Please back away, the horse you conjured up was never alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Go figure you !vote "keep" on the tag, despite your (and several others') belief that maintenance tags are considered vandalism. That leads me to believe that such tags exist only to have weenie roasts on other editors when others get pissed off at it being used. –MuZemike 18:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your continued misrepresentation of the arguments being made here is very discouraging, especially for an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't the tag just be placed in the article's Reference section as it suggests in WP:BURL? If I wanted to cleanup some link rot, that seems the logical place to look and its points to the specific location of each reference within the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose freeze as baseless. If tags are invalid, remove them and alert Koavf to improve his criteria. If not, there's no reason to prevent them from being added. Be careful not to conflate 'Koavf's actions in placing cleanup templates' with 'an opinion on cleanup templates in general' as this is absolutely not the venue to be discussing the latter. Current consensus is that cleanup templates are useful and Koavf's actions are in line with current consensus. If people want to change general consensus on cleanup tags, do so in an appropriate venue and once done, I'm sure Koavf would be quite happy to comply with new consensus. Right now, Koavf has acted perfectly reasonably within current policies and should be commended for aiding the project, not punished. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Freeze (non-admin. comment) - Automation implies sloppiness. If a person reads something and it needs tagging, tag it. But multiple thousands of tags over a short interval is a form of mass vandalism, to my way of thinking. How about construction of an un-do bot to eliminate the damage? Carrite (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On Reflinks

While the above section screams tl;dr, there is one hidden nugget of usefulness in it: Reflinks. Reflinks fixes linkrot automatically, with nice {{cite}}s and everything, and does so with one click of a bookmarklet. If Koavf seriously thinks that linkrot is such a scourge to the project, why isn't he simply being asked to use Reflinks instead? In the long run, maybe someone could code up support to have a bot that finds linkrot tags and runs Reflinks to fix them. This seems like a practical solution which avoids issuing sanctions, avoids disrupting good-faith cleanup work by dedicated editors and most of all extinguishes some of the fuel from yet another ANI ideology war. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like a perfectly sensible solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know about that tool. (Might be helpful to link to it. :D User:Dispenser/Reflinks.) It seems like a remarkably useful tool. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. Some manual work will still be required. Given its name and purpose, User:Dispenser/Reflinks doesn't repair all cases of bare URLs, only those between <ref></ref> markup and within prose, as far as I can tell. It doesn't process external links or standalone links listed under References. I've been processing some instances at Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. --Lexein (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One nice feature of the tag itself is that it contains a single click link to the tool. Not only is it useful for correcting the deficiency, it can enlighten new users and old alike to its existence. My76Strat (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally you can choose "Citation Expander" within your preferences under "Gadgets" and this feature allows you to dispatch the citation bot to the article you are viewing for an automated evaluation. It works nicely in conjunction with the reflinks tool. My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Word. Is that a thing? Do people still say "word"?--Lexein (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB access removed

I've removed Koavf's AWB access per my remarks here. It may be restored by any administrator at their discretion, but I will not personally be restoring it. –xeno^talk 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A poor decision based on a quite different situation from months ago IMO. I don't doubt this will be rapidly restored, which makes it look punitive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a preventative measure: Koavf is running questionable bot tasks on his main account contrary to policy and guidelines. There is a reason we have an approvals process for tasks which will affect many pages. –xeno^talk 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Things like this need bot approval, not just an AWB operator deciding to do them. Since the operator was aware of that, removal of AWB access is clearly justified. AWB access does not remove the need to propose large-scale tasks and have visible community consensus, leading to an RFBOT request, before they are performed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Intention to revert unapproved bot edits

There are so many bare links in Wikipedia that it makes absolutely no sense to tag every single page containing a bare link with a maintenance template. If there are editors who are seriously interested about cleaning up bare references en masse, then a database report (or dump report) can be generated to point them to the affected articles. A bot request for approval to do what Koavf was doing would not have been approved without some strong support and consensus that it was desirable, and a good idea. Since Koavf has essentially used his main account as an unapproved bot - and contrary to the assurances he made when his AWB access was last restored - unless there is a consensus that there is a good reason not to do so, I intend to revert most of these edits in the near future. –xeno^talk 22:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Trackinfo (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not. The template, properly placed in the reference section, builds Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup as intended, and needed. To remove the tags now will empty the category, and put us right back where we started, procedurally, for regular old editors and wikignomes, not knowing where the problems lie. I prefer the lighter-weight review-the-category-and-edit approach. The articles have been correctly challenged as having bare links - the challenged material should now be repaired before the tags are removed. This is no different than challenging vaguely sourced articles (where references are not inline, but lumped) - the tag should not be removed until the problem is resolved. At the moment, there are 14,134 articles tagged in August out of 3,710,615 articles. I do not consider this to be a massive assault on the readers of Wikipedia, in any way. --Lexein (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Followup: To be very, very clear, bare link rot damages verifiability. An expanded ref puts a pin in verifiability for that ref. If a bare link rots before it is expanded into at least a ref-with-title, verifiability of that source is seriously impaired, because title, date, author, and actual publication (for links to corps w/multiple pubs) are missing. I have the sense that most of the editors hell-bent on reverting the tags, rather than moving them to References, just don't understand how important verifiability is to some of us at Wikipedia. --Lexein (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, that category has been flooded with 5 times as many articles than every other month combined. If there are editors that stand ready to work through these 14k articles, the category can be listified. But the fact that there are still articles from April 2010 that require this treatment does not engender confidence that these articles will receive the attention for which they've been flagged. –xeno^talk 23:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • April 2010 is less than eighteen months ago. I appreciate that Wikipedia moves fast, but cleanup categories regularly feature pages tagged far longer ago than that. A mass-revert here would not be productive, especially given that there's a proposal with moving forward here which explicitly depends on tagging. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I also don't believe these taggings should be reverted. There is a conflation of two issues here that is completely inappropriate - one is Koavf's use of automated tools for problem-tagging, and the other is a broad assessment on the use of cleanup templates in general. This discussion has been specifically on Koavf, however many of the comments have been on peoples' general sentiment about the usefulness of cleanup templates. This is not an appropriate venue to make this kind of assessment, and these 'votes' on general template use should not be factored in Koavf's use of templates. The bottom line is that right now, for better or worse, current consensus is in favour of using cleanup templates in the manner that Koavf has been using them. People seeking to change this consensus should do so in an appropriate venue: ANI (and this thread) is not such a place. Any reverts of Koavf's actions need to be consistent with current expectations on template use, not on what an unrepresentatively small handful of people in an inappropriate venue think about template use. As it stands right now, the templates are valid and were validly placed. Fix the problems or leave them alone, don't revert valid templates until community consensus exists to do so broadly. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  The edits themselves ran afoul of Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Assisted editing guidelines ("Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired.") and WP:AWB#Rules of use. –xeno^talk 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, people had a chance to make the template go away in the TFD; many blew such opportunity. Instead, some felt a lot easier to accuse me of WP:POINT for doing something in which I thought the community was leaning towards doing something as you just suggested. –MuZemike 00:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a distinct difference between a template being placed in a responsible manner - by a human - in reasonable numbers (and in this way, you'll field maybe 500-800 per month, at least according to the category) - and someone using an unapproved bot to run amok and tag every article they come across in the tens of thousands per week. –xeno^talk 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Two wrongs have never been known to right a situation. You have dealt with the editor as you deemed appropriate so that situation is resolved. Please have some faith in the users who monitor this category to perform the maintenance and remember; any help is appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could temporarily hide the banner for August while we explore a solution. Couldn't the pages be submitted to Citation bot? –xeno^talk 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Xeno's actions, which I believe to be an appropriate response to this specific situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Aside I have archived my talk, including everything related to this. Feel free to post anew to my talk and copy-paste from here or my talk archive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

When an editor makes large numbers of edits without bot approval and without community consensus, reverting them is completely appropriate, and can be done with rollback as well. One one hand, if the edits don't have bot approval, the edits are subject to the BRD system, which permits any editor to undo them, and this is true even if there are a lot of edits. Moreover, if it was possible for a bot or AWB operator to make unapproved edits without others being able to revert them, the bot or AWB operator would have a first-mover advantage, which we work hard to avoid. The reason we allow people to run bots and tools such as AWB is because they can be reverted when they do inappropriate things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, brother. It is bureaucratic frippery to claim that valid, true tags, placed by something not explicitly approved, should be reverted. I consider the work valid, and it should remain. Rather than BRD revert, it would be far, far better to move the tags to the Reference section where they belong. I do not care that the category has a lot of entries, it reflects the truth of a fraction of how many articles are subject to unrecoverable link rot, and badly formed references. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Large-scale edits have needed bot approval for at least 5 years now. We try to keep bureaucracy to a minimum, but nobody can accidentally edit a thousand articles. It takes planning both on the technical side (to set up the bot or AWB) and on the consensus-building side. We don't want a system where an edit to a single article can be reverted, but the same change made to 1,000 cannot be reverted because of scope. The opposite is what we really want: we can afford to let editors make bold edits in limited number, because these have many benefits, but bold editing does not mix with bot or AWB editing. Those tools are for tasks that have clear consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been BRD-ing them in quantity. I've limited myself to the ones that take up a huge amount of space at the tops of articles. But as far as I'm concerned, all the edits can be reverted without much fuss. RxS (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can look at the Mona Lisa 100 times and not realize that she has no eyebrows. Similarly, if you refuse to believe, there are elements of this bigger picture that can go unnoticed. I'd like to point to this diff (and the next three) to show where I was drawn to an article to revert some vandalism. While there, I noticed there were bare URLs so I ran reflinks and was subsequently reverted for style preferences. There was an ANI and one of the parties who was particularly fond of reflinks ended up with a block. I learned to not superimpose my desire to run the reflinks tool upon an article simply because I stumbled upon it while in such a state. On the other hand, If I see an article within the category which has been tagged, I have never encountered resistance to using the tool to fix the problem, and reserve that I do not perform such maintenance unless I find the article tagged. The same editor who wouldn't want me affecting the article they watched, would invariably have removed the tag. Maintenance tags like this one can open doors to edit articles and they should be allowed to serve such a purpose. My76Strat (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How about just moving them to References where they belong? It's what, two more keystrokes? How about expanding the bare links? I can't make you do one thing or another, why do you want to make me traverse your contributions to find articles with bare links? Stop adding extra work. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, you can't make me do extra work. 2 extra keystokes is 2/3rds more work, and on hundreds of edits it adds up. They should never have been added in the first place, he refused to move them so I did in the easist way I knew how. The reason I'm doing this is becasue there's no indication that the category will be cleaned out any time soon. It's the appearance that's the issue. We're already worried about a drop in editors, incomprehensible wiki tags dominating articles doesn't help. I wouldn't have made a single revert if he had put them down by the refs. RxS (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Look. We get it. OMFG TOO MANY TAGS. But really, the ratio of tagged articles to existing articles is vanishingly small. People, relax, and stop thinking that you're undoing damage, when in fact, you're undoing helpful article flaw information. --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally believe that having large maintenance templates at the tops of articles is a good thing, because I think that a great number of things that such major template point out are also critical to readers (notability, OR, refimprove, etc.); I also like the idea that a template may help turn a reader into an editor, even if just for one issue on one article. This template, though, seems to point out an extremely small problem. Moreover, it's one that a new editor is almost certainly going to be unable to fix (using our citation templates is extremely difficult until someone teaches you how to turn on the citation gadget, which, of course, IP editors can't do). And finally, especially for "Cite web", a full citation doesn't necessarily even prevent linkrot and content loss--it only helps with things like courtesy links to newspapers and scholarly journals that may move. Let's imagine that the en-em dash rule ever gets decided at MOS. Would anyone support the existence of a tag that says, "This article uses dashes in a way that may be incorrect. Please see the Manual of Style for guidance on how to help fix this problem"? I already had a new editor ask me why the Linkrot tag showed up on one of the few article's xe's interested in, and how to make it go away; unfortunately, xe's not skilled enough in WP editing to take care of the problem, so, instead, what is otherwise an acceptable start class article gets a fairly confusing tag that won't be fixed until someone works their way up to August 2011 in the category backlog. As someone else said, if an individual editor wants to drop this note on an article, fine; but using AWB to find every article that has the problem and tagging is unpleasant, at best. If xe hit 12,000 in such a short time, I'd be shocked to see how large the final result would be. We have to be aware of how our need to be "correct" impacts the appearance of our articles and thus our credibility (I saw knowing I'm getting a wee bit hyperbolic, here). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have to correct what might have been a mis-emphasis: "a full citation doesn't necessarily even prevent linkrot and content loss--it only helps with things like courtesy links". Once the full citation is there, I'm less worried about linkrot than before the bare link is expanded (red alert), because a full citation (sans URL) can still be verified. I'm worried about loss of verifiability when a bare link rots before it is expanded. I hate premature, and totally preventable, loss of verifiability, and that's what I've been on about, as a wikignome, this whole time. --Lexein (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is consensus that this is "helpful article flaw information", then a bot request will be approved for it, and that will be the end of the story. The bot approval process helps to clarify what will be done, and lets other people give feedback to the edits, before thousands of edits are made. It's an important step in planning large-scale edits, which is why we require it. If this job had been discussed, for example, we wouldn't have to think about whether the tag should be moved to the refs section, because that would have been figured out before all the articles were edited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to snipe my 2 cents worth here. Although I also think that some of these tags are unnecessary and unwanted I also firmly believe that they were placed according to the guidelines (bot approval aside). Either the article met the logic for AWB to drop the tag or it didn't. Based on this discussion and the one on the AWB page it seems that it did meet the logic requirements and was appropriately (although perhaps unwantedly) placed. I am also of the opinion that if the edit was such a waste in the first place then doing another edit to undo it is even doubly so. As for bot approval, it takes months, usually literally, to get a bot approved. By that time I could manually tag several thousand even without AWB. Unless the bot process can be sped up in someway then its just as much a part of the problem. If people feel like spending months to get a bot request approved is a waste of time and effort then they are not going to bother with it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I started this discussion when I saw something stupid happening. Now we understand this was just a rogue editor trying to up his edit count. Now all of you are talking about BOT approval process and template discussions. As a lowly editor, I feel disenfranchised here. As I explore these wikipedia backrooms, there are reams of material written in jargon. Its an uncomprehendable monstrosity to try to watch. The only thing we can do is raise a stink when the actions of those decisions damage the look of the articles we watch. You make your decisions amongst the handful of elite administrators who understand this stuff. I really wish you could come up with a way to notify us: wikipedia administrators are about to execute a stupid idea. Let me and maybe some others know about it, so we can tell you its stupid before you do it. Trackinfo (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop Have you read and understood Wikipedia:PA and WP:AGF? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have too agree with Koavf here. Personal attacks do not strengthen ones argument, they weaken them. And toleration of incivility is a thing the community should not endeavor. My76Strat (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Response I'm posting here rather than my talk to kinda/sorta keep this in the same place: referring to my edits as stupid, calling me a rogue editor, assuming bad faith on the purpose of my editing, falsely accusing me of vandalism, etc. all constitutes personally attacking me. You've been warned here to stop and you won't. I've done nothing to you to warrant you being rude to me, so please stop it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to revisit this intention in about 30 days. For now, I think no more administrative action is needed here so I'm wrapping up this thread. Further discussions about approaches to article maintenance, systemic issues, etc. can be held elsewhere. –xeno^talk 02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Help need for a page

I deleted the page ViSalus on csd-a7 grounds, but was a little unsettled by comments on the talk page alleging the company was a front for a scam operation. I have two concerns about this, the first of which is whether the page in question should be locked to prevent the article from reappearing, and the second is whether or not further administrative action should be taken with regard to the article's creator. For my part, the latter of the two doesn't appear to be a threat in any capacity, however being that this is my first experience with this particular kind of allegation I would appreciate a second set of eyes to look into these allegations. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, forgat to post this here with the orginal compliant. This was on the talk page at the time of the deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

This Corporation is just a front for a scam

The article for the guy running this scam, Ryan Blair, was previously deleted.  See http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Blair_(deleted_03_Sep_2008_at_00:21)

The guy won't be notable until he gets busted again; and even then he won't be worth an article.  The company he's using to run the scam certainly isn't noteworthy, except perhaps for the fact that it's generated more than $150 million in revenues running a scam.

The CEO's name appears as a scam warning in a Scam.com blog.  Nothing indicates this article is anything more than an online source to legitimize the company and act as a financial update on the status of the company.  The only sources in the article are those of the company and the principals themselves.

Posting to delete - under {{db-inc}}; could just as easily be under {{db-spam}} or {{db-promo}}, IMO. -- Who R you? (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Who R you? tagged the page this morning as A7, and commented in the talk page that it was his opinion that this was a scam, and referenced a non-RS source as proof ( www.scam.com ). Although I have no ties to this company, it appears to me they are a multi-level marketing company operating legally within the rules of Federal and State rules regarding MLMs. I'm concerned about this page being marked as scam and thus deleted uncontested. This page should have been marked {{Primary sources}} and not {{notability}}. After I created the page, I was hoping some other editors would jump in to continue to add RS content. A brief search on Google News turns up a handful of RS sources, and Direct Selling News (an RS trade journal magazine on direct selling industry) has run several articles before on this company. This article falls within WikiProject Companies  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Who R you? (talk · contribs) has been notified of the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. May want to review that user's recent contributions - especially with his WP:PA to an admin for deleting a category he created here. This appears to be a new WP editor that may not understand how to use deletion tags properly.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring over that speedy tag -- {{db-t3}} has been explicitly tagged for 3.5 years as allowing the page creator to remove the notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 ┌────────┘
As indicated, I tagged the article with {{db-inc}} and then I included reference on the talk page to db-spam and db-promo.  I came across this WP article on the company through non-Wikipedia related articles about the company's CEO Ryan Blair, his promotion of his new book, and info about his company being a multi-level marketing scam.  Googleing his name I came across the deleted in 2008 Wikipedia article about Ryan Blair and then came across the active article about the company; that article basically just promoting/advertising the company as a normal business.  In any case the company didn't, IMO, meet any of the requirements of notability; so, after checking the various WP pages, I tagged it with the db-inc and included in the talk page that it appears to be a part of an MLM scam.

If memory serves there were 5 sources on the article, all of which were publications of the company or its principals, and a 'references needed' or 'not notable' or similar template had been put on the article by someone else dating back to, I think, January.  I looked to see who had been editing the page, I believe it was Leef5 and a few IPs, I subst'd the appropriate notice on Leef5's page and added a message saying: "No offence, but I don't think this article is really the kind of company that Wikipedia wants to advertise for; particularly since WP doesn't do advertising.  I'll leave it to you to tell me if you strongly disagree" and figuring that if he thought it was unreasonable we'd discuss.

I just saw this message now along with Leef5's response on his talk page and the notice on mine about this discussion.  In looking at the article I didn't see anything remotely noteworthy about the company; it appeared more like an advertisement to try to back up the company's credibility.  So, in addition to tagging it for deletion for being not notable, I added the comments on the talk page in case either Leef5 or anyone else wanted to discuss whether the article should just be kept around and expanded with better references, something which might have made sense if it was a more legit company; although I still don't know how it could have been said that there is anything notable about the company.

IMO, to truly provide a NPOV article and provide both points of view on this guy/company, would mean pointing out some very negative things about him and repeating statements similar to those linked above from scam.com, which would open WP up to accusations of libel so the most logical thing seemed to me to be to nominate it for deletion.  If I am to take it from some of the previous comments that you would have preferred that I nominate it in another manner, please point me in the right direction.  Thx — Who R you? (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is/was an article about a company, not about a person. I took great effort to make sure the article did not have puffery and was as neutral as possible. The correct action would have been to discuss the issues first, especially since this was on the grounds that it wasn't notable. (See WP:BEFORE, particularly point #4). If you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us. MLM models typically have a lot of criticism, but they are legal. A simple Google News search on Visalus turns up enough RS sources to establish notability. If it didn't, I wouldn't have created the article in the first place.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope you didn't take me to be implying that the guy running this scam isn't, in fact, an extremely skilled and effective con-man who's very good at sucking people in.  If you thought that I was saying he wasn't really good at it, I apologise for the confusion.

As for the WP:Before, thanks; that's the first time I've seen any mention of anything other than speedy deletion.  I'll be sure to try to take that entire group of pages into account should I, in future, come across anything else I think should be deleted.  And my sincere apologies for my having mistakenly used the Speedy process when I should have done otherwise; I can certainly understand how that would come across as a real negative thing; sorry about that.

As for your MLMs are legal, I'm not trying to be condescending but, I'd suggest that you read section 5 of multi-level marketing; I think it'd be more accurate to say that MLMs can be legal.  I believe you might be making a common erroneous assumption that they automatically are.  And I'm betting that you haven't undertaken the long list of precautions identified there by the FTC.  I personally have no interest in investigating Visalus' commission structure and reviewing the legalities of their contract terms; but I'd be mildly curious to know what you find out from doing such an investigation; that might even make for a good article, except that I guess it'd qualify as OR.

I assume good faith in your creation of the article; but, with regards to your comment of: "[i]f you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us", I can only point to 6 BBB complaints (5 Resolved) and the aforementioned scam.com postings at this point, I fully acknowledge Mr. Blair's efficiency at manipulating web search results to ensure that every title that claims to be a complaint (or at least the 10 or so I could be bothered to check), redirects to another advertising page of one of his dealers *cough* suckers *cough* or to some blog that I consider equally unreliable (but then I am the untrusting type); why don't you check and tell me if the 168,000 hits that Google returns for "Visalus scam" are all equally redeeming.

With regards to Visalus' notability, there certainly are between 835,000 and 997,000 Google hits (depending on when I hit the search button) for Visalus; I've seen visalus.com, visalusscience.com, visalusshakes.com, visalusreview.com, visalusproducts.com, visalusshop.com, myvitools.com, visalusbodybyvishakes.com, visalusquebec.com, visalus-canada.com, visaluscompetition.com, visalussciencesscam.com (by the way, when was the last time you saw a WalMartScam.com site, or a McDonaldsScam.com, or a NutribarScam.com, or a WorldComScam.com or SubPrimeMortgageScam.com for that matter), visalusbodybyvireviews.com, and that's the first 5 of apparently 56-odd pages; not quite sure how that equates to 835,000 hits, but that's unimportant.  Since you're creating this article claiming the company is (at least in some way) notable (I find almost a million hits of self−promotion), please identify an RS's presentation of this company as notable; I haven't found any such source, and I've looked far more than I ever cared to.

And on a second review of your response just before hitting Save, I see that your search was of Google News.  So, which of the 16 matches is it that you think makes the company notable? Is it the Forbes (Blog), the Midland Daily News, the Forth Worth Star Telegraph, the SmallTownPapers News Service, the South Coast Today story about ViSalus Sciences’ partnership with Hulk Hogan and pro-wrestling, the DailyBusiness.ro (I’m guessing that’s either Spanish or Italian), or one of the others that you deem to be a Reliable Source?  I’m actually not trying to be a prick (I’m really good at that when I’m trying), I simply recognize and have dealt with this kind of guy before; a few thousand dollars will get your name in a whole bunch of newspapers, I’ve (unwillingly) had my 15 seconds of fame in one such PR purchased prime-time tv news spot (the moral of the story is don't believe everything you see on television or read in the newspapers); but I’m not seeing anything legitimate about this guy, just skilled media manipulation by a photogenic con-artist.  And I don’t believe Wikipedia should provide any appearance of respectability for him or his company which are, IMO, equally interchangeable scheming persons as the law would call them both.

By the way, regarding the guy that you listed in the article that invested all that money and was buying all that stock, were you able to find out if he is in fact Ryan Blair's multi−millionaire step−father who started him out in, and financed all of his, business ventures?  That was what the non−RSs that I was finding (who were citing an Amazon.com nobody's paraphrasing of his new book) were saying about him, but I don't know step−dad's name to be able to confirm.  Might be another POV to keep things neutral should you restore/recreate the article.  — Who R you? (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "guy" you are referencing is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, Blyth, Inc.. I think the issue here is you may not be aware of what a RS is and is not. Just googling for a company name and finding one with the word 'scam' in the URL is not a RS that the company in illegitimate. Google news is better at identifying RS, but we must still look at each source and identify if it passes WP:RS and WP:V. I may suggest, we move the bulk of this discussion over to WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. I don't see this being an AN/I issue.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 ┌────────┘
The "guy" I was referring to was whom ever was on a page that I had looked at 12 hours earlier and which, as a non-administrator, I was unable to look at again.  So is Blyth the multi-millionaire who married Ryan's mommy and financed his businesses?  You'll remember I did mention about a guy who had money and set Ryan up in business; is that Blyth?  As to the url, my thought is that most companies don't pay to register their domain names with scam added on to them and then set up web pages to catch those searches; but if you're under a different impression, by all means show me some other examples.

I'm still wondering about an RS that says this company is in any way notable.  And as to whether a page comes up under Google Everything or News, I consider that irrelevant, the question is what does the page say when you open it up, who wrote it, what's the context, is it an ad in the New York Times, or a well researched, cited, and documented story from Little Billy's neighbourhood newspaper; the reality simply being that neither I, nor I doubt you or anyone else, is about to read thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of pages returned in a typical Google Everything search.  Personally I was using {{blekko}} as a search engine for the exact same reason, search refinement, ignoring datafarms, spam, etc, and returned only those hits that were relevant, but without the privacy concerns of Google and Yahoo/Bing.  But, regardless of search engine, the count of hit returns is only somewhat indicitive of volumes in some cases, the issue is what's in the articles returned.  Of the 16 hits for this company under Google News (excluding the Texas paper identified below and the Italian/Spanish one, unless you've translated it), do any of them indicate this company is notable?  Or were you figuring that I was going to read them and try and find some proof for you that this company might be able to be considered notable?  Not likely.

And, it certainly wouldn't qualify as an RS, it would never make it into the article mainspace, and it's only barely relevant here; but FYI, what follows are the contents of this Amazon.com book review mentioned earlier (I also noticed after saving that the Google News article for the Forth Worth Star Telegram, previously identified, is a presumably paid ad for this book):

Copy/pasted content from Amazon.com removed due to copyright - User:Hersfold 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied here both for ease of reference and because I'm not to sure how long it might/might not last on Amazon.  Similar to the at best marginal relevance that this book review might have in relation to an article on the company, I simply mention in passing (given my belief that the truth always has some relevance), the blog where I heard about this guy/company/book, had (as best as I can tell from the immediate 7 thumbs up after each positive posting and 8 thumbs down for each negative post), a team of 8 sockpuppets making buy this book posts to the blog over the last two days; I took offence and subsequently found the Wikipedia article at issue here.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to come up with some indication that this company was/is notable and the admins reading this can undelete the article and give me shit for using the wrong method of deletion; problem solved.  I've explained my POV, probably about as thoroughly as I care to, you obviously want to have this article restored, so find some RS that says it's notable and that can happen.  — Who R you? (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you seriously just paste a large block of copyrighted text to the incidents noticeboard? Please do NOT do that again... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I reposted a copy of a statement by an Amazon.com user who posted their statement in a public forum, for intentional public consumption, and without indication of copyright or restriction.  I reposted said statements for non−commercial use in a relatively private area where I have a reasonable expectation that the public, as a whole, will never see them.  And while Amazon does maintain a right, under the "REVIEWS, COMMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER CONTENT" section of terms of their "Conditions of Use" contract, to distribute (et al.) the information (such as book reviews) contributed by users, they maintain no authority to limit the original submitter's authorization of use or rights of publication, any more that WP would have the right to limit redistribution of my submissions beyond the restrictions of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license I submitted them under.  Further, Amazon's terms under the "LICENSE AND SITE ACCESS" section restrict reproduction and duplication only "for any commercial purpose"; to my knowledge, an internal discussion here does not qualify as a commercial purpose.  But thank you for your concern and, regardless of whether or not I am within my rights to reproduce that public domain information here, which I will gladly argue the right of as you may deem necessary, I also have no wish to ruffle any feathers and I won't even entertain the idea of posting the information again; no doubt anyone who wishes can search the Amazon book ordering and reviews page and read the reviews to find the August 9, 2011 contribution of "bob−o".  — Who R you? (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Blyth" is the name of the company, not a person. Again, conversation about notability needs to be done over at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. Notability is not an AN/I issue.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then I will now proceed to that area to continue this discussion; I assume before checking that a section already exists for this article where I will look for your identification of an RS.  I obviously missed the earlier reference which I now see appears pointing to that area.  As to "Blyth", please feel free to read all past comments as "Blyth (principal of)" if that makes it any clearer for you.  Meanwhile, I suppose I will check back here again at another time to see if anyone other that you has any further comments; I am assuming, Leef5, that yours and my further communications will continue as appropriate on the page you have identified.  — Who R you? (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom

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: Parrot of Doom accused me of acting like an idiot [62]. I then asked him to be civil [63]. In response, he told me to "take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine." [64] 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there are those who might say that placing an edit-warring template on the talk page of an editor with whom you are edit-warring is not the smartest thing to do. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that Parrot was a bit silly here. This is a PA, and as far as I am aware its not considered idiotic to place edit warring templates with edds you are edit warring with. In fact I seem to recall that you should issue such warnings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't look isolated. Here (yesterday) [65] he calls a message left by another editor "childish prattle". 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a policy of his. At the very top of his user talk he states "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer."79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I protected the page for three days, because you will probably just get another IP if I block you for blatant edit warfare, including continuing to revert after warning Malleus for 3RR (and violating 3RR yourself). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you only protected because you thought the IP would IP hop if you blocked him/her, then why didn't you just semi the article? Jenks24 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Both Malleus and the IP violated 3RR before the IP warned Malleus about it. Then the IP reverted again. If I block Malleus and the IP, Malleus is blocked for 24 hours, and the IP will probably get another IP and continue editing. If I protect the page, both are locked out. If I only block the IP (or semi the page) for reverting after warning Malleus for 3RR, then that would be decried as "endorsing one version of a page". Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, parrot calls me an idiot [66]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And now Parrot calls me "fucking stupid" [67]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified him on his userpage of this thread?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but User:Malleus Fatuorum has. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, 79.97.144.17: have you ever used an account on Wikipedia (as opposed to editing from an IP)? NW (Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Years ago, yes, but I found far too much of my time being consumed by wikipedia when I had an account. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That does not excuse blantant PA and incivility. I thinki that all involved parties need to take a step back.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, all involved parties are participating to some extent in talk page discussion, and while Parrot has used some pretty strong language, one has to admit that the IP editor is not responding to the valid questions asked of them. That this is exasperating is not unexpected--and in addition, we're dealing with an FA, the lead of which was unchanged until the edits in question. So, a change requires not just good evidence but also a good rationale, and that's missing so far, in my opinion. How about this: Parrot of Doom is urged to tone down their language. In return, IP is urged to at least attempt to address Parrot's concerns (and those of Malleus, in earlier edit summaries) on the talk page before attempting drastic overhauls to the basic content of a Featured Article. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How am I not responding to the questions asked of me? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC). I went and found 7 different references in response to their concerns, is that not a response?79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Do you know for certain that from 1351, that Act also applied in Ireland?" Your answer was "this article is about the punishment", but the article's lead was "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty in England..." etc. To change what is essentially the focus of the article is drastic, and that's the point you need to address. I have a suggestion: drop this stick. As for your comment below, Parrot did not say they have no regard for WP:CIVIL--they suggest they have no regard for "complaining peevishly" about WP:CIVIL, which I imagine is what they might charge you with. Let me repeat: drop this stick. It should be clear to you now that this is not gaining traction; keep it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it peevish to expect to not be called an idiot and "fucking stupid" by someone who is supposed to be my collaborator? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst its ture that Parrot should not have said that you have not helped yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So am I to understand that I also may insult other editors? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the fact that parrot states on his talk page that he has no regard for either WP:CIVIL or WP:OWN should be of concern, regardless of whether he's specifically being uncivil towards me or not. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be of concern? WP:OWN in particular is widely misunderstood, and WP:CIVIL widely misapplied. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an excellent solution, Parrot does seem to have been provoked. Te IP needs to edit less combatively.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is it ok to call another edit stupid or fucking stupid? This is obscene. Block PoD for harassment, CIVIL and NPA violations. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocking is not punitive. Read WP:BLOCK. Furthermore, I can understand PoD's frustration - he's worked the article up to FA status, not too easy to do. Connormah (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Using "fuck off please" (directed at someone else, not at me) as an edit summary [68]. Blocking may not be punitive, but it is intended to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Does no one else think that a block might teach him that it is unacceptable to be so aggressive towards other editors, and thus lead to a more congenial editing style? And just because he's worked an article up to FA status doesn't remove others' rights to edit the article. He doesn't own it.79.97.144.17 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Blocking would do nothing but provoke him more - that'd be extremely counterproductive. Blocks are preventative measures used to protect the encyclopedia from things such as edit warring and vandalism, not to "teach" someone. Of course he doesn't own the article, but given that he has authored the article, he is bound to know more about the topic having researched and having sources. And again, "fuck off" would probably be me reaction to the comment he responded to in your first diff. Regardless, I think it's time to move an and drop this topic for the time being. Connormah (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why does this exist? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

More again: Telling me to fuck off in an edit summary [69]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That was clearly provoked. Drop it already. I (and I'm sure a lot of others) am not willing to block a valuable contributor for something like this. Adding a templated warning on someone who you clearly know is annoyed with you's talk page? That is 100% warranted. If I were you, I'd take the advice and move on. Time to close this thread? Connormah (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• The IP has now filed both at 3RR noticeboard#parrot and at WP:WQA which seems to be a case of forum-shopping and trying to bait Parrot. The IP doesn't seem to want to accept admin advice. This is starting to get disruptive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere good. 79.97.144.17, it'd in the best interest of everyone if you'd just drop it - you're just adding fuel to the fire at this point. Connormah (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat?

I would like to draw attention to what I consider to be 3 legal threats on my talk page. The first one I had pretty much dismissed because there was enough info in their posting to figure out why they wanted to send me a legal notice. The second[70] one from Zhardoum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a borderline threat of legal action. The 3rd[71]. I have attempted to keep the historical context of Guru Josh encyclopedic, however Zhardoum thinks that any mention of Guru Josh Project constitutes an endorsement of the naming regardless of the previous historical performance. I would ask the administrators (and peanut gallery involved) to evaluate the assertions by Zhardoum and the IP address (which I have some suspicions about). Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of note this was previously discussed at DRN where I became involved. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see that Sarek has left the user a warning. Is that enough? Drmies (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We let anybody who hasn't been explicitly warned about NLT before off with a warning? /sarcasm Hasteur (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Zhardoum's response to Sarek's warning sarcasm or some kind of alternate reality? [72] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have now given him a specific instruction to remove the threat from Hasteur's talkpage. If he edits again without doing so, he should be blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Guy has had plenty of warnings about legal monkey business, see [73]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Zhardoum's post on Sarek's talk page was in response to Sarek's edit to the article [74], not to Sarek's warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the way I read it, yes. WP:DOLT, after all... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. That makes more sense. He does need to take the notice off Hasteur's talkpage though - he has been warned before about bringing external legal issues onto Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tachfin

Hi, Could somebody tell Tachfin to stop cursing?

23:08 16 ago 2011 Tachfin m (16.437 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Bokpasa (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Denisarona. (TW)Bokpasa 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you either need to sign your posts with a ~~~~ or fix your signature, per WP:SIG your signature needs to at least link to your user page or user talk page. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored so in general we don't "stop people from cursing" as long as no other policies (such as WP:NPA) are being violated. Finally, this is the English Wikipedia, so please try to address other editors in English, this edit was useless if the editor claims to not understand it. -- Atama頭 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You must also inform any user who is the subject of a discussion by placing the subst:ANI-notice template on their talk page.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Really I don't know what he's talking about. He's probably annoyed because I reverted one of his edits which was incompatible with an infobox template format. I don't know what he means by "Cursing" and if he understands what this word means. This user has many other issues but I don't want to expose it here. Take a look at his talk page to see what other editors have been telling him about his editing patterns.

Tachfin (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The problem here is that Bokpasa doesn't accept the fact that his edits are PoV, against consensus and simply irrelevant.

Here are some discussions that prove that he doesn't care about sources or consensus, and that his main goal is to include his OR on Morocco related pages on WP (the list is as long as the time we spent trying to convince him to stop his tendentious edits, cf. starting on 2006):

• Talk:Almoravid_dynasty#Almoravides_are_not_Morroco
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_was_founded_by_the_Alaouites.3F.21
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_versus_History
• Talk:History_of_Morocco (sections 4 to 16!!)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saadi_Kingdom_of_Fez (note Ecemaml's comment / Ecemaml is an admin in the ES.WP)
• Talk:Muhammad_al-Idrisi#Muslim_vs._Morroco
• User_talk:FayssalF/Archive_K#User:Bokpasa

This previous case shows the same thing again:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#User:Bokpasa_tendious_editing_and_personal_attacks

Note that he was indefinitely blocked on ES.WP and FR.WP for the same reasons on the same articles ([75] & [76]), and already blocked two time on En.WP for (again) the same reasons ([77])

And at last the archives of his own talk page: [78] [79] [80]

These lins can show the admins how tendencius are Bokpasa's edits, and that the problem in this isn't Tachfin's edits but Bokpasa's ones.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin help with Non-contentious housekeeping

Resolved

Many years ago I created the Juramentado page in my sandbox then let it languish. A few years later, I noticed that the search term returned my sandbox as the lead hit on most engines. So I moved it to pagespace, and built it up to a bare start. Someday I'll make it better. However, I'd used that sandbox previously for a bunch of totally unrelated stuff, mostly ACW, and I noticed all of it in page history. So I need any uninvolved admin to go into the history, verify I'm not trying to be disruptive or deceptive, and do revision delete at this five year-old diff. There's no rush and I have no reason to imagine doing revision delete on my own sandbox would be controversial. Thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly edit war

This seems so trivial to take to ANI... but the heck with it. Talon2k9 (talk · contribs) keeps adding misguided and inaccurate content to Joint Task Force 2 and Canadian Special Operations Regiment (two cruft magnets). I've tried to initiate discussion with the user, first on his talk page, then on the article's talk page (which I linked to on his talk page), yet, he seems to refuse to engage in the discussion, and reverted an other editor who removed his addition, with the edit summary "explain why is it wrong?". At this point, I'm not sure to what the correct course of action is. Thanks - CharlieEchoTango 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

No admin action is likely to be taken on the basis of these rambling and unfocused discussions; boldly closing Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is removing a great deal of "Jewish" categories from hundreds of articles about people. Partially because these are not sourced. Partially because he doesn't understand the finer intricacies of categorising on Wikipedia, and thinks there is double categorisation here. Two experienced editors (myself included) have opened a section on his talkpage to discuss this subject with him. But he refuses to admit his misunderstanding and continues to remove categories. The discussion involved the mention of possible sanctions if he wouldn't stop his edits. I propose a 24h block for this editor. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC) In addition, even when removing unsourced categories, when we are talking about literally hundreds of articles it would have been prudent to seek some advise or follow alternative courses of action. This is not something to undertake all of a sudden and singlehandedly, as I wrote him in another section on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, as i recall from hanging around WP:CFD there has been a considerable amount of discussion about this in various locations. The discussion has had a number of components - one at least is that as 'Jewish' is not an ethnicity but a religion, categories of theCategory:Foo people of Jewish descent should be avoided. Another long running principle has n=been that there must be a source in the article to support the categorisation. If JPL is removing categories where there is no source in t he article, then that's following the rules, not breaking them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I have been told by Jewish friends that it is both a religion AND an ethnicity. Are they incorrect? --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion on Cfd is one thing. An unilateral spray of category removals is another. And is definitely not condoned. But you missed the issue. He is removing categories because of a misunderstanding of what is called a distinct subcategory (WP:DUPCAT), as two editors have told him on his talkpage, and he continues. As to removing categories that are not sourced in the article, which is not the reason I posted here, still see first what I wrote on his talkpage that there are alternatives preferable to mass deletion of categories, imho. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Mass categorizing of people where there is no element in the article to support the cats is undesirable and not condoned by policy, please re-read the first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT. I have recently made these edits, [81], [82], and I do not expect to be reported at ANI for this as the articles contain no information pertaining to the faith of the first or the eventual Galician ancestry of the second. Oh, but here we're talking about "Jewish" categories aren't we, obviously anyone tampering with this must have an agenda, it would be unthinkable that they were simply applying Wikipedia policy unilaterally. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Your sarcastic insinuation, that I would be on the watch against some anti-semitic editor, is completely unfounded. I discovered his edits on Isaac Asimov, who was Jewish, but who is on my watchlist as a science-fiction author. WP:DUBCAT does specify "Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often non-diffusing subcategories." Btw, I think you made another comment of this sort a few years ago. I clearly remember leaving some discussing with a distinct impression of profound dislike for you. I have definitely had it with you or anybody else seeing Jewish vigilantes everywhere. You are kindly requested to apologise for your bad-faith assumption in this regard. An other reason why your comment is so stupid, is because I have stated clearly what is the reason for my post and what isn't, and you are the second person here to focus on what is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) OK, you can dial it down right there. You came on here asking for a block of an editor for following Wikipedia policy, and now you're having a go at the two who responded to you, and complaining on WT:AN that no-one will do what you want. JPL appears to have made it clear on your talkpage that he is removing cagtegorisation where there is no mention in the article. Categorisation follows the article - it doesn't precede it. Your suggestion that we should leave people categorised as Jewish (or anything else) without any mention in the article, let alone a supporting reference, is absurd. Show us some examples that are genuinely against the rules and you might get further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Also, to take your example of Isaac Asimov - the cats JPL was removing were superfluous. He wasn't removing all mention of Asimov being Jewish, just several cats that are all subcats of each other, where he only needs to be in one to appear in all of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Now this is where you're wrong. See WP:DUPCAT. Not to mention that "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent" are not the same. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC) In response to your rather hysterical reply above, I think a certain amount of editors are fed up with these discussions that rage continually on the BLPN and on the talk pages concerned as soon as "Jewish" enters into the picture and the refusal of a certain category of editors to read plain English or understand wikipedia policy. "Ethno-tagging" is the term used by one such editor to describe the continual and insistent efforts to label people despite a lack of pertinence to their careers and/or a lack of self-identification. I am also glad that you "remember clearly" leaving a discussion in which I participated "a few years ago" with a profound dislike of me as I have only had an account since May 2010 and have only been editing in earnest since January 2011. So, as for bad faith assumptions and so on ... but I do not require or expect an apology, as your current behaviour (ANI, moaning about ANI at AN) is akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum for not getting his own way, IMHO. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC) If so I take back my words about remembering from a couple of years ago. It must have been somebody else with a signature very much like yours. I prefer not to delve in mud, so I won't try to find it. Perhaps it was you, just not a few years ago. Time flies. But you will have to apologise to me. A bad faith assumption based on my being Jewish, that is what I'd consider a classic definition of antisemitism. What you are fed-up with, is no reason to assume bad faith in my case. So please, I'm waiting. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Ok. Perhaps it's my English. Perhaps it's you. I'll just explain it again. The issue is that Johnpacklambert is removing categories because of his incorrect understanding of WP:DUPCAT. As two editors have pointed out to him on his talkpage. The issue is not the removal of categories that have no mention in the text. Now, massive deletion of categories based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors warning you about this on your talkpage, those are a good reason for a preemptive 24h block. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) First, you said yourself that he was removing categories because they were not sourced, and on your talkpage he says he's not even doing that, he's removing categories where there isn't even a mention in the article, and you are begging him to leave them just in case they turn out to be true. Second, I think you may not be understanding how some of these categories are defined or chain up - I can see an explanation being given to you for the Asimov edits, but I'm not sure you understand them. Show us some diffs, and people might take more of a look. As it is, you've just made allegations with nothing to suport them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Oh and just to add, as this discussion came up recently elsewhere. Category:Fooian people is for people who were born in Foo, Category:Booian people of Fooian descent is for people who were born in Boo, but their ancestors hailed from Foo. Asimov cannot be both a Belarusian Jew and and American person of Belarusian-Jewish descent, and he definitely shouldn't be in both American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American people of Russian-Jewish descent, because one is a subcat of the other, and you use the lowest category, not all of the things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with you about these two things. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I added a link to his contributions at the beginning of this post. He has about a hundred edits with editsummaries like "Already in subcat", or without editsummaries at all. Any of them will do. Just one example: [83]. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC) And then there was this one article where he said that being Jewish wasn't mentioned in the article, and it was. As posted on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC) You do understand that if it's already in the subcat, there's no need to also add it in the parent cat...don't you. Don't you? That if you add someone to Category:People from Toronto they also appear in Category:People from Canada. Is the sum total of your complaint one instance where he thought it wasn;t mentioned in the article but it was? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC) And you do get WP:DUPCAT don't you? Debresser (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Yes I do, now explain to me how that applies to American People of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American People of Russian-Jewish descent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Good question. It doesn't. :) As I said above, the more specific of these two should stay, and the other should go. But it does apply e.g. to Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players. As John Pack Lambert asked me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I can't help it, but there seems to be a little COI, seeing this... Night of the Big Wind talk 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Wait, so a person who is Jewish can't point out an inordinate amount of edits to an ethnic category that he happens to be part of? Wow the fact that you mentioned that and called it conflict of interest is, in fact, "a little" antisemitic, and no that is not a personal attack, that is fact and observation. Debresser may not use that word but god knows he's thinking it. And no, the term antisemitic is not overused.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I disagree. Just because an editor acknowledges his religion or his political views doesn't mean he can't be neutral. What about the rest of us that have views but simply don't have userboxes about them? It's irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC) You should check the meaning of the term WP:Conflict of interest, Night of the Big Wind. An interest is if I had shares in a company, e.g. Or is this just you stalking me and trying to cast doubt upon my motives for preventing you from removing information from that euthanasia-related article? Note btw in that very same link to my userpage, that I am personally against euthanasia. That should show you that my intentions there are like my intentions here: to do the right thing, regardless of my personal convictions. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) If you start talking about stalking and cast doubt upon my motives because of a completely unrelated subject to this discussion, it looks more at creating a smokescreen to hide something then a seriius discussion. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, Night of the Big Wind, there is this. Neither shows a COI, just perfectly acceptable declarations of the user's religions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Seeing his broadside attack on Elen of the Roads I just get a creepy feeling that you may be wrong... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Who attacked Elen of the Roads? See User_talk:Debresser#ANI. And your creepy feelings you better keep to yourself, imho. Or would you care to explain how it comes that you just "happen" to stumble on this discussion a few weeks after you were declared wrong on all three issues in that article because of my opposition? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Btw, what do you say about that antisemitic post from Captain Screebo just a little higher up? I really think you - or anybody basically - should slap him on the fingers for that and force him to apologise. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Maybe we should change the Wikipedia software to not permit anyone to use the word antisemitic given its incredible overuse. Screebo's post is not antisemitic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC) It is by no way an antisemitic remark. It does state that some people, including you, are overly sensitive on cases of ethnic or religious tagging or removals. And that is why I came up with COI: you are too close connected with the "jewish identity". Night of the Big Wind talk 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Actually as an observer there is a hell of a lot of antisemitism going on in this conversation. I read it, I was not part of the conversations. Things were implied, whether consciously or unconciously, that were of an antisemetic nature. People may have not thought they were being so, but they definitely were. It's called microaggression, and btw when a person of a ethnic group says you are being oppressive, racist, or antisemitic, you don't respond with "No I'm not!" You listen to them and try to understand why you think they are saying that. Maybe this can be a learning experience for many of you.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) COI is where you have a financial or commercial interest, or it affects your academic or political reputation, or its a family member. Supporting the same team/party/G-d or whatever can make one prone to express a POV, but that's different, and only prohibited when writing articles. Debresser is coming across as over-anxious here - I'm waiting to hear whether JohnPackLambert has been actually changing categories outside obvious consensus, or whether he's just been doing a lot of edits in Jewish categories, made some mistakes, got Debresser worried, and the subsequent discussion went badly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Another person who has joined Debreser in attackin me for editing these cats, Epeleche or someothing like that, actually suggested that since I graduated from Brigham Young University and not Yeshivah University I have no right to edit Jewish related cats at all. In the case of Jewish MLB players cat it clearly was in line as a subcat of Jewish American Sport People, this alignment was placed in April by somone else and I have never edited this cat. Just considering how many categories MLB people end up in it is hard to justify putting them in both, especially since they all play in the US and so for a certain definition of American are such. Anyway of the Jewish MLB players cat only maybe one person in that cat would not be described as American, and even him I did not read his article enough to figure out if he might qualify. A bigger point is that I came across one article that literally said "person x was a German-American psychologist". That one sentance was the total of the article (I do not remember the guys name), and yet he was in four Jewish categories. If they had said "Jewish German American psychologist" I would have left the cats. But no where did the article say Jewish. The articles I have edited it has not be a question of the material being "sourced". I don't even bother checking closely to see if there is a source on being Jewish, or if the source says the person is Jewish. I just check to see if the article calls the person or one of their parents Jewish, says something about a connection to Yiddish theatre, or in a parenthesis says of an actor they are Jewish in real life. I even let it go where all it says was they were a member of the board of the Boston Jewish Benevelent Association. I am not sure all these organizations with Jewish in their name have only Jews on their board. They might, so I allow such use of identification. However when the closest it comes in the article to saying they are Jewish is to say they have a Ph.D. from Brandes, that does not cut it. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Victor L. Ludlow have degrees from Brandeis, and netiehr of them are by any definition Jews. Actually there are several other examples of non-Jewish alumni of Brandeis. If it was Jewish Theological Seminary of American or Yeshivah University, it has a higher liekelihood of proving Jewishness, and I have accepted Jews with just a mention of attending Yeshivah of Flatbush, but Brandeis just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Screebo's comment about overreaction when anything "Jewish" is involved seems to hold up. I have removed Category:Hispanic and Latino American judges from articles on people with last names like Gomez since there was no mention to them being either. My chief counter-example to attempt to assume by last name is Leander Perez. Several of these people were women who it was unclear whehther it was their married or maiden name, and with several of the last names for all we know their ancestors moved from the Azores to Fall River in 1870, and general people with Portuguese ancestors are not considered "Hispanic or Latino". The main point though is that people should not be classified by ethnicity not stated in the article. No one came back swining saying I was involved in some anti-Hispanic project, or the fact that I am an alumni of a university that does coursework in English and not Spanish makes me an unqualified editor. So I think Screebo is right that people react harshly with Jewish categories in ways that they do not react with other categories. I would also again point out that it is disingenous to say I was objecting to unsourced mention of Jewishness, I was objecting to mentioning of Judaism that had not occured at all in the article. This is an issue of not introducing information in categories that is missing from an article, not a question of what needs to be sourced or how the sources need to be presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The issue here is Johnpacklambert's misunderstanding of WP:DUPCAT. If he now understands it correctly, then this thread can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Note, I haven't seen his last edits yet. As to Captain Screebo's antisemitic remark. What is not antisemitic about it? Ok, he didn't say "you are a filthy Jew". But that is not the only form of antisemitism. He made a bad faith assumption based on my religion/ethnicity. That is antisemitism. Anybody disagree with that? If not, what do you plan to do about it? Debresser (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Comment Actually the discussion here has convinced me that I am right on which cats should be subcats of others and Debresser is wrong. I see no reason to leave someone in a subcat and a parent cat unless the subcat has the "do not diffuse" notice on it. Debresser could have just put up that notice where he felt it belonged. But no, he decided he needed to bring this here. I am not sure why. However I have not seen anyone else agree with him that if X is a subcat of Y than things need to be in both cat X and Cat Y. Of course he has really not explained that issue very well. Anyway he started out by saying I was removing because things were not sourced, so he has clearly changed the issues over the discussion. What this adds up to in his last section is he wants to denounce people for trying to follow the rules on cat trees and failing to understand the exceptions, when he could just post the exceptions. As I have said before I did not make Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players a subcat of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. If he has an issue with that, which seems to now be his main issue, than he should file a complaint at the person who set the cat tree up that way, and not attack me for following the way the cat tree was set up. Beyond this, we have gone from him complaining about me removing the one mention of Jewishness in an article (which happened to be in a category) to him complaining because I reduced from 2 or 3 down to 1 the number of Jewish cats. However I was not removing people from all Jewish cats, and they were still even in the American Jews cat tree, people would just have to click on the subcats to find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Comment I would encorage others to check out the rude response he made to my comment on the discussion board of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. There is nothing keeping him from posting the "do not diffuse" notice on the Jewish MLB players cat, as I suggested he should do in my talkpage. There is nothing that is keeping him from removing the Jewish American sportpeople as a parent category of Jewish MLB baseball players. He seems to just prefer to attack me than to fix what he claims are poor line ups. The guidelines clearly encorage posting the non-diffusion notice, and his failure to mock me for bringing up the issue is not indicative of assuming good faith or trying to be a friendly participant in the wiki. His basic assumption seems to be that everyone that someone deems to be Jewish for reasons that are not evident or explained to other editors should be in as many Jewish cats as an editor chooses to put them in and if another editor comes along and questions the unexplained inclusion of people in Jewish cats or the need to have them in three Jewish cats, each a child of the other, then they should be blocked. Well that does not add up to me. Categories need to be supported by mention in the article, and there is no reason to multiply cats an article is in. This is especially true of baseball players who tend to be in sufficiant as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I think these two posts are a bit off-topic. In short: 1. If JPL disagrees with WP:DUPCAT he should take it up there, not here. 2. My response what that nowhere does WP:DUPCAT make the guideline contingent on having a warning template on the category page. If he feels like putting one up, he should go ahead. In any case JPL will have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, which is precisely what I told him on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) No, having looked at it, John Pack Lambert seems as in agreement with DUPCAT as you are. What he is saying is, without the template which DUPCAT recommends adding to non-diffusing categories, there is no way for an editor to tell that it is a non-diffusing category. So the answer is for you, who are concerned about non-diffusing categories, to add the template to the categories you are concerned about. Also, given that you started out saying that he was removing categories because there wasn't a source in the article and he should stop, I think most of the rest is addressing that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for showing us where we agree. That always makes discussion so much more pleasant. But please understand that WP:DUPCAT only recommends to add an indication in the form of a template to non-diffusing categories. It is not an obligation, and absence of such a template is not in itself an indication that a category is not non-diffusing. Especially since it seems to me that a great many non-diffusing categories have never been tagged. In other words, whether or not a category is non-diffusing, is a thing the editor should be alert to. And when alerted to that fact by two editors, he should stop his edits, not continue them. There is that too. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) So how are we supposed to know the category is non-diffusing? Anyway, the examples given do not lead one to think that specific field of sports activity is non-diffusing from a category for all sports activity. How are we supposed to know which categories are diffusing and which ones are not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Comment I would also like to point out that I never asked Debresser about Jewish MLB players and American Jews on his talk page. I asked him about Jewish American sportspeople and American Jews, and he gave an answer that throughly confused me. Basically I asked him if it should or should not diffuse, and he never said yes or no. Netiehr he nor Epeefleche has explained anywhere how the Jewish MLB players works according to the non-diffusing rule. If we had Category:American Jewish baseball players I could see the MLB cat being non-diffusing, but from the broad category of sportspeople it does not really make sense to not diffuse a group that is in a specific sport. We always diffuse from a a general to a specific sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) And here I think we have the crux of the problem. Identifying non-diffusing categories may not be obvious. Somewhere - not here - there needs to be discussion about the categories that Debresser thinks are diffusing and JPL thinks are not. A nice dry discussion, about the theoreticals of the thing, moving onto some specific examples which can then be tagged as diffusing if all parties agree, which I'm sure they will. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. Btw, the text in WP:DUPCAT used to be even more cryptic, until User:Kotniski improved it, I think it was he. It might be worthwhile to see if Wikipedia talk:Categorization can come up with some easy guidelines what categories are considered non-diffusing. I for one would be happy to see such a discussion and partake in it. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Attacks on me based on my alma mater/ for seeking to have categories align with policy Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to post on CfDs statements like this "Snow keep. Per all of the above keeps. Curiously poor nomination, which appears to be part of the Brigham Young graduate's focus on deleting mentions of Jews, per his most recent activities. Clear keep -- not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)". How deleting the category "Jewish singers" is "deleting mentions of Jews" is beyond me. Categories only group things, the mention of things are in the articles themselves. So his logic is failed. His bringing up where I went to school is just off base. He previously made remarks on my talk page that add up to saying that people who did not go to Jewish schools have no right to edit Jewish-related categories. I find his insinuation against my alma mater uncalled for, and bordering on bigotry. He has never explained exactly what he thinks the full implications of my attending Brigham Young University are, but he speaks of it as if it is somehow a dirty little secret and I do not appreciate him doing so. His comments amount to a personal attack. Categories are not sacred and people who try to edit the category structure should not be treated as evil and sinister.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Why did you start a whole new thread on this exact same issue, when there is a perfectly good one a few inches up there ^^^ already going strong, which you were already participating in? --Jayron32 05:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Comment Why a new thread? 1-The one above is a critique of my actions, this is a critique of Epeefleche's actions. 2- The discussion above has to do with edits to articles. This has to do with personnal attacks in CfDs. 3- The one is somewhat focused on Debresser's actions, Epeefleche is another individual, who violates rules in ways that Epeefleche never dreamed of. 4- Most importantly, in light of the personal attacks lobbed in the above discussion against Debresser putting this discussion there might obscure the fact that I had not personally attacked anyone, I had made a CfD nomination, which is not a violation of any wikipedia rules, and then had Epeefleche come on and attack my alma mater and act as if it is a source of evil. This has nothing to do with Jew related edits at all, and everything to do with bullying on wikipedia. This is an issue of people making personal attacks, the other is mainly focused on whether the fact that someone puts in a category should force other editors to accept it when there is no indication the category is right in the body of the text. That is an issue of wikipedia policy on categorization, this is an issue of someone engaging in uncalled for personal attacks, which may double as backhanded attempts to malign those things I am associated with. My views on what is overcat are not linked to my alma mater, and to imply they are is just plain out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Q: What's one consequence of having multiple wives? A: Having multiple mothers-in-law! (You can blame Jay Leno for that one.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Have you notified Epeefleche, something you're supposed to do when discussing somebody here? I noticed that you posted on his Talk page after starting this section, yet somehow forgot to mention it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) These two threads are about the same issues, so I've combined them together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Unequal application of equal rules. Just noticed that this matter mentions me. Just to clarify one aspect of the discussion (ignoring for the moment the more important editing against consensus and disruptive editing issues). JPL is of course welcome to edit all manner of articles. He appears to have been involved, however, in markedly unequal application of WP's equal rules. That's akin to a White cop sitting at the side of the highway, and only giving out speeding tickets to Black drivers who drive a mile over the speed limit. Unequal application of equal rules is problematic. For example, JPL says -- quite correctly -- that information on wp should be sourced. He has deleted what appear to be hundreds of references (via cats) to people being Jewish. Of the 100 or so I looked at, the vast majority were supportable by a quick google search of five seconds. What is of some concern is that while JPL announces to the community that he is a Brigham Young alumnus and church member, he then concurrently (I only checked his latest article creation) creates an article with ZERO refs. On a Brigham Young graduate. Who belongs to JPL's church. His interest in applying WP's rules therefore appears somewhat less than equal. He is deleting references to people being Jews, relying on his adherence to WP's reliability criteria (one I support, though I note that we do have sentence or two at the project that are unreferenced). Deleting such references from hundreds of pages. And then he completely suspends his criterion for Brigham Young alumni, who are members of his church. We assume good faith. But that is a rebuttable presumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The article has four sources, how that is "unreferenced" is beyond me. Anyway Epeefleche is being disingenous. I have deleted categorization of articles as being Jews when there was no reference to it. I did not "delete references". I deleted categorizations that had Zero, none, nil support from the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) It has zero references. Wikipedia:Citing sources tells us how to cite sources. To cite sources, we use refs. "External links" -- as we know from Wikipedia:Citing sources, are in contrast for "books, articles, and websites related to the topic that have not been used as sources." Extra troubling, is the fact that at the same time JPL you are deleting Jewish cats, even where he has been given a url that confirms that the person is Jewish, as is detailed elsewhere in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Deletion by JPL of evidence that people are Jewish -- even when an RS is supplied. Adding to the curious desire by JPL to delete from articles the fact (as reflected in cats) that a person is Jewish is the following. He actually deleted this cat along with the url that reflected that the person was Jewish. Arguing in his edit summary "Article makes no mention to Adler being a Jew, if this is notable to be catted it should be mentioned in the text of the article". This is a knowing deletion of accurate material -- by a person who at the same time is creating articles on members of his church, without any ref in the article whatsoever. We may well have a problem here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) JPL unilateral mass deletions not spreading to other cats. The problem of non-consensus, unilateral, questionable deletions by JPL seems now to have spread to other cats. See the discussion here. I've tried to advise him to perhaps heed consensus, but he seems to take a dim view of that advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Actually those actions were in accordance with the CfD on the category which came to the conclusion rename and purge. I purged the non-fire articles with an affirmative directive to do so having been made at CfD. This was no unilateral, it was in line with the policy that was devised at CfD. I was only implementing the policy that was agreed upon there. So again, Epeefleche is attacking me because I actuially act according to policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Antisemitic remark going unpunished I'd like to add to this that Captain Screebo (talk · contribs) made an antisemitic remark above, and so far no one has seen fit to call him to order. Oh, but here we're talking about "Jewish" categories aren't we, obviously anyone tampering with this must have an agenda, it would be unthinkable that they were simply applying Wikipedia policy unilaterally. This was uncalled for sarcasm, involving the incorrect bad faith assumption, that my opposition to JPL's edits had anything to do with the fact that he was at the time centered on "Jewish" categories, and the fact that I am (by religion and ethnicity) Jewish. In fact, anybody following my edits of and around that time will see clearly that my first opposition was based on WP:DUPCAT. Later is also asked him why he is removing "Jewish" categories, but I never even made a point out of that, understanding very well that the issue was JPL's misunderstanding of WP:DUPCAT. Please note that I have not ever mentioned JPL's religion or alma mater anywhere, as he hasn't mine. In this regard we understand each other completely. But Captain Screebo's remark was over the borderline, whether from a WP:NPA point of view (See Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F which mentions: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic,etc.) and a WP:AGF point of view. And I would like to see this fact recognised and duly sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I am withdrawing this comment due to the controversy it caused and I feel some people were offended by the nature of these comments. I won't be taking part in this conversation any further. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I think you need to step back a bit, and look at this a little more dispassionately: Captain Screebo seems to be commenting on the tendency of accusations of antisemitism to be bandied around, with little evidence actually being presented, but instead 'bad faith' being assumed. If this results in 'sarcasm', what do you expect? And do you really think that objecting to being labelled an antisemite is evidence of antisemitism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The answer to the latter question is obviously "no". And please, telling me to step back is also insulting. I am not a person prone to whims, spells of ire etc. Captain Screebo's comment was in any case a bad faith assumption and his sarcasm a personal attack. And if he was just commenting on a tendency he might have perceived, as you are willing to assume, then he surely must have realised that his comment would be like oil on the fire. So a strong reprimand is in order whatever way you look at it. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, I do not see any anti-semitic attack in Captain Screebo's comment. It looks more that you are overly itchy and have a bad faith assumption. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I have asked a veteran admin whom I greatly respect to give his assessment of Captain Screebo's commentary, and he agrees with you. I shall therefore assume that I must have read meanings into his comment that weren't there, even though I still perceive things otherwise. I let go of this issue at this time. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I have refrained from commenting so far so as not to pour "oil on the fire", and also I consider this to be a non-issue as several people on this page have already stated that they see no personal attack or anti-semitic remark in what I wrote. I would just like to point out to Debresser that I was making a general comment about this subject area which tends to get very heated, with both pro- and anti-semitic editors pushing to tag to advance their POVs, as seems to be the case for the LGBT issue, as can be witnessed from all the brouhaha surrounding Luke Evans (actor), and accusations of de-gaying and so forth, homophobic editors etc. I believe the Balkans and all related articles are also "hot potatoes" as to the ethnic catting/tagging of people but, so far, I haven't had the pleasure of getting embroiled editing in this area. I don't see where at any point I inferred you were Jewish or could have known this from your username, or adressed you directly as Jewish, yet you wrote above: As to Captain Screebo's antisemitic remark. What is not antisemitic about it? Ok, he didn't say "you are a filthy Jew". But that is not the only form of antisemitism. He made a bad faith assumption based on my religion/ethnicity. That is antisemitism. Assuming I made a bad faith assumption is a bad faith assumption IMHO and, yes, I know you're Jewish now because you've been screaming it all over the page, the only reactions to your comment either above or in this section were to say "calm down, the comment is not anti-semitic". I do not expect an apology as I mentioned elsewhere even though you are clearly over the line of what constitutes a personal attack, as per your cite above: Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, by making unfounded allegations of anti-semitism and starting a whole section with that in the title, . It would be appreciable though if you struck through the relevant comments and maybe asked someone to hat this section as having my name trawled through the mud on a highly visible noticeboard (in several places to boot) is not really pleasant. Shalom. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Let me point out that I personally still feel offended by your bad-faith assumption based on my religion or ethnicity. It is only that I am willing to accept the fact that there might be other ways of looking at this. Therefore I can not in good faith strike out anything I have said before. I am only willing to let the matter rest. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Look, you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, I explained my comment was about this area (concerning Jewishness) creating needless drama, I personally do not go around assuming that people are this or that, I don't care if people are Buddhist, Martian or even Tea Party members so long as it does not overly influence their editing, and I take objection to being called anti-semitic that's all. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I don't know the expression "to be the one with a chip on ones shoulder", so I can't help you here. What I can tell you is that I came from WP:DUPCAT, not from WP:JEWISH_VIGILANTES, and your remark showed bad faith and used insulting sarcasm. Calling it antisemitic might have been taking things a bit too far, but you have been in transgression of two very important principles of polite discussion and it was in connection with "Jewish" categories. So perhaps you should start with an apology for making this mess, and then I shall consider retracting the word "antisemitic" in regards to your post. I think that is being completely fair here. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I have noticed myself that this user constantly focuses on people of color and minority groups. I have been on Wikipedia for several years (this is a new account) and recently became more involved when I found women of color were harder to research, so I took it upon myself to make categories for women of color. Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) consistently nominated these categories or voted delete for them with another user who was consistent who I won't mention. Fortunately these categories were kept, because they are very important for women's history and the history of their respective ethnic cultures. I also noticed him focusing on women and Jewish categories as of late. Now I cannot presume anything about him, but these actions are very telling. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That statement is verging on trolling. You took it on yourself to create categories that there had previously been a consensus not to create, and several people - including me - took part in the discussion around deleting them. You were very aggressive and accused people of everything under the sun. In the end, you did what you should have done to start with, and got consensus for a change in the rules relating to categories of this type agreed by the community. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Actually I did not accuse anyone of anything during those discussions. A lot of people accused me of things. A lot of people accused me of being racist against white people, that I would use the "race card." (When I am white myself, and then people decided to call me racist the other way around.) There was a high amount of racism going on in those conversations--I did not mention that. I didn't accuse people of "everything under the sun." But I did get accused of "everything under the sun." You said that I said something apt to calling everyone "racist scum" actually, heh, I never called anyone racist and I never brought up the topic of race--it was brought up by other people and I certainly did not call anyone anything like "racist scum." That term was not used here, or on my blog, But my personal blog was found and posted on here because I called a person a "Nordic asshole" which is not racist, it's like calling someone a "Canadian asshole." I was even told by one person that what I was doing was comparable to Nazi Germany. Yes, the Nazi argument was brought in. I was told by my friends (who were not allowed to speak on the subject due to canvassing rules) to plod on in spite of this sort of abuse. I may have done things the wrong way, and I admitted that numerous times in discussions you did not take part in, but it was due to being unaware of the way Wikipedia works, and subsequently I have done things the correct way in other areas. But if you wish to call me wrong, call me wrong. I don't harass this user in my off time or engage him other than in topics we both happen to take part in, which is always on the AFD page. But, by your logic I could say your comment verges on trolling since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and we've taken part in a conversation before where you disagreed with me. Oh dear!--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) LOL. If you can't see the problem with calling someone a "Nordic asshole" for challenging your edits about black women, because you assumed he was white, then you need to study a different section of history. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Jesus Christ it took me half an hour to figure out what you were implying with that comment. No, I was not implying that she was a Nazi, and I did not consider the historical implications when I said that remark. I mean christ almighty. I was purely referring to the area she came from. I think this is more of a cultural difference in a misunderstanding than someone trying to be offensive (obviously calling someone an asshole is offensive, but let's ignore that issue for the sake of this explanation). It's simply me being ignorant of what would be offensive to Europeans and United Kingdom due to implied ideas in the statement. There are a lot of cultural things that offend Americans that Europeans don't get either. Sure you can make ALL KINDS of assumptions from what I said, but that was in no way what I was implying. I was just angry, and I knew she was from Sweden, and that was the only insult I could make. Jeeze. Elen, I think it is really best for the both of us if we avoid each other in the future and do not engage each other in conversations. This has gotten pretty heavy, and I think we have both said some pretty regrettable things about and to each other. Just so you know, I intend to keep my actions soley to editing pages in the future and don't plan to get into these deletion type of discussions. It triggers my anger way too much, and I end up saying a lot of things in the heat of the moment I regret in the end. I apologize for all the things I have said to you that have offended or even hurt you, because that was really wrong of me. I hope you can continue your activities on WP in peace.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This is hilarious. Sorry, do you mean you've only just realised why everyone jumped down your throat, you got blocked etc etc. It was a World War you know...do you come from Easter Island (struggling to think of some really remote part of the planet that escaped not only the events but the aftermath for the last 70-odd years)? If so, I completely accept your explanation in good faith, but you really really need to follow this up in your history studies, because you are missing some information. Also perhaps check out Stormfront - not a pretty read, but probably essential to understanding some of the forces active today, and why that remark is still offensive to Americans as well as Europeans.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I was never blocked. Being from a Nordic country doesn't automatically make you a Nazi, okay? At least, this is my line of logic. I'm not responding to you again. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Interesting/good point. I had missed the women-deletion aspect of his edits, as I only looked at his other dozens (hundreds?) of deletions over the past three days. Agree with your points, now that I look back further. Especially when at the same time, he is creating articles with zero refs, of people who belong to his church and share his alma mater. The two editing practices, combined, certainly call to mind that AGF is a rebuttable presumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That's odd, I can see four sources in that supposedly unreferenced article at that diff. Do you need a new monitor perhaps? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) There were zero refs. There were "External links" -- but as I was told years ago, and as it appears our guidelines still state quite clearly, external links are not sources. Rather, external links are "books, articles, and websites related to the topic that have not been used as sources." Extra troubling, is the fact that at the same time JPL is deleting Jewish cats, even where he has been given a url that confirms that the person is Jewish (oh yes -- he took the opportunity to delete the url confirming the person is Jewish at the same time). The combination here is very concerning.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No, there were four sources and one external link. I invite everyone to check the diff. Either you really do need a new screen, or you are saying things that are incorrect for the purpose of causing trouble to another editor. Previous consensus has been that this may constitute a blockable offence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, he just has a unique use of "reference". He does not consider it a reference unless it is linked as a footnote to a specific fact. Just listing sources without linking them to specific facts does not meet his creteria. The fact that Mr. Hamilton is an African-American severly undermines the attack Herietta has made on me. She has taken it on herself to on multiple occasions accuse me of being racist. She has accused me of not understanding or caring about Afircan-American history. I partly created the article on Mr. hamilton to show she was wrong, because the articles i have created on Alex Boye, Emanuel Abu Kissi, Amram Munsunga (since deleted), Marcus Martins, Marvin Perkins, Darius Gray (I am not sure I created that one, but I at least expanded it), Jesse Lee Thomas and Joseph W. Sitati are the mark of a racist out to supress all references to people of African descent in wikipedia. The fact that I nominated a huge bunch of male-singers categories for deletion is also not evidence. Some people just seem intent on gaining exception from wikipedia policies by agressively attacking any editor who tries to apply them. I have removed all sorts of unjustified categories. Why I should sit back and let articles that make zero mention of Jews still cat as Jews is beyond me. Then of course there are the articles on Jews I have created. Of wait, that was the article on Daniel Rona which was deleted with no return to the issues brought up in the first discussion even though I provided sources relating to a whole new set of notability for Rona that had never existed in the article's previous incarnation. If you want to talk about people really deleting information of Jews go and attack whoever deleted that article. I am just removing categorization of people as Jews when there is zero evidence in the article that they are Jews. No one has screamed about my doing the same thing to probably 30 articles that claimed the person was of English descent, even though I was only for that time focused on English-descent. Uneven application of rules would be if I removed the Jew cat and left the Am people of ITalian ancestry in the same cat even though neither were mentioned. Even there it would be an unfair attack because it is easier to read an article to see if a particular cat is supported than do so for all cats. I think the basic problem is some people treat having large cats for their ethnic group as some sort of mark of pride, but we are supposed to categorize based on actual relevance. This is not a race to have the most people in your ethnic category, so people need to stop acting as if it is an attack on them to apply the rules. Anyway as I have pointed out elsewhere, we allow putting in Jewish categories with a lot less evidence, I have not objected to articles on the grounds of how many sources they have. If I come across an article with no sources that says the person was a Jew in the article, I leave the cats, so these people are being consitently inaccurate about my editing. I am not going to let them bully me into letting them make claims with categories that are not done in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I have never called you racist, John. Seriously, get it right. I did say you are uneducated in black history, and you are. It doesn't matter how many classes you take. There is only one thing I am sure of you being, and I will not say that, because I don't believe in labeling people unless they have chosen the label themselves. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Can everybody please dial it down a notch or two? This is ridiculous. Henriettapussycat, for somebody who claims he doesn't engage in name-calling, you sure call people a lot of names. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I was given a warning by you for calling people racist. I'm not sure where on WP I have done that, and in this topic I mentioned people to support User:Debresser's request, but banning me for supporting his request and noting other people who joined in on the discrimination--pointing out as an observer that yes, this stuff was going on...Whatever. Sure. It doesn't really matter if you want to do that. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I have chastised editors for making antisemitic remarks before, I don't see any such here. Screebo is simply noticing that the area of jewish categories is contentious and that people generally are quick to assume bad faith from people editing that area. I see this post as a testament to that fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Comment Herietta is the one who says I have something against "women and people of color". If that is not calling someone racist, than nothing is. Beyond that there is no true reasoning behind the claim that I am uneducated about African-American history, it is just thrown out as a gratuitous insult. That said, this attack was first lodged with the category Category:Black British musicians so African-American history is irrelevant. Anyway considering which of the contents of Category:American military personnel by ethnic orogin I nominated for deletion, that is the Jewish, German des, Jamaica des, Swedish desent, and one other European one, the claim that I have some agenda when I did not nominate the African American cat for deletion is just plain unfounded. I am still suprised at how tolerant people are of Epeefleche's totally uncalled for comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This is a comment I left on my page for John, and I will put it here so people will understand my reasoning and know that I am not calling anyone racist or antisemitic. I admit wholly I do tend to get angered easily, this is an issue of mine that I seriously work on and therefore will be avoiding this topic and other deletion topics in the future unless they directly involve me. Okay, now, there is a difference between doing things that are racist, doing racist actions, and being a racist, that is--having racist thoughts. Sometimes people who are not racist do racist things. Yeah, sometimes that happens. If anyone is upset at me for pointing out actions they have done that are suspect to seem like discrimination, then I guess you can do that. But as it seems, I don't think anyone here is a racist or against Jewish people at all. Period. I really do not believe in labeling people like that. I think that people do things sometimes and don't really think about it through wholly. Just like I made an African American Women's category, but did not think about first making subcategories and dividing women up in a logical way, then overreacted during a deletion review. Hey, people make mistakes. People sometimes display discriminatory behavior when they in fact are not racist or antisemitic. Hey, it happens. I'm sure even I have at some point in my life without meaning to--god knows I don't hate people different than me. Pointing out behaviors does not indicate thoughts behind them. I don't think anyone here is a racist or antisemite. Period. I can't read your minds. If you want to understand my reasoning, you can watch this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc As I said, I don't believe in labeling people unless they have chosen the label for themselves. I would never call a person racist. People display behaviors and that lets me know what kind of person they are. The person above goes by John. That is his preferred label. There is quite a difference there, isn't there? People might choose the word "cunt" for me, I would choose the word "woman." Yep, people choose their own labels, they aren't chosen for them. I don't plan to take part in these discussions anymore because people do not understand my intentions. Not all behaviors indicate thoughts. It's called Behaviorism.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Epeefleche, that master of the diningenous attack, has gone after me again on my talk page. This is getting over the top. He is now attaking me for following the clearly stated wikipedia policy that where someone is born is not notable for them, trying to claim I am misleading for quoting this part of the category guidelines for categorzing by place on my talk page, and trying to turn the non-ethnic based people from x type categories into an ethnic feud. He is being extremely rude about it. He who has falsely accused me of "removing references to people being Jews" which is a lie, I removed categories not references, is now complaining that I did not quote the entire sentance twice, and accusing me of being misleading about it. bio articles are on the people and are categorized in ways that are notable to them, I am not being misleading, and I find his behavior down right provocative and rude. I am wondering if there is a way to block him from editing my talk page. I am getting tired of his rude, underhanded, accusatory and insinuating attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Epeefleche just keeps coming back with his annoying posts on my page. Now he claims there was a reliable source that someone was Jewish. It did not say so in the text, it does not belong in cats. I wish someone would set him stait on this fact. Also tell him to stop trying to bully others to accept his unmentioned in the text categorizing plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Comment Herietta's calling someone a NA is clearly racist. If she called someone a different NA and was black, we would not forgive it. She might wine and complain that black people are allowed to call other black people that, but it is not within the acceptable usages on wikipedia, and we will take exception to people railing against other wiki users on their blogs. You can be racist against your own race, and it is clearly racist to assume what race people are with no evidence. She had no evidence that the person in question was "Nordic". And she has no evidence that I am white, in fact the 2000 census clearly shows I am Native American, and thus not white at all. Assuming that only white people would want to delete certain types of categories seems to be racist to me. Also her treatment of all Hispanics and Latinos as "people of color" seems to be an unjustifiable racializing of the matter. The term itself strikes me as part of racializing rhetoric, but even worse it can not accurately be applied to all Hispanics and Latinos however you define it, unless you define the term less inclusively than the US census and in a way as to exclude many people who will proclaim being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Being a self-hating racist is entirely possible. Using racial agression to quiet your oppnents works all the time. Since your race is general not know to those who read your posts, you can not assume in-group rights of attack, and I for one reject in-group rights of attack as a way for some groups to exercise dominion over others. I think it would also help if someone told Henrietta that she should post her new comments below earlier comments, and not disrupt the flow of discussion by inserting her responses above responses already there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC) If there really is such a thing as microagression, Henrietta fits it to the t. Instead of asking herself "why would someone be offended by my saying they are ignorants about x" maybe she should ask herself if that is a fair way to talk about anything. Her system allows the accusers to always accuse, and makes some of us have to just bow and let them get their way. Well, it does not work that way. Rules are equal, and you should not go around attacking people for trying to apply them. It also would really help if people realized that deleting a category removes zero articles and would be a little less hysterical about the prospect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Listen, if you want me to get into discussions of race and try to do some sort of gymnastics here--this is a little ridiculous. I've told you that I don't think you're a racist. I've explained to you that the aspect of your behavior where you continue to bring up whole groups of ethnic groups or social groups to be deleted is incredible problematic. True, I have said things that are completely out of line when I get angry, and I get angered easily, but I have always attributed it to your behavior, not your thoughts or what I think you may be thinking. The fact that I must explain that Latinos are considered people of color, and people of color is not a made up term, it's a real term, so no need to put it in quotes. Latinos can be either black, white, or mixed. Yes that's pretty colorful. Not to mention white people have made them into a social minority through history--it's a completely falsified thing. But Hispanic and Latino people do have their own culture in American, and that is something you can not deny, John. Seriously. And to deny women their own category would just be redonk. Using the term black vs. African American is not racist. It's just another term. Are you meant to claim here, instead, that I am not in fact the race I claim to be and am saying this as a ploy to cover an extreme plot to control Wikipedia from within, thus taking over Wikipedia? Or something like that. I mean really? If you want to continue this, I think it would be best that maybe we talk about it somewhere else so we can better understand each other. I think that things have gotten a little extreme here from the both of us. A lot of accusations have been thrown around by a lot of people, including myself, and perhaps a calm conversation would be the best thing for the both of us. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over contents of DSM

Bittergrey (talk · contribs) is insisting on citing the DSM on several two (paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias) despite being irrelevant but for a single minor qualification (infantilism appears as a behaviour of masochists, not as a separate diagnosis). This consensus is clearly stated at the RSN (see [84] and [85] by FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), [86] by James Cantor (talk · contribs), [87] by FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs). Despite this, he has been edit warring across all these pages to re-insert it ([88], [89], . It's quite frustrating and appears to have no chance of stopping. Some admin assistance would be appreciated - though 3RR has not been hit, it's also not going to stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has, to date, taken this dispute to not two but three articles. At location one, paraphilic infantilism, WLU gamed 3RR ([90][91][92][93] - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion that I requested. He modified that request to assert that this conflict was a just a formatting issue. The third opinion request preceeded WLU's RSN request. At location two, list of paraphilias, I started a discussion[94]. At location three, diaper fetish, I decided to let WLU show what he would do if I didn't hold him in check. I think the deleted text "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilia" was reasonably well-supported by section "302.81 Fetishism" in the DSM (pgs 569-570 in 4TR).[95]. The RSN debate was only about 302.83, a separate section.

This is WLU's second attempt to remove details (specific page numbers) from the first article[96]. In the first, he didn't question the DSM's quality as a source. Notably, the only "edit war" WLU succeeded in picking there and then was with a bot.[97]

Admittedly, my comments then about his motivations were not in keeping with good faith. However, it should be noted that now both times, the urgency of WLU's edits directly followed debates with another specific editor and involving James Cantor. The timing of the current urgency support those comments as best could be imagined.

As for RSN, FiachraByrne had already became involved in an offshoot of the second such debate. FuFoFuEd might actually have been neutral, and unaware of how heavily votestacked the RSN conversation was. BitterGrey (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Dealt with what I could from an Administrators point of view. Two pages protected, going to warn both users about edit warring, and they can take it to WP:DR. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page doesn't deal with the central issue - consensus was clearly that the DSM does not verify the text it was attached to in any of the pages it was used.

I will happily take any suggestions on how to resolve this; the central issues that a source is being mis-used across multiple pages and edit-warred to keep it in place. What should I do? Protecting the page doesn't resolve this, and the last time the page was protected, it was protected with the DSM still being inappropriately cited for three days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU should consider constructively joining the discussions that followed from the third opinion request, at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism. He's now at 3RR at a second[98][99][100] of the of the three locations.

Of course, he and I differ about what the central issue is: He was at 3RR in the first location BEFORE questioning DSM as a source. Those edits were to all obscure page references[101][102][103]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Initially my edits were to collapse references to DSM pages from three different page ranges (568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single citation to the entire chapter (pages 535-582 [104]). The dispute became so pointless and acrimonious that I simply edited elsewhere for 4 months. My next edit along these lines again compacted the references to the DSM to a single one with the <ref name = > tags, covering a six page range (568-73) since Bittergrey thought citing the entire chapter was excessive [105]. I also did some citegnoming involving the {{sfn}} template and {{cite pmid}}. Later I actually read the pages of the DSM cited, and found they did not verify the text they accompanied (discussed here). Accordingly, I spent several edits removing the references [106]. My interpretation was subsequently supported with a clear consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (see my initial ANI post, or the entire RSN section [107]). Since the DSM was used inappropriately in two further pages, I removed and adjusted on those pages as well - diaper fetishism and list of paraphilias.

The DSM clearly does not support the text it accompanied. It was clearly misused on three pages. My actions are clearly in line with WP:Verifiability. I hope someone will take the five minutes to look into the diffs and the DSM itself ([108]) to resolve this or direct us to a more appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when the discussion at RS/N didn't produce the result wanted by BitterGrey, he found another venue for it. I think WP:DR should be renamed to WP:CIRCULAR. I'm curious if among all venues tried is there one editor that agrees with BitterGrey on this (besides himself). FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My request for a third opinion was made at 15:12, 10 August 2011, BEFORE WLU's RSN request at 11:19, 11 August 2011. (I chose WP:3O because WLU had expressed a preference for it at the time[109].) However I have to agree with FuFoFuEd that forumshopping did occur. We merely disagree about who was doing it. I had previously respected FuFoFuEd for not claiming to know everything, and was optimistic about his potential neutrality. Well, I _was_. BitterGrey (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the RSN and 3O requests are, as I have said, totally separate issues, the timing is irrelevant. The 3O request was not about whether the DSM was appropriately cited. Once it became clear that the DSM was being misused, the sole issue the 3O had to resolve was the use of {{sfn}}. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From the WP:30 request:"...there is an editor seeking to reduce the specificity of the citations(eg. [110]). DSM is dry reading and it seems worthwhile to point people to the relevant page(s) instead of making them wade through the whole section..." Seems quite clearly to have been about the DSM citations. BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought we were making some progress at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Anyway, same problem as reported for Paraphilic infantilism and the use of the DSM exists for Diaper fetishism. That is that the source does not support the content at present. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on FiachraByrne's comment, I'd like to point out that I have let WLU make whatever edits he wishes to Diaper fetishism, and he has[111]. Last I checked, the previous DSM citation to pages relevant to fetishism and general points regarding the paraphilias was replaced with a citation to just the one page defining infantilism, as a subcategory of masochism. According to the DSM, masochism and fetishism are separate paraphilias. Again, the present version FiachraByrne wrote about is WLU's version. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the DSM, that page looks fine now. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify this [112] is the version of the article Diaper fetishism where the DSM was mis-attributed. As Bittergrey suggests, WLU fixed those citations. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what just happened? Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, the page went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now", but there were no edits to the page[113]. To keep FiachraByrne from putting words in my mouth, I assert that the citations were correct BEFORE they were modified by WLU, and now are not correct. Why shouldn't a fetishism article cite the fetishism section? It did before and now does not.

I agree with the 'contradict' tag that FuFoFuEd has added to the "fine now" page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As Bittergrey knows, I raised the issue of the use of the DSM in the Diaper Fetishism article at the RSN for this article at 1:44 pm on the 14 August [114]. At that point, as recorded in the foregoing diff, Bittergrey replied that it would be better to deal with one article at a time and nobody else responded to the issue. In fact, WLU had already begun to remove improper use of the DSM in that article four minutes before I posted my original concerns [115]. Above Bittergrey states that he "allowed" WLU to make those edits so he was, I presume, aware that at the time I posted my original concerns WLU was in fact already removing improper use of the DSM from that article. Either editor could have informed me of this but it was my responsibility to check the article. Then when I was notified by WLU at midday on the 15 August of the ANI here I didn't really want to get involved. So I was pleased to note some hours later that this process had apparently been resolved and I went back to, among other things, trying to establish a workable consensus that respected the sources at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Returning here for a look early this morning I saw that things were not in fact resolved so I posted at 5.36 am 16 August my concerns about the use of the DSM on the Diaper Fetishism page. As we've established, WLU had in fact already resolved any problem with the use of the DSM on that page, at least from my perspective, and I was in error to have presumed that the page had remained unchanged from the last time I had looked at it (which would have been some time just before 14:38 on the 14 August). As soon as I realised that the page was in fact rectified I posted that information here, but I guess other editors were already aware of that. As to putting words into Bittergrey's mouth I'm not aware of any occasion where I've done this. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bittergrey's contention "that the citations" in the Diaper Fetishism article "were correct BEFORE they were modifed by WLU, and now are not correct" ....(I'm afraid I've also had to post this on the RSN page) ...

Just to clarify, here we can see the Diaper fetishism page prior to WLU’s edits. The DSM IV-TR was then used to support the following statements in that article:

1. Diaper fetishism, "Nappy fetishism" or Diaperism, is a paraphilia in which a person feels a desire to wear or use diapers. This is normally not due to any medical need whatsoever

The DSM does not mention Diaper fetishism although it does of course discuss fetishism. It is undoubtedly supportable that Diaper fetishism is a fetish and a paraphilia but the DSM IV-TR does not provide that support. Nor does the DSM describe diaper fetishism in any way or state that the wearing of diapers in such an instance does not stem from medical need.

2. Diaper or nappy fetishism is differentiated from paraphilic infantilism (sometimes simply called infantilism) in that those who engage in infantilism and fantasize about being regressed to an infant or small child state (a form of role-playing) do not involve in sexual activity as such. While in a (temporarily and intentionally induced) state of regression, this fulfils an emotional need that may result from very early childhood experiences. Pure diaper fetishism, on the other hand, refers strictly to the practice of wearing diapers for emotional or sexual gratification, although there is a spectrum of practice between the two. The popular term for a diaper or nappy fetishists is diaper lover, or simply DL. Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias

The only source for this series of statements was the DSM IV-TR. The DSM IV-TR does not mention diaper fetishism. It does not distinguish it from paraphilic infantilism. It does not discuss infantilism in terms of regression or state that it does not involve sexual activity as such. It does not say that this temporary state of regression fulfils an emotional need or that this emotional need is derived from an experience in early childhood. It does not define diaper fetishism. It does not state that there is a spectrum of practices between infantilism and diaper fetishism. It does not mention Diaper Lover. It does not state that diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism (a tautology in any case) or identify it as a paraphilia. To a greater or lesser degree, other sources would have supported most of these statements. Then, perhaps, reference to the DSM may have been appropriate if one was to make a general statement about fetishism. But the way this text is constructed one would presume that the DSM recognised diaper fetishism as a specific paraphilia and engaged in a long discourse about it. Thus, the use of this source was misleading.

3. Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children.

It is true that the DSM IV-TR does not seek to link fetishism to paedophilia but that is different to the statement above.

4. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism.

As above, the DSM IV-TR does not support this contention. Other sources may although there are a small number of cases of co-occurrence. Another source, Malitz, was cited in support of this statement, however.

5. Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention.

The DSM IV-TR does not use the phrase ‘diaper-related paraphilias’ or any approximation of this and it does not discuss a differing focus of attention amongst those with the diaper-related paraphilias.

6. Some are aroused from "wetting" (Urination) their diapers, or, to a lesser extent,

There is no such statement in the DSM IV-TR. It could be supported by other sources.

7 Some do not use the diapers at all, for arousal, or bladder and bowel movements.

This statement was supported by another source (Malitz) but the DSM IV-TR makes no such statement. The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR. Urophilia and coprophilia are listed in the DSM IV-TR as examples of 302.9 Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified, but not in such a way as to support the above statements.

FiachraByrne (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor point - the DSM does mention diapers on page 572, within the context of sexual masochism - "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." As far as I can tell that is the sole mention of both infantilism and diapers. Other sources do identify infantilism as something associated with masochism but as discussed above and elsewhere, the DSM does not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for checking. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to address all of FiachraByrne's claims, but will touch on a few to show that they are as throughly unchecked as her previous claim about the article[116], which disappeared suddenly after it became clear that she could not blame it on me. It reminds me of WLU's accusation "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[117] This ended when I pointed out that the ref to the DSM at list of paraphilias was added in 2008 by someone who was now arguing against the DSM[118]. It is great to be addressing this issue in a forum that won't be so easily votestacked or swayed by spammy shouting.

"Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias."

• Sexual fetishism is specified because fetishism refers to religious or magical artifacts.
• pg 569-570 (302.81 Fetishism) A list of items "among the more common" fetish items is given. The only exclusions listed are female clothing (in the case of cross-dressing) and masturbatory aids such as vibrators.
• pg 566 (Paraphilias) "Paraphilias include...Exhibitionism (...), Fetishism (use of nonliving objects), ...

Thus, with few exceptions a <whatever odd item> fetish is a sexual fetish, and (sexual) fetishism is a paraphilia.

"Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention."

• pg 569 (in the section differential diagnosis) "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on the characteristic paraphilic focus."
• pg 569 (302.81 Fetishism) "The focus in Fetishism involves use of nonliving objects (the "fetish")."
• pg 572 (302.83 Masochism) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and cloted in diapers ("infantilism").
• It seems relatively clear that diaper fetishism and infantilism are diaper-related, and per the DSM, they do differ in their focus. Also per the DSM, they are both paraphilias.

"Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism."

• Pgs 568-569 define fetishism, 302.81. Pgs 571-572 define pedophilia, 302.2. They are separate paraphilias. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but this text being supported doesn't say that.

"Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children."

The symptoms for fetishism are detailed on page 568 of DSM 4TR. A sexual preference for children is clearly not among them.

By the way, if anyone still thinks this is about the DSM, they should note that all the pages that were relevant to fetishism or paraphilias in general have been removed from the diaper fetish article by WLU. It now only cites the page 572, on masochism. Within the confines of AGF, this doesn't make any sense.BitterGrey (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll skip the rest of the details, and get to the main point: We have a set of people trying to push their position on the DSM, without even having done a careful reading of it.

• "I've read them all [pg 572 and other pages of the DSM], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." WLU[119] after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations en masse to make them harder to check.
• "The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne[120], in grandiose but flawed presentation posted to both ANI and RSN, and after seven thousand words of discussion at RSN about the paraphilic infantilism definition on page 572.
• DSM 4TR pg 572 (302.83 Masochism, in the Paraphilias section) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism").

One of the things that makes the DSM a great reference is that it is in most libraries. You don't have to depend on what people like this say - you can check it for yourself. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete gone bad

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.

boldly closing this. Request has been fulfilled, nothing more to do here.--Jayron32 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I don't know if it's appropriate to take this here, but I'm desperate for some help. We've got a Deletion review going at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16, and editors in good standing are asking for templates that were speedy deleted to be restored. This has been going for over 12 hours, and none of the admins responding has restored the templates while the conversation is ongoing. The problem is that nearly every infobox, navbar, and template in the Writing Systems WikiProject uses these deleted templates, which means that we have hundreds of pages with limited functionality. I commented out the calls in the project infobox, but we are currently scrambling to deal with an admin who deleted templates without checking dependencies, and nothing works right now. Can we get some help? The templates are:

Template:ISO 15924

and Template:ISO 15924/numeric

Sign added. 23:25, 16 August 2011 User:Vanisaac User talk:Vanisaac Oops, sorry. VanIsaac_WS 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody here? Helllloooo????? VanIsaac_WS 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help. The admin has refused to restore templates that are used in several other templates (see template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode for an extreme example), and which were more than half created by editors in good standing, but speedy deleted under G5. I reiterate, he is refusing to restore templates that were erroneously deleted under G5 criteria, whose deletion has broken other templates. We need help. Please. VanIsaac_WS 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-admin) I have to say, reading the DRV doesn't paint Ironholds in a very good light. I agree that a short-term restoration should be carried out until the DRV is resolved. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can say that reading the DRV paints me in any light you choose. All I know is that it being demanded that I do my job and fix things, following accusations of bad faith and followed by statements and complaints that I'm a disruptive and abusive administrator, with a nice dash of forum shopping on the side, makes me want to fuck off and leave this to be someone else's problem - and to avoid ripping every person at that DRV a new one, that's precisely what I did. Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that everyone who comes across the discussion seems to think that a short-term restoration is warranted. Unfortunately, none of them can press the "restore" button and have it work. VanIsaac_WS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that neither Ironholds nor Gfoley4 had been notified of this thread, as is required. I have now done so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I did inform Ironholds on one of the threads about this discussion. I didn't even know about Gfoley's involvement. VanIsaac_WS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Gfoley4 deleted one of the templates in dispute, you would think he counts as "involved". :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Ironholds had deleted the thread from his talk page. I also talked about this ANI in the actual Deletion review as well. Thanks for your assistance and perspective, Strange. VanIsaac_WS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the templates. As far as I know I am completely uninvolved except as an admin. The situation seemed to warrant having the templates undeleted during the DRV, in my judgment. If the DRV says the deletions were sound, it it trivial to delete the templates again, and nobody needs to notify me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lost an edit there. I wanted to thank you, CBM. Now we can actually talk about the substantive issues concerning a user who violated a block - actions I am not particularly thrilled about. VanIsaac_WS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the argument over the merits of the delete, I think VanIssac's behavour in that DRV is pretty damn embarrassing. Honestly, I probably would have just ignored any request to speedy restore the templates because of your attitude alone. And if I was dealing with you, I would not have been half as reserved in my responses as Ironholds was. Next time you get that angry, walk away for a while and let level-headed people deal with it. Resolute 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not an entirely unfounded assessment. Shocked (at templates suddenly not working), frustrated (at a refusal to revert a speedy delete on request), and tired are not particularly good combinations. I've tried to move the discussion forward. I think we can probably close this guy down. Thanks for everyone's insight and perspective. VanIsaac_WS 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

3RR/sockpuppet

Resolved

 – reporting editor made aware of WP:Blanking and benefits of registering. Toddst1 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was blocked today by user Favonian for removing some silly banner from my discussion page. I suspect that user WWGB might be a sockpuppet, since that user posted the original warning, then out of no where Favonian appeared. All my edits are in good faith (though no one seems to agree), from my IP. I simply don't understand this user(s) utter refusal to engage in discussion and insistence on totalitarian methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.132.92.8&action=history

--108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not your talkpage, it's Wikipedia's, and you may not remove the ISP tag; it's one of the few things you can't remove from a user talkpage. I note that this was explained to you on the talkpage. WWGB and Favonian are not sockpuppets, and you're not being oppressed. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your user page yours or wikipedias? I bought a static IP from my ISP, that's how I choose to identify myself. Your response is scornful. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BLANKING? Tiderolls 02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@108.132.92.8: If this bothers you, you can make it go away if you create an account. While I understand that some people may choose to not create an account, understand that in making that choice, you also forsake the benefits of having an account, which includes control over your userpage. As an unregisterred editor, control over your userpage is something you have less of. It is part of the tradeoff you get for not registering. You are free to edit Wikipedia articles while not registerred, but other things which come with registerring an account (including a watchlist, the ability to maintain your own userspace, the ability to create new articles, etc.) are unavailible to you. Again, no one says that you have to register to edit articles. But you shouldn't complain about not getting access to the other rights of a registerred user if you don't choose to register. --Jayron32 03:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the consequences of allowing unregistered editing is that the point of origin of unregistered edits is associated with the IP in the history. Wikipedia's talkpages are associated with the IP or a registered account as a consequence of the attribution required by the Creative Commons copyright. The content of those or any other WP page is governed by Wikipedia policy and community consensus: that includes registered users' talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos and eugenics

User:ClaudioSantos was blocked one week for edit warring on Planned Parenthood stemming from his disagreement with the lack of pointing out his viewpoint that PPs founder was connected with eugenics (talk page discussion here and here). Now that the block has expired, and despite clear consensus being reached, similar behavior has been resumed on Eugenics in the United States. If this could be examined further, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me a close call as to whether WP:RESTRICT#ClaudioSantos applies here. Damn, the link doesn't quite work. Go to WP:RESTRICT and look him up. PhGustaf (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a thread about the his editing restrictions and whether or not they apply to Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and I think it was generally agreed upon that they weren't sufficiently connected. here Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After I was unblocked I have edited only 1 time at Planned Parenthood. Not even 1 sole revert. Is this a futil report abusing the ANI? Should it be noticed the fact that although Falcon was not blocked, he certainly did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood during the same 24 hours for I got the block precisely for breaking the same 1RR rule? Is the ANI a place to extend or to start an edit war? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about you, not Falcon. And it's not about edit warring on AN/I. But I do note that your behavior on eugenics topics is much like that that got you banned from euthanasia topics. PhGustaf (talk)

Anybody could face misperceptions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this is abuse of ANI. ClaudioSantos has shown a thorough disregard for the spirit of cooperation and consensus that wikipedia is based upon. Despite all the help that others have offered him in the form of advice, warnings, compromises, he continues the same tendentious editing behavior. I'm not sure what my opinion is worth here but I recommend extending the topic ban temporarily to cover Eugenics, I think it would save everyone some trouble. I have to assume good faith so I'll just say that I've found his edits since coming back from the block quite disruptive. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of ClaudioSantos's euthanasia topic ban, certainly Planned Parenthood is unrelated, but Eugenics in the United States actually has a short section on Euthanasia programs. Maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask ClaudioSantos to at least stop editing Eugenics in the United States based on his current euthanasia topic ban? I have found his edits there to be unhelpful. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not editing on that article nothing related to euthanasia, not even the specific section dealing with euthanasia. Of course here came all those involved editors in contents dispute with me, like metal.lunxhbox who also was not blocked but also did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood. Is it here a valid way to deal with content disputes, attempting to force a ban against editors?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I find the repeat reports of disruption disturbing, but as I noted before, we should not be stretching community sanctions every which way to cover other disruption. If the community wants to extend the sanction the community can write up a larger topic :ban and !vote on it.

Claudio - I would like to urge you to consider if you're doing something wrong in how you are engaging here on Wikipedia. You seem to be walking down a path that eventually leads to exhausting the community's patience, and an overall ban. I think you should reflect on how you're working here and consider alternate approaches that don't push quite so many buttons.

That said, I don't see anything I am going to action right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudio: I have not been involved with the Eugenics in the United States article, and ceased editing the Planned Parenthood article after being informed of the sanctions placed there. Several editors involved worked towards and gained a consensus on the PP article regarding the alleged eugenics link, despite tendentious editing by yourself. The problem is that after the expiry of your block, the same tendentious pattern of editing has continued on Eugenics in the United States, with the exact same subject matter that agreement was formed upon on Planned Parenthood (specifically this). There is a continued demonstrated effort upon your part to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way, despite mass consensus not to do so. The results of a RFC on the topic at Talk:Planned Parenthood had many non-involved editors plainly stating they thought linking the two was inappropriate.

Going through the exact same arguments over sources that you put forth on Talk:Planned Parenthood to include your point of view on the matter is tendentious in the extreme. I, not sure how else to proceed, brought it here for cooler heads to review your behavior, lest I am misreading it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think re-interpreting the editing restrictions to include eugenics is slightly absurd, but it does seem appropriate that we should consider new community sanctions to also include eugenics topics.  - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As an example let us consider the diff mentioned above. Falcon8765 is arguing about the content that he (dis)quilifies as tendentious and an attempt from my part "to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way". That could be a content dispute but it should not be resolved here in the ANI with an attempt to ban the opposite editor, or am I wrong?. Meanwhile the cited content was removed from Eugenics in the United States, arguing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and I did NOT restore this content again. Nevertheless, last to mention that the alleged tendentious content is based on an article written by Margaret Sanger self. It was taken from this source (p.11) provided by Metallunchbox. The quoted expressions there used were exactly the same used by Sanger self. If Falcon finds that Sanger is connected to eugenics in a negative or a positive or a tendentious way, it is a Falcon's conclusion but it is nothing that I argued nor published; the very same diff provided by Falcon is an evidence. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither involved in the dispute at Eugenics in the United States, nor will I become involved. I have not suggested you be banned either. The content itself isn't the main problem, as has been stated. Your behavior on Planned Parenthood exhausted the patience of the editors attempting to work with you, and after that has been resolved, you are trying to start a dispute over the same content on the eugenics article too. I don't think it unreasonable to find this behavior frustrating and inappropriate. If another editor besides yourself thinks I am in the wrong, I will be happy to drop this and let you continue your quest. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is not a dispute at Eugenics in the United States. The article stands still. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ClaudioSantos here, the articles are relatively stable now and while there was the beginnings of an edit war, he chose not to pursue it beyond a few reverts. It is likely that this discussion had some effect on his editing behavior. I suggest we give him a pass for now and all of us can consider this discussion to be a serious warning to him that continued tendentious editing on this topic will likely result in sanctions.  - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that 9 of the 15 contributions that ClaudioSantos has made in this discussion have been revoked by Oversight. I assume these things happen for a good reason but is there something that we should know about those edits? Seems kind of strange to me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

146.179.213.110 -sockpuppet of Mikemikev

Resolved

• 146.179.213.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been been disrupting WP:AE for over 12 hours with abuse of all sorts. Please could an administrator block this account to prevent further disruption. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Shroffameen

Resolved

 – Blocked for two weeks for copyvio issues by Eagles247. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Shroffameen is a newbie, and I try to assume good faith, but his use of automated tools has been problematic. It'd be useful if an admin could restrict his access to Twinkle. He has made numerous inappropriate deletion requests both CSD and XfD ([121] [122] [123]) because, well, he has Twinkle and he's just gonna use it, gosh darn it!

He's not malicious or a vandal or anything like that, he just doesn't understand what he's doing; he's had a lot of people offer to explain it to him but he carries on regardless. Temporary removal of access to Twinkle until he understands deletion policy and so on would fix this. He can then either have a rather more patient user adopt him, but he shouldn't be doing CSD (and potentially biting other new users) or clogging up XfD with requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible any more. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two weeks for copyright violations before I saw this thread. If an extension of his block to indef is agreed upon, I have no problem, as I believe this user is too incompetent to edit on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to what Tom has already pointed out, Shroffameen has also made some questionable moves ([124] [125] [126]) and had several of his drive-by Twinkle taggings undone by established editors ([127] [128]). If it is no longer possible to blacklist people from Twinkle then I think that given the number of notices this person has been given ([129]) WP:COMPETENCE applies here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Major misunderstanding - it is perfectly possible to ban people from using Twinkle. An admin tells 'em - you may no longer use Twinkle. If they use Twinkle again, they get blocked. In fact, if someone uses Twinkle disruptiely, an admin can just block them, see Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Blacklist Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I would like to request that Shroffameen (talk · contribs) be banned from using Twinkle upon his release from his block, for the reasons pointed out above by Tom Morris (talk · contribs). I have a feeling he may end up back in block-land before long... —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Block review

I just blocked 72.181.213.221 (talk · contribs) for this which looked like a legal threat to me. I'd like a review of the block and if the consensus is it was not a legal threat, feel free to reverse it without consulting me. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The block looks good to me. We are choosing to link to a website, http://fsi-language-courses.org, which offers the FSI language courses for download and asserts them to be in the public domain. This would be our default assumption anyway for work of the US government. The IP seems to be unhappy with us considering them to be in the public domain. Maybe he should take that up with the owner of fsi-language-courses.org. I checked the PDF of one of the language manuals that the site provides for download. It says it is published by the State Department and it carries no copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The one caveat to that is a statement in one of the scanned manuals: "The DLIFLC may not have full rights to the materials it produces." The DLI, and the government in general, doesn't always indicate or acknowledge from whence a particular work originated. Still, if FSI Language Courses is asserting public domain due to government publication, it would likely be they who would receive the heavy end of the hammer if a copyright-infringement case were initiated regarding the DLI books and/or tapes. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Defamatory comment on Talk:Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures about subject. Should be deleted?

Hi,

This edit made defamatory and vulgar remarks about the subject of the article, a BLP. My immediate reaction is to delete it, but I'm exactly how to go about it. Can someone handle it asap, please? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went back to delete it myself, but User:Atomician had already done so. Perhaps an admin can delete the edit if he has time? Best,

 Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on "Pallet" article

Resolved

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallet

There is some blatant vandalism in that article, apparently from an actual pallet maker or shipping company.

Apologies if this is the wrong place for reporting; I'm neither an editor nor interested in becoming one. I've spent over 10 minutes now just trying to find out how to report or flag an article for review, with no success. The "talk" page of that article, as recommended in one place for vandalism reporting, is not editable to me.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.248.24 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam removed and spammer blocked. Thanks for reporting this. You should be able to use the "undo" function from the article history page to remove such edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin killed him with a forklift. –MuZemike 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ziiing. Atomician (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That must have left someone feeling a bit flat. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will transport them away... Atomician (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DEEP HURTING. Syrthiss (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive 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.

---

Circuit dreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Glrx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am continually running into the well-intentioned WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer and his lack of sources. He edits many articles in the area of electronics. Although he has some knowledge in the area, he often exceeds his expertise and writes material that is seriously flawed. His behavior has gone on for years.

1. He does not appreciate the requirement for WP:RS.
2. He almost never cites sources.
3. He makes extensive edits that he claims are intuitively obvious, so he claims they do not need sources.
4. He puts down his own thoughts about a subject
5. He invents his own terminology or misuses existing terms.
6. He likes to point out how one idea is connected to several others.
7. His stated goal is to share his insights with others.
8. When pressed for sources, he will use blogs or statistics from Google searches.
9. Many of his edits appear to be voyages of discovery. He becomes interested in a topic, so he thinks about it. He then adds his thoughts to the article on the topic.
10. He has been warned in many articles about the need for reliable sources and and not to use his original research.

Many other editors have had trouble with him. Unfortunately, it can take too much effort to police CD's edits. CD does a prodigous amount of editing (500 edits in 37 days), and those edits often have problems. While I was contemplating fixing his edits to Negative resistance, CD was off editing other articles.

User talk:Circuit dreamer has many discussions about similar problems.

User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:[130]

... Circuit Dreamer, you waste too much of our time by the amount of work you create for those of us who want the article to remain finite and well sourced. Cut out the essays, in both article and talk pages. ... Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience in designing a remedy for his behavior.

The primary goal is to prevent him from improperly editing electronics articles.

He has not been blocked previously. A remedy must be measured.

He has promised to use inline sources, but that promise has not been kept.

The problem has been going on for years.

Other editors are also not sure what the appropriate remedy should be. Mentoring or a ban on electronics articles has been suggested. I'm not sure that mentoring would work. Discussions with CD are time consuming. CD often latches on to his initial beliefs and won't let them go. A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.

His behavior has gone on too long. We must rein him in. CD must take WP's editing requirements seriously.

History of past problems

ANI archive Circuit dreamer (then User:Circuit-fantasist) brought an action against User:Zen-in on 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ANI/Archive570; The action concerned Zen-in's reverting CD's edits to the articles: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance User:Ecoman24 proposed some compromises. CD (19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)) promised the following: I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense. He has been reminded of these promises: User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder Also in that dispute, Zen-in has agreed not to revert CD. The relationship between CD and Zen-in is clearly strained. Talk:Negative resistance#Edits to the lead CD made this edit.[131] User:Oli Filth reverted and started the thread on the talk page. Oli Filth claimed the addition was so wrong it was not worth editing. CD defended his addition as starting point, but Oli Filth demanded reliable sources for it. CD developed his own classification of negative resistance and wanted to find sources for it later: Let's first build the classification; then we can find sources that second it (if there is such a need). Here is my proposal. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC) User:Spinningspark told him it has to work the other way around: It is completely the other way round, find sources first and then write from the sources. Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits CD inserted some material including some figures in Negative resistance some time ago, but his edits were removed for lack of consensus. After waiting some time, CD reinserted his figures and added new text. Around 2 July, 2011, SpinningSpark asked CD to self revert. Support from User:Johnuniq, User:Glrx, User:Zen-in, and User:Steve Quinn. CD found no support. CD did not revert his edits. (Steve Quinn recently backed them out.) Electronic oscillator Back in January 2011, CD added new material to Electronic oscillator [132] I reverted the edit.[133] CD restored.[134] I reverted [135]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus CD restored. [136]; edit summary spoke of "great truths" I reverted. [137]; edit summary specified unsourced material There was a discussion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Relaxation versus LC oscillations CD was using his thinking about relaxation oscillators. "I have been asking myself many times what the word "relaxation" means in this context." I opposed the material for lack of sources. User:Chetvorno classed it as WP:OR. CD then offered his revelations about LC and relaxation oscillators I opposed the addition of the material based on WP:RS and WP:OR. CD commented: As usual, the same idle talk again... Have you written [sic] my detailed explanations and examples in italic? Can you make (at least one) reasonable comment about the topic? Do you understand something from the written at all? And where have you seen some references to a wikibook material? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Skip forward to July in the same article. CD likes to use negative resistance interpretations. CD has been editing the negative resistance article. CD edits the Electronic oscillator article.diff The article is using both positive feedback and negative resistance. Using both approaches is confusing and unneeded. I edit out the negative resistance aspect. Positive feedback is common explanation of LC oscillator. Negative resistance is uncommon explanation. [138] CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[139] I revert [140] CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [141] The talk page discussion about the above edits is Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator. CD states his philosophy; it includes sharing his "insights about circuits" ... "in Wikipedia because of its highest Google rank." I pointed out that his insights were WP:OR. User:Chetvorno agreed with me. I revert using Chetvorno as a WP:3O to revert[142] Baker clamp Back in April 2011, User:Dicklyon and I searched for sources the Baker clamp. The term is used loosely, and we wanted some solid sources to identify what circuit configurations were properly Baker clamps. See Talk:Baker clamp#What is called a Baker clamp? Dicklyon then took out some unsourced tangents in the Baker clamp article.[143] CD restored the tangent for TTL.[144] I reverted.[145] The actions were discussed at Talk:Baker clamp#Unsourced tangents. CD wanted the tangents restored even though he knew there were no sources: We will certainly not find sources making these connections but this does not mean that we should not use them to explain to visitors odd circuit phenomena and odd circuits implementing them! These associations serve as "bridges" between apparently different circuit solutions. If it is not so clear, I can explain the written in more details! Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Neon lamp CD and I clashed again at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven. CD made several edits to the article diffs These edits used his terminology for negative resistance, for example S-shaped curve. His edits claimed the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge involved an avalanche. Gas discharges are nontrivial. There are at least 7 distinct discharge modes. The Townsend discharge is already an avalanche. Electrons are accelerated in a field, collide with molecules, and kick free other electrons in a cascade. It is a simple finite gain determined by the field and the path length; there is no feedback. The glow discharge (normal glow) is a breakdown. It is a positive feedback phenomena: each electron that leaves the cathode can ultimately causes >1 additional electrons to leave the cathode. Consequently, an arbitrary number of electrons become available. Sources vary about the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge. Some term the transition a "subnormal glow". It is clear that the distribution of ions is different between the Townsend discharge and the glow discharge. Many sources describe a neon tube in the saturation discharge (Geiger counter mode) and Townsend discharge conditions. Many sources describe a neon tube in the normal glow condition. It takes time for heavy positive ions to move. These slow ions must reorganize for a normal glow. During normal glow, there are distinct regions such as the cathode fall and the positive column. Most sources ignore the details and characterize the transition as a state change (ie, breakdown). The IV (current and voltage) characteristic may be graphed as a discontinous jump. Some sources refer to the transition as unstable. A few sources refer to it as a negative resistance region. (GE, for example, says it may be a negative resistance or unstable.) There are exotic sources that attempt to map the instability of the subnormal glow characteristics of a gas discharge. The IV characteristic may not be single valued. There are operating regions where the IV characteristic is not static but rather oscillates. I removed the reference to negative resistance, the S-shaped jargon, and confused claims. [146] CD did not revert, but did open discussion on the talk page (the link above). Those edits were his OR. He reinserted his diagrams. His diagrams don't have the load line found in the usual sources (such as GE), but they have his own terminology of "instant resistance". I objected to his OR and SYNTHESIS. Wien bridge oscillator The latest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research. Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; CD copied the material from an earlier discussion at Electronic oscillator. CD claims the material is difficult: I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all. Three years ago I managed to reveal how the more sophisticated LC circuit does this magic. Despite claims of being a challenge for a mere mortal, CD offers no sources. Zen-in objected to his characterizations CD claims he searched for and found the truth; he wants help to find more truth [147] I stated his OR was inappropriate. [148] Starting 29 July 2011: CD introduces three unsourced views of how the Wien bridge oscillator works. There are factual errors. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback. CD does add one source: a TI application note by Mancini and Palmer. CD does not understand the application note. He uses a quotation, but the quotation is out of context. His text does not describe any limiting process; the TI AN addressed the output voltage running into the rails. I removed CD's edits (2 August) diff and started editing the article CD reverted. diff I reverted diff claiming Zen-in as WP:3O I started talk page thread Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material CD reverted diff I cannot continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him. Zen-in cannot support my reverts because Zen-in has agreed to never revert CD's edits. I marked CD's added sections as disputed. I open WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator The discussion at NORN makes it clear that CD is providing his views. CD is asked for sources, but CD states: IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing. User:Dmcq states It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts. Not only is CD's material unsourced, it is seriously wrong. CD does not understand how oscillators work. User:Constant314 is continuing to engage CD at Talk:Wien bridge oscillator, but CD continues to show a failed understanding of basic oscillators. CD continues to believe the lamp resistance "must vary (quickly) as well in a response to voltage variations for a more principal reason - just to obtain sine oscillations". Sources such as Meacham (1938), Bauer (1949), and Strauss (1970) use the lamp to nearly balance the bridge; the sources expect the lamp resistance to vary slowly; the sources do not use the lamp to obtain the sine wave. CD does not understand the material, yet he believes he is competent to describe the material to others without the benefit of sources. WikiProject electronics edit war discussion about Circuit dreamer Others have had WP:RS and WP:OR problems with CD.

Bottom line is CD does not understand the requirement for reliable sources. His energy damages a lot of articles. His goals confilict with those of Wikipedia.

Glrx (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What he said; it is impossible to get articles on a trajectory of improvement relative to WP policies and guidelines when CircuitDreamer is actively editing. He's a smart guy and could contribute constructively if he wanted to, but he has made it clear that he doesn't care squat for WP policy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that CD's editing is disruptive. I have discussed the issue of sources and NPOV with him on numerous occasions but he fails to see the point or else deliberately ignores it. He is clearly in breach of the behaviour guidelines he agreed to the last time time he was here at ANI. CD is not only disruptive in articles but also on talk pages where he inserts large walls of text trying to persuade other editors through the force of his own intellect rather than with sources as if he were teaching his students. This tends to make the talk page unusable to other editors. I propose that community restrictions are placed on CD as follows

1. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed
2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above
3. These restrictions may be lifted in part or in whole if Circuit Dreamer finds a mentor acceptable to ANI and agrees to edit restricted pages only under his/her mentorship

SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark, subject to review if a suitable mentor is found. It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this, but I have been observing Circuit Dreamer's edits for some months and the descriptions above by Glrx, Dicklyon and SpinningSpark are accurate. Circuit Dreamer is enthusiastic and likable, and will listen to a discussion if it is hammered home by exhaustive repetition. However, the editor always reverts to form and soon begins adding their observations (WP:OR)—some accurate, some not, but all unsourced or poorly sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1&2. I don't see how a "mentor" would solve anything here (is there some policy/guideline related to this?). He was advised aplenty already. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic-ban, enforceable by a complete ban. I have not been involved with Circuit dreamer before this report, but reading over the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Wien bridge oscillator, it becomes clear he does not see a problem with his behaviour. In fact, he makes it clear that he himself believes it is helpful and will continue to add unsourced, and at times factually incorrect, material to articles. —Ruud 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I recall the previous ANI thread. Unfortunately I suspect there were some misunderstandings thanks to the input of a well-meaning but very inexperienced editor, whose incomplete view of the situation may have led CD to believe that their edits were only part of the problem rather than the entire problem. However I did believe we had an understanding at the end that CD would seek advice, work constructively with other editors, stick to mainstream published reliable sources, and keep their personal theories out of our articles. I'm disappointed that they've been unable to do this, leaving us with no choice but to exclude them from contributing to those articles at all. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, but I'm wondering if we might consider a 1 edit per article per day restriction on the talk pages? That way, if he does have good, sourced, content, other editors can add it. If not, of course, it can be rejected. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hold on I confess I haven't read everything, yet, there's a lot of material here, but are we really proposing a topic ban for an editor with a clean block log, and no sanctions? Isn't a band for someone who has exhausted dispute resolution measures? I barely see any dispute resolution attempts. Where's the conduct RfC? Where's the failed mentor? Where are the escalated blocks for failing to follow policy?--SPhilbrickT 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In practice violating WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:OR isn't an offence you get blocked for without going through AN/I or arbitration. A mentor isn't going to help unless the mentee accepts there is a problem. On the other hand, I do see a large number of respected editors having tried to resolve this dispute constructively and failed. —Ruud 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I note the evidence contains a link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Edit_wars, a discussion about which CD wasn't informed. Perhaps we don't have a rule against failing to inform involved parties when you start a conduct discussion on a Wikiproject talk page, but it sure would be the polite thing to do. A mentor might fail, but a prediction of failure is not, IMO, sufficient reason for skipping the step. I see no excuse for failing to start an RfC covering user conduct. While some may think the user should know there is concern over the editing, the official notice is very limited.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A procedural note... Arbitration usually only occurs after all avenues of dispute resolution are exhausted (at least, ArbCom is unlikely to take the time to hear a case until that point). A community ban can happen to anyone regardless of what, if anything, has been tried before. All that is required is a clear community consensus to ban, preferably done at the administrators' noticeboard (ANI after all being part of AN). Considering how difficult it can be to get a consensus on anything anywhere, that's not an insignificant requirement. Wikipedia:Ban#Community bans and restrictions has all of the details, but it's fairly simple. -- Atama頭 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know we have a formal rule that one should not go to Arbcom without exhausting DR. But an indefinite topic ban is at least as least as strong as anything ArbCom might propose (short of a complete ban, which looks, for all intents and purposes like the same thing.) Maybe we don't have to show that we've exhausted every single remedy short of a ban, but I see scant evidence that much has been tried beyond some discussion with the editor. Not a single RfC. One ANI thread, but that brought by CD, not against CD. No 3RR blocks. Not even a 3RR notice.--SPhilbrickT 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • CD clearly isn't your run-of-the-mill revert-warrior, nor would the people who interacted with him have liked to lower themselves to childish edit warring. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear case of disruptive editing going on here. What would an RfC accomplish apart from everyone agreeing his current behaviour is inappropriate? There are only two possible outcomes here: either CD voluntarily stops making inappropriate edits or he stops non-voluntary. He has so far made it clear he is not interested in the former. —Ruud 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
            • What an RfC would accomplish, assuming it goes the way you expect (and I think it probably would), is a clear statement to the editor that the editing style is not acceptable. If the RfC is closed by an admin with a finding, one could point to it an d say, you can no longer simply contend that your edits are fine. The community has spoken and they are not. Until that point, you have editors claiming his edits are flawed and CD saying they are not. If we can ban someone on that basis, we have a flawed process. I'm not following the aversion to an RfC. The editor has been doing this for years, it isn't like it has to be solved tomorrow. If you cannot deal with it even for one more day, propose a 30 day topic ban and a concurrent RfC, and I'll support. I think the editor has problems, and they are likely to be intractable, but I simply don't support an indefinite ban of an editor with zero sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • It should already be, but isn't, clear to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. The chance that an RfC will help him see the light is for all practical purposes zero. The energy that has to be put into this, almost completely symbolic, process isn't worth the potential, and certainly not the expected, gain. All CD would have to do to have his topic-ban lifted in the future is explain what is wrong with his current behaviour and give us some, not even much, assurance he won't continue. —Ruud 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop. What he does is to defend his actions and continue. This is his choice, a choice very easy to revise, and the community therefore shouldn't be burdened with spending more effort on him than it has already done (again, this problem has been going on for quite some time involving quite a few editors.) —Ruud 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sphilbrick, we're back here because Circuit dreamer hasn't followed the restrictions they agreed to when this issue first came to community attention nearly two years ago. Perhaps some background would help: as I recall from that ANI, he's got some concepts about electronics that are not mainstream. He saw Wikipedia as the ideal place for promoting these concepts, and from the above still does. This is why he's here; mentoring is unlikely to alter his very reason for editing. He's clearly exhausted the patience of those editors who work in the same area; I'm very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung. EyeSerene^talk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break for length

I do not support process for the sake of process, but if we have a process and it makes sense, we shouldn't declare that we can ignore process simply because we are frustrated. Note that the editor bringing the complain said, " A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.". Yet we are debating an unlimited topic ban for a well-meaning user with no sanctions. When you say he has failed to follow restrictions agreed to, do you mean

restrictions agreed to
padding
I will revise my edits removed by Zen-in and will correct them if there is a need; then, I will place these texts first on the according talk pages to discuss them with wikipedians. I will invite Zen-in to discuss them and will await his answers. If he has adduced reasonable arguments, I will correct my edits again. Then, I will insert them in the main articles. I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense.

or

restrictions not agreed to
padding
Circuit-fantasist not to make any edit in article space, other than uncontroversial maintenance, without providing an inline citation to a reliable source. Circuit-fantasist not to directly insert non-vector graphics into article space. He mus first have his graphics processed by WP:GL/I into svg format or some other format that other editors can easily correct and amend. Zen-in is not to revert any edit by C-F. He may correct and amend such edit but he may not delete them in their entirety.

If you mean the one's agreed to, I'd like to know which diffs. I see a seas of diffs above, but it is a laundry list, I don't see something nice and neat like "user agreed to not do X, here's a diff showing he did X". I'm not saying it isn't here, but this is not the best organized complaint I've ever read.--SPhilbrickT 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're requesting other community members to spend more energy on this, at least have the decency to read through the, not unreasonably large amount, of discussion here and preceding the AN/I report. You're also pulling a bit of a strawman here. The main problem is that CD refuse to abide by WP:V and WP:OR. He doesn't really have a choice of agreeing to this or not, he simply has to. So far he refuses. The consequence of this is that cannot continue to be a part of this community. No amount mentoring or dispute resolution will change this. Only his choice to abide by the five pillars will. —Ruud 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now read the NORN exchange. I really do sympathize with those who are convinced that CD doesn't get it, but CD agreed to some editing restrictions, and believes he is following them. Unfortunately, the agreed to restriction has a hole big enough for a truck: "I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense." I agree with those who thinks his notion of common sense isn't consonant with what WP believes doesn't need citing. But I do not support banning someone for having a different view, without any formal finding that the editor has violated community rules.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I should read all the material. I'm trying, but so far, of everything I've read, I've yet to see a bannable offense. Can you cite a specific diff, or is it an accumulation? --SPhilbrickT 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the continuing insertion of unsoured, unidiomatic and factually incorrect material into multiple articles, while several editors have requesting him to stop doing that. No single occurrence of this would warrant a topic-ban, it's the continuing nature of this, even after repeated explanations of why this is inappropriate and requests to stop.

Argeeing to "some" editing restrictions and "him beleiving" to be following them really is not sufficient. He actually needs to actually abide by WP:V and WP:OR. Until he explicitly agrees to do this (as he has explicitly stated not to be going to do so) and actually does this he cannot continue to edit. —Ruud 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that his editing is unacceptable and if not changed, would mean he isn't welcome to edit at all. We simply disagree about what interim steps are needed. I would be surprised to learn that this community has ever topic banned an unsanctioned editor. This doesn't look like the first place to start. Or tell me that my assumptions are flawed and we do this all the time.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A topic-ban is a form of sanction and one has to be the first. Most problematic editors tend to be a little unstable and get a few 3RR blocks before they exhaust the community's patience. A few are better at restraining themselves though, or simply edit at a slower pace. A particular editor in an arbitration case I was involved in ended up banned for a year and topic-banned indefinitely without having had any prior blocks or sanctions imposed on him. His behaviour, or more accurately the amount of energy required to deal with him, did drive away at least three valuable contributors from the project. —Ruud 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. I've read through a few of the talk page discussions, and it's pretty clear that Circuit Dreamer is editing disruptively. The topic ban/mentoring arrangement above may help him find his footing here and contribute productively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. It is clear that these problems have been problems for a long time, they have been pointed out before, they are not going away, and they are highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have always believed that CD's edits, however well-intentioned, are out of place in Wikipedia. When I reverted several of his edits almost 2 years ago they all contained similar graphics as this- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_resistance&oldid=442011666; as well as confusing long-winded analysis. The previous versions of these articles were well written, easy to follow, and had adequate figures. The sheer volume of his edits make it difficult for the dozen or more editors who have been cleaning up after him to keep up. It also makes it difficult to grasp the full scope of his activity. I would suggest reading some of the comments on CD's talk page. impolite statement on Gyrator discussion_page is one of many times CD has been rude on discussion pages. Following this are several unheeded warnings from Spinningspark. After Dicklyon reverted CD's edits on the Transistor Transistor Logic page, CD posted the following comment: "Dicklyon, IMO you have gone too far in cleaning up the interfacing section. These situations are very important for TTL circuit design; so, they deserve to be included in the article. This morning, I posed the problem to my students on the whiteboard in the laboratory of digital circuits (see the picture on the right). They tried to find answers to my questions in Wikipedia but they did not manage since the answers were removed:) Well, let's discuss these considerations here. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)" (copied to CD's talk page here) I believe this clearly reveals a conflict of interest. On November 5 2010 CD was invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts after a discussion page interaction with another editor. CD did not attend. I support a permanent topic ban. It should have been done several years ago. Zen-in (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that CD's editing style is unacceptable. But I concur with SPhilbrick. Editors have been tangling with CD for years; what's wrong with spending another month on an RfC, in the interest of proper procedure, giving him one more chance to avoid being blocked, and avoid setting the bad precedent of a premature use of sanctions? --Chetvorno^TALK 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's wrong? Wasting yet another month, just so the proper sacrifice is made to the Gods of Process? Process for process' sake is pointless. As far as "precedent", CD will not be the first, nor will he be the last, to be indef'd, topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned without the bother of a pointless Rfc. An Rfc is editors trying to show the problem editor the error of his or her ways. This has already been done, by many editors, over an extended period of time. If you want to see them all in one place, I suggest you start digging through histories and compile your own. I'm with EyeSerene, above: I am "very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung." As it is, we have a supermajority for the ban, and only yourself and SPhilbrick disagree, and - this is important - NOT because you think CD will learn and improve from an Rfc, which is the only reason to have one, but "for the sake of process" or "for the sake of procedure". I cannot express how much I think this is wrong-think. I do not understand the worship of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • • I'm not a fan of process for process' sake. There are times to skip process and do something out of process. This is not one of them. This guy has been editing for years. Why has there never been an RfC? It's too late to redo the last couple years, but an RfC would take a fraction of the energy spent on interacting with him in useless ways. I don't think the first sanction on someone should be an indef. When an unruly kid in a class has been told many, many times that their behavior is a problem, you go through escalation and send him to the principle's office. You don't send him tot he electric chair. That's exactly what is happening here. Every single response by editors has been the equivalent of "Johnny, stop that!". Now you propose the electric chair, because you don't think a stern talking to by the principle will work. Maybe it won't. But the proposal here is wrong. Do the right thing, not the wrong thing. --SPhilbrickT 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I must say I'm with KillerChihuahua on this one. Your analogy doesn't work, on several levels: this ban isn't an electric chair, but more crucially still, this editor isn't a schoolboy, and an RfC isn't "a stern talking to by the principal". This is clearly an intelligent adult, and his kind of disruption is not that of an unruly kid. He's in rational control of what he's doing. If he didn't get the message after so many clear warnings, why would we expect he'd get the message in an RfC, which basically is just the same warning given in a more organized way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Concur. In my view this isn't premature sanction, this is sanction that should have happened 18 months ago. If I'd known that we hadn't resolved this in the previous ANI report, CD wouldn't have a clean block log now. EyeSerene^talk 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, while my analogy is not perfect, it is not as far off as you suggest. In the world of Wikipedia, for an editor interested in a single subject, an indef is practically an electric chair. If that's slightly over the top, let's use the exact analogy, life in prison with possibility of parole if you kowtow in exactly the right way. An RfC is a stern talking to by an admin, if it uncovers problematic editing, and is closed by an admin, with such a finding.

As for clear warnings, I don't think they are so clear. I've read dozens of pages linked in the evidence (not all yet), and I'm not finding the clear warnings. The place for warnings is the editor's talk page. I see a warning from 2009 that if certain behavior isn't changed, there would be a request for admin action. A topic ban is not admin action. Let's list all the times the user has been warned that they face a possible topic ban if they do not change. I count zero. How many do you count?--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You seems to be in favour of explaining ad enforcing rules as one would do with a minor. Carefully explaining rules, the sanctions and punishment for not following them, increasing pressure over time. In such a pedagogically correct procedure, you should also always ask the minor to explain to you what he did wrong and apologize. However, CD has so far made no attempt to do so. (Although it should be noted that I disagree this is the correct way to treat intelligent adults, they have a strong will and such methods are therefore ineffective.) —Ruud 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the function of an analogy, so let's talk about Wikipedia. We rarely ban people without warning them that they might get banned if they don't change their behavior. There are zero such warnings on the editor's talk page (if some were removed, I will happily reach a different conclusion.) You can't bear to wait 30 days to do an RfC? Leave a final warning that the next edit in violation of policy will result in a topic ban. That will take less time than it will take to respond to this post. I don't think such a warning is fair, but it is a tiny bit better than banning without warning.--SPhilbrickT 15:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. We have difficulty dealing with situations like these, where a seemingly intelligent editor refuses to participate in community norms yet absorbs significant community resources. I know nothing of the scientific subject matter germane to this discussion and am not a participant in the underlying conflict, but after reading some of the background and particularly this talk page thread it's apparent to me that Circuit dreamer is unable to successfully collaborate in this content area (at a minimum). Normally I would advocate for a user conduct RfC to begin with, but the pattern here seems long and the efforts of other editors to engage with CD seem ongoing and genuine, to little effect. As such I understand the reluctance to run this whole matter through an RfC--perhaps largely for the sake of process--when the problems are already so well documented and long term in nature. A topic ban is a fairly mild step and one which is very much reversible if Circuit dreamer is able to take a different approach to editing. Given that action is clearly needed, a topic ban seems to me to be the best outcome for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way is a topic ban a "fairly mild step"? I understand that we like editors who are willing to work in multiple areas, but the fact is, many editors are attracted to Wikipedia because they have a particular area of expertise and want to improve articles in that area. An indef topic ban for such a person is the virtual equivalent of a community ban. Why aren't you discussing 30 day topic bans, if only to make it clear to the editor that the community is serious? --SPhilbrickT 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly naive to think a time-limited topic-ban will be effective. All we need is CD to explicitly acknowledge he will be playing be the rules. Once he does that, I'm pretty sure everyone will be in favour of giving him a second chance and lifting the topic-ban. If he continues to insist his behaviour is perfectly acceptable, then the "indefinite" topic-ban will effectively be an "infinte" one. If we give him a time-limited topic-ban he will surely not acknowledge this and we'll be having yet another discussion about him next month. If he truly cares about Wikipedia, he would have listened a long time ago. The fact that he didn't is pretty strong evidence he is primary here to find a larger audience for his, not entirely mainstream, vision on explaining electronics. In my opinion we should strive to make Wikipedia a nice place for good and productive editors and not deteriorate it by trying keep aboard each and every misguided editor with potential, that they have no interest in to use for the good of the project. Until this discussion gets closed, he still a choice he can make out of is own free will. I don't see why we should resort to using psychological tricks and social pressure to get him to do something we may want, but he doesn't. —Ruud 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

After the 10/09 AIC AN/I an effort by several editors was made to work with CD. That had some positive results at first but it eventually deteriorated to the present situation. In retrospect maybe we were all too patient with him and spent too much time trying to contain the problem without resorting to administrative action. Warnings were given to CD by Spinningspark and others. They are buried somewhere in the discussion pages. Zen-in (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by initial reporter.

I appreciate the reluctance of EyeSerene, the extended defense by SPhilbrick, and Chetvorno's concurrence. An indefinite ban is a big step, and perhaps it is an extraordinary one. For what it's worth, I did do a 3RR in January 2011. See User talk:Circuit dreamer#Relaxation osc. He's an experienced editor, so I did not template him. I regret that I didn't know about WP:DE until recently; I would have reported him sooner. If there had been earlier reports that led to some small sanctions, maybe CD would have corrected his behavior. If CD had persisted, then the current situation would be clearer.

Ruud's comment, "To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop", does something clever. It shifts the burden from the editors who have to deal with CD's edits to CD himself. CD must show he gets it before any more energy is spent.

In following the current discussion, I looked at Circuit dreamer's user page. CD is sophisticated. He teaches at a University. He may not be a professor, but he's an academic and should know the value of references. He is, however, opposed to conventional methods. His user page has some surprising links. His informal bio link states:

... I do not accept the traditional abstract approach favored in technical education: formal analysis of ready-made circuit solutions in their complete, final and perfect form. Instead, I rely mainly on my imagination and intuition.

In his philosophy link, he rejects the mathematical models and explanations in "classical textbooks on electronics". He apparently rejects the notion of traditional sources.

Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page.[149] It has a lot on the failure to use or cite sources and CD's misunderstanding of the oscillator. CD believes a diode-limiter circuit is a Wien bridge oscillator. In my post, I explain that a source, Strauss, distinguishes the limiter circuit from a Wien bridge oscillator.

After posting this thread at AN/I, I notified CD via his talk page at 02:21, 11 August.[150]

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[151]

I recommend reading that reply in the context of the current debate (e.g., the 10 points at the top of the thread). Ignore the insult, but consider his position in the context of his informal bio and philosophy. CD does not care about sources. Anything that is obvious to him is true. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. A Google search trumps any reliable source.

Although a topic ban is more extreme than I am comfortable with, its effect of shifting the burden to Circuit dreamer is appropriate.

Glrx (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A word on mentoring

Some here (a minority) have thought a topic ban extreme for a good faith editor. That is why I have also proposed the possibility of mentorship - to give CD a way out if he really wants it. Others (also a minority) have thought mentorship will achieve nothing with CD. However, it does no harm to offer it. CD must first find an acceptable mentor willing to take this on and to my mind the first thing any acceptable mentor is going to ask for is an acknowledgment that past behaviour is unacceptable and an undertaking to correct it. If CD is not willing to do this then he should not really be editing Wikipedia and the topic ban was justified. If he is willing he can be kept on a very should leash, at least at first - if I were mentoring him I would require quality sources for each and every edit for instance. SpinningSpark 15:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

how about a different tack

scuse typing - right hand in splint are all his eduts useless or just the unsourced ones? is the promlem just the lack of source, or that he is making it up as he goes along? how about a nice simple sanctiom - not to add any new content without a source. no source - he can put on talkpage see if anyone can find sourve, but not argue if its true, commonsense etc. if he breaks, can block escalsting for breach. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While fine in theory, rather than us finding ways to add to the workload of good editors who have learned Wikipedia's procedures, it should be up to CD (who has been editing since June 2006, see first edit) to offer something. Is there any part of the many previous discussions with which they now agree (however begrudgingly)? Do they have a suggestion for how they might avoid disruptive editing? What sources do they think would be suitable for text added to electronics articles? Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a really different tack

I'll fork WP onto my own server, to donate it for use as an alternate universe Wikipedia, AUWP. It will be proxied from within WP's traffic management. Instead of blocking users here at the Real Wikipedia (RWP), we simply shunt (or banish, if you will) both registered and IP users to AUWP, unbeknownst to them. There, they can edit at will amongst themselves, in utter freedom and tranquility. Of course, a few supervisory editors (keepers) should check in and revert the occasional "off policy" edit, just to keep up appearances. All other normal Wikipedia processes, such as News, DYK, auto-revert bots, etc, will continue apace, piped in from RWP, but not out. It will just be a very, very quiet place where only formerly disruptive editors munch and graze, graze and munch, perhaps never wondering, "Where's everybody gone?" (I can only hope that someone didn't already think of it, and that I haven't already been banished to AUWP. Is this real life?) --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or is it just fantasy? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know that you're dreaming! Your Lord and Master (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Wikiversity? –MuZemike 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuance

I was absent for three days. I was in the country in a place where there was not internet (fortunately, there are still such beautiful places in my country:) I had time to consider the situation and to draw some conclusions. Please, give me an hour to become familiar with the discussions above and then I will suggest a settlement by compromise. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have finally read the discussions but now it is too late (2.5 hours after midnight) and I am too tired, too excited and too moved to comment them. Thank you for the attention. Sorry if I have wasted your time. You have helped me to regain my faith in Wikipedia. Three days ago I had the feeling I hated Wikipedia; now I love it again. Have I a day to compose a noteworthy comment? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. We'd like to hear your response. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On mentoring

I am willing to mentor Circuit dreamer, if that's an option that Cd and the rest of the community are happy to pursue. However:

• I'm not a professional EE, though I do have a degree in physics and a job in IT, so I can keep up with the tech stuff.
• Obviously any mentoring agreement would come with some strings attached. I can make some suggestions but ultimately it's the community's job to agree on the conditions; I'm not a dictator.

Some likely conditions are:

• Cd agrees to work with the mentor in editing electrical/electronic content. Initially, changes to electronics articles should be drafted in userspace; if/when the mentor is happy that progress is being made, then Cd may work directly on articles again.
• Any edit in article-space which adds content on electronics (or changes the meaning of existing content) must have an inline ref which supports the new content.
• The mentor will try to guide Cd on matters of policy; in particular, verifiability and original research. However, Cd has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that any edits they make are in line with policy.
• Cd, and the rest of the community, acknowledge that the past behaviour was problematic, and that a relapse is likely to lead directly to a topic ban with no further chances or excuses.
• If the mentor feels that Cd is not following the mentorship agreement, they bring the issue back here.
• This mentoring agreement should have a definite endpoint. Maybe 2 months? After 2 months the mentor comes back to the community (on AN/I or elsewhere) and we can review whether the problem has been solved; either the mentoring agreement ends positively (Cd continues editing), or negatively (topic ban) or it's unclear (mentoring agreement renewed for a while). This date could be brought forward if the mentor thinks Cd has done really good work.

What do y'all think? Comments / criticisms? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very generous of you to make this offer. Essentially the same arrangement was tried after the last AN/I, but for a longer period of time. The editors involved in this earlier mentoring effort are very experienced EEs. You might want to read their comments above so you will know what to expect. Zen-in (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I did a quick search earlier and didn't see that earlier deal. (The change of name doesn't help either...). I fear the wording may not have been watertight.

If the community is still favourable, I would still be happy to go with mentoring if clear lines are drawn for the benefit of all concerned, and if it's clear that there are no more second chances.

There is clearly a very persistent problem, but somebody has to do something. I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban - but if the community wants to go down that avenue, I'll happily stand back. Alternatively, people might prefer to take some other DR path. It's good to have more options, though; mentoring is another option on the table. Either mentoring succeeds - delivering a favourable outcome for both Cd and the rest of wikipedia - or it fails and delivers the same topic ban that folk have been pushing for above. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban. Really? Every member of the community who has previously has dealings with CD and has come to this page has declared in favour of it as far as I can see. Anyway, I am cool with mentoring as long as the mentor is allowed to set strict conditions, intends to so do, and the community agrees that breaches of the mentor's conditions can be followed by admin blocks. I am tempted to list what I think the mentor's conditions should be, but until CD actually agrees to mentoring that is pointless and he has shown no sign either now or in the past that he is willing. SpinningSpark 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never a formal arrangement or deal to mentor CD after the 10/09 AN/I. However a few editors did make an effort to work on improving some electronics articles with CD. This Emitter coupled logic talk page documents this effort from 10/09 - 12/09. The goal was to add more inline citations, as can be seen by reading this discussion. Examining the edit history of the ECL page will show continuous edit warring after this. Other editors tried working with CD in the Operational amplifier applications page. This [talk page] is worth reading. There are several cases where CD added material that had no inline citations and that simply appeared to be made up. These edits were reverted by other editors and their reasons for doing this were given. Their intent was to mentor CD and to help him learn how to edit as directed by the AN/I. The result has just been more edit-warring. The credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia's electronics pages has improved in the last 2-3 years but at what cost? Why is it necessary to have continuous edit wars? Zen-in (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just recently become aware of CD, but I recognize the pattern of this type of editing. There is a continual tendency to opt for promoting and presenting original thought while eshewing reliable sources. Specifically, (as noted in the drop down box above) he prefers to picture how circuits work in his imagination, and relying on that instead of reliable sources. Feedback from others who edit according to Wikipedia standards appears to have no effect. There is a continous wearing down of other editors. I read where editors who were part of this project have left --- Quote: --- [152] "... and it appears that other editors have left the field...".

This editor has already effectively hi-jacked one article [153], [154] before finally being restored to the community. (Also please edit history of that article).

This mentoring is a generous offer. I am sorry to say that I am skeptical that it will work. However, I accept the above terms pending community consensus at this ANI. However, there must be a time where CD accepts responsibility for their own editing behavior. If mentoring is not going to happen then I also support an indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think further discussion here is premature. First we need to hear back from CD, who hasn't edited this past weekend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for natural resolving of the problem

Sorry that I have delayed my response to your comments here. The reason was that I have begun preparing an open letter to Jimmy Wales where I pose a general question about Wikipedia and the role of its administrators, "Should they stimulate mediocrity and oppress creativity of Wikipedia editors?" Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to hear about the triad of extremely dogmatic, scholastic and orthodox wikipedians forming this plot against Circuit dreamer? Step right up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution. In the very beginning, I would like to say that there is a more natural and painless way of resolving the problem than banning me. I mean that I have to ban myself from Wikipedia editing since this year I have to finish my dissertation about applying this heuristic approach to understanding, presenting and inventing electronic circuits (I have spent five years for Wikipedia and now I have to spare some time to my life work). So, instead the suggested indefinite or topic ban, I agree some kind of suspended ban. I realize that the big problem is my massive blocks of edits. So I promise to refrain from such manner of editing and to keep only more episodic editing. If I do not respect my promise, you may impose some kind of ban to me. The trap. I regret that Grlx had no patience with my last edit about Wien oscillator since it was my last massive initiative for this year. It is interesting that just he was the one who provoked my imagination to begin thinking about how sine oscillations conceive in an RC oscillator and thus I arrived at Wien bridge oscillator: "...I'm not sure that a phase shift oscillator is properly a harmonic oscillator. It generates a sinewave, but I'm not sure that is enough. It does not have a typical resonator... Those ideas fit with one of your comments about relaxation oscillators not having a resonance. Does that mean a phase shift oscillator is a relaxation oscillator? It doesn't have a switch element, but it does have negative feedback..." Reading these decently said words I had the feeling that Grlx showed an interest and curiosity... and he wanted to consider this topic in all frankness... and I began developing the topic... and thus I fell into the trap... The only way to clarify the situation is to say, not to save the truth... the home truth... as it is recorded in the history. Early Wikipedia edits. I joined electronics Wikipedia in 2006 with great enthusiasm. I was noted that Wikipedia articles in this area were formal and theoretic; there had not introductory sections saying what the idea actually was. Thus I came with clear and obvious purpose - to reveal the basic ideas behind circuits by clear and obvious explanations based only on basic electricity and electronics laws, human intuition and common sense. I posed them on talk pages and began waiting for wikipedian response. Alas... there was no response... Then I began creating and filling the missing introductory article sections starting with this unlucky Negative resistance. Then some of the heroes above appear and began pressing me for sources. I tried to explain that such primary explanations cannot be sourced (if I had to cite, I had to place links to Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws) and suggested to discuss these elementary and more than obvious truths... No one heard me... I met awful people - a kind of evil genius that only wanted to remove me (from articles, from talk pages, even from history pages if they could...) One of them, I can cite his name, advised me to stay and to teach students in Sofia where should be my place... Believe me, before joining Wikipedia, I had never seen such people! And what was more surprising for me, imagine they were even tolerated! I have never understood this psychological Wikipedia phenomenon - to tolerate, encourage and even instigate mediocre, vain and sterile people and at the same time, to keep down, to oppress thinking, productive and creative people! I began gradually realizing the sorry truth about this handful of people inhabiting this area - they did not understand circuits; they knew circuits but they did not understand them! What they were and what they are! Wikibooks. Instead to be improved, my edits were brutally removed and I was banished. Then I established Circuit idea and created a lot of circuit stories. But I had a dull time there. I needed hot discussions and two years later, I returned to Wikipedia. I had already accumulated some edit experience and began creating quite pretty articles. Present Wikipedia edits. In the last two years, I revealed, in the introductory article parts, the fundamental ideas behind such legendary circuits as RTL, Diode logic, TTL, ECL, Latch, Gyrator, Schmitt trigger, Multivibrator, Differential amplifier, Operational amplifier (the internal op-amp structure). I created and completely finished Miller theorem and finally, I reorganized and structured the poor present Negative resistance to obtain this unhappy article. I assume personal responsibility to say that all that is written by me in these articles is the very simple, obvious and clear truth about these circuits. It can be immediately seen if only look at the written; it can be immediately verified (if do not believe me, place here my assertion and I will immediately answer to you). It is a truth that can be explained to and will be realized by every ordinary human being. It can be explained (of course by using appropriate analogies, metaphors and relations) even to a curious 6-year boy (Einstein)! This is the power of my intuitive, qualitative explanations; this is the reason to not cite them (only them, not at all). It will be unnatural, comic and absurd to cite every sentence in Wikipedia; to not think, to not express even the elementary thought... this will make normal people laugh... Only people with dried, formal, sterile and damaged minds can do it... will look for and dig up ready-made and cut-and-dried phrases, and will try to assemble an article from them! These people have gone too far respecting Wikipedia policy and have reverting NOR from useful and positive to oppressing and negative thing (like NIC:) You can see remarkable examples of this approach in Wien bridge, at the end of Wien bridge oscillator talk and in the contribution pages of extremely orthodox wikipedians. And yet, it revolves! I would like to say some words to the triad of extremely dogmatic, scholastic and orthodox wikipedians forming this plot against me. The naked truth is that you cannot, do not want and will never accept me; for you I am just not one of you... I am nobody for you... just because I am not a resident of United Kingdom or I do not work at Silicon Valley or I do not teach at Berkeley... This is the sorry reason because of that you hate me and you do your best to banish me forever from Wikipedia... I stay before you as before the Holy Office and I must persuade you that "it revolves" ("there is true negative resistance") to not burn out me... About you. You (the triad and your likes patronized by you) are different but still there is something common connecting you - you do not understand circuits; you know circuits but you do not understand them! You are clever but wicked and underhand... you are evil genius... I prepare an open letter to Jimmy Wales to ask him if this was his idea when he established Wikipedia - (administrators) to stimulate mediocrity, stupidity and meanness, and to stamp creativity? I have 7200 contributions and in each of them I have written something useful, some simple, obvious and clear truth about circuits; please (here I mean the other wikipedians, not the triad), browse through them to see if you have some notion about circuits. Then look at the scanty 650 contributions of this person to see what he has created in Wikipedia through years. You will see... nothing... just nothing. If you have found something, please place it here to see... but I am absolutely sure you will not find anything. Then I ask people patronizing such paradoxical persons, "What do they do in Wikipedia? Why do encourage them to continue behaving in this nonsensical, useless and foolish way? Is this your function in Wikipedia?" I will pose this question in my open letter... (to be continued...) Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've collapsed this rather than deleting it, but it's little more than a series of blatant, paranoid personal attacks. if that makes me one of "the triad" then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Chris, your golden triangle ring is in the mail, just FYI. We didn't forget you, we just had some problems with the jeweler getting the size wrong. Anyway, I think the diatribe above underscores exactly why people are tired of dealing with CD. I personally don't have any prior interactions, and haven't weighed in above in regards to the ban, but I think I'm understanding why so many people support it. -- Atama頭 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Balkans edit warring

Resolved

 – Edit warring parties blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Operation Corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The death of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are the subjects of an ongoing edit war. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours for edit warring, Alan.Ford.Jn (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week for edit warring unsourced allegations into an article after an ARBMAC warning. IP also given ARBMAC warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

98.210.215.121 on Oakland and San Francisco articles

IP 98.210.215.121 continues disruptive editing on the Oakland, California page. Originally posting long-winded diatribes on the talk page, disagreeing with any language was perceived as negative toward the city, and making travel-guide like edits, the user is now engaged in edit-warring, section-blanking with unexplained removal of content, and reverting all good-faith restorations of said unexplained removal. He/she has already been warned on their talk page. The user is currently on a tear this evening, edit-warring with several editors on the page, as the history page will show [155].--Chimino (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP is calling me conflicted and manipulative, supposedly in bed with San Francisco interests writing against the city of Oakland (my home town!)

I don't know what good this noticeboard entry will do, but the person behind the IP is editing from a mistaken understanding of what motivates other editors. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Same pattern on the San Francisco talk page[156], e.g. "you want to protect San Francisco's tourist image [by] hiding the crime.... Your total dismissal of the serious crime problems in San Francisco in order to protect San Francisco's tourist image is rather appauling [sic] and shocking."[157] In reality all I had done was explain on the Talk page why crime statistics are generally reported per capita rather than per square mile and try to help regarding finding sources, I had not "hidden" or deleted anything; I replied asking the IP to read WP:AGF but then saw someone else had already done that.[158] The IP also has a history of apparent vandalism.[159]TVC 15 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi and Palestinian edits

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is back, calling rabbis by the name "Palestinian". He has started again with a massive addition of this controversial epithet to the articles of many rabbis. In the recent past his edits in this field have met with extremely heavy protests, on his talkpage, the Rfc on Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and the following Cfd. For this reason all his categories with "Palestinian rabbis" were deleted. Note that this author is currently blocked per WP:ARBPIA fromediting all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is already notorious for his controversial edits, which have in the past brought him to WP:ANI more than once. Note also that Palestinian rabbi is still at Afd. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

second thread merged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has removed “Palestine” under an unusual pretence: [160]. Please fix as I do not want to get dragged in to this again. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps merge this with the section above...? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I being reported on WP:ANI for 1 edit??? In addition, is there something in my explaining editsummary Chesdovi disagrees with? History has no POV, and my edit reflects historical facts.Debresser (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not retort by calling your edits ridiculous, but your edit that supposedly “reflects historical facts” has left a populous and significant city in no region or county. Forget about facts, that is vandalism. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? There was no country added to Gaza in this article until you added it today, and nobody felt the worse for it for over 5 years! Please, be realistic when using terms like "vandalism". Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser thinks articles are in a perfect state and no is allowed to edit them, especially if edits do not agree with his sentiment. Debresser has no rationale to remove Palestine. This seems obvious. In the past, he himself said that if no other editor took it up, he would agree to it. Now look at what he is doing. Forget about reneging on his word, he is vandalising pages. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering topic-banning the both of you. This has gone on for far too long, and neither of you is playing a constructive role in this affair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support That they are shooting at each other over there (=the territory before WW2 known as Palestina) is bad enough, I don't want that war over here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, we are not shooting at each other. Chesdovi is Jewish also, if I am correct. :) Debresser (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is would you would shoot a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

causa sui (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fut, what am I suppose to do? I bring it here precisly beacuse I do not want to be banned! Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Why would I be topic-banned? Chesdovi is the one creating 7-8 "Palestinian" categories (all deleted per Cfd), creating articles like "Palestinian rabbis" (now at Afd), and adding the term "Palestinian rabbis" to articles. Clearly he is trying to push his POV on a consensus status which does not agree with him. I am doing something very contructive, forcing him to abide by consensus. Now him I'd be happy to see banned for his disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You dont "force" on wiki, you discuss. You should heave learnt that by now. If Deberser does not like my edits he should discuss first, not revert then discuss. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) As far as I'm concered, I will not edit is this area until the Afd closes. If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages. Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) <reply to previous post, editconflict> And WP:BRD? I remember discussing with you. In the mean time you continued with your edits on other pages. Sorry, but the only way to deal with you is take you to WP:ANI right away, or have you banned. In view of your history, here and elsewhere, the latter seems the correct course of action to me. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) WP:DRNC. This is different. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Please, I do not revert for the sake of reverting. There is a consensus against your edits. Haven't you noticed that yet? Debresser (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) On what do you base this consensus? Half, if not more people agreed at the Rfc and Cfd that the term is valid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I quote from the closing comment I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces QED. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That is why I intend to go to DRV in due course. Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Admins, please notice Chesdovi's reply just now "If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages." He is clearly not willing to abide by WP:BRD, or consensus. No articles used the term "Palestinian rabbi" prior to Chesdovi's edits. Because nobody considers them such. Chesdovi just now stated that he will continue pushing his tendentious editing against consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC) If the article stays, it shows that the term has the consensus needed. Please note that Debrseer's assertion that no articles had used the term before my addtion is false. Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It does not show that you can call other people that. Just because we have an article homosexuals does not mean you can call people that. :) Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC) What it does mean is that if we have an article on a Polish Pope we can like it to Polish Popes. I will repeat that the term was used in numerous articles before I added it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC) For the both of you: "where two are fighting, have two guilt." (waar twee vechten, hebben twee schuld). Night of the Big Wind talk 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) NotBW: What is going to happen to Palestine at Israel ben Moses Najara? Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Nightof the Big Wind. You can't sell generalities here. Nor could you sell them to Dutch marines of Rotterdam, trying to defend their country against Nazi invasion in 1940. I am clearly trying to defend Wikipedia against the massive onslaughts in several namespaces of an editor with such huge POV problems that he is already banned per WP:ARBPIA and his edits are heavily protested as soon as he shows up. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Aha, there is the smokescreen again! Another attempt to defuse the situation by steering it into the wrong way... Night of the Big Wind talk 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Huh? Wasn't it you posting some rather irrelevant and annoying generality here? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It is a fact, my friend. You two are fighting over something, and neither of you is innocent. And I fail to see any relationship between this Palestina/Israel-struggle and the Battle of Rotterdam. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Forget about it. Not important here. If you like, remind me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Debresser had consistantly denied it has anything to do with the I/P conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I'm beginning to think your edits here and there stem from the same POV. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I ask Debresser to please make sense. He has consistently used each and every opportunity to publicise my previous block and bans. Yet he doesn’t seem to know what they were for! (They were seen by others as being POV in favour of pro-Israeli interests.) He cannot have it both ways. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this

This is roughly the dozenth occasion in which you two have reported each other to ANI in the last three months, almost always resulting in a thread which consists of you two continuing your battles with each other without any administrative intervention whatsoever (or usually even any participation from other editors). Completely ignoring the actual content dispute at the heart of this, there seems to be a requirement a general ban on you reporting each other to ANI. It's pointless and aggravating and distracts other editors who might be using ANI for, like, something likely to result in immediate administrative intervention.

Moving on, I very much doubt that anything other than a series of RfCs will settle your content disputes. I would recommend that you raise them where required, and attempt to get wider community input on the disputed content. It seems pretty likely that your actual behaviour towards one another will not be resolved by anything other than a general interaction ban, but it's obviously in both your best interests to settle whatever specific points of content you disagree about first, lest the community loses patience and simply bans the two of you from any discussions on Judaism or Palestine.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support 6 month TOPIC BAN and infinite INTERACTION BAN. Oh wait, was that not a motion? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot keep blaming us. The original Rfc was not closed. Whose fault is that? Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisCunningham, for you sense of humor. I like the idea of a ban against reporting on each other at ANI. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the solution you propose. The problem is that Chesdovi continues to make these controversial edits. Even after the Cfd was closed with "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Nor was the Rfc closed in his favor. It just expired. And frankly, so many people disagreed with him, that at best it would have been closed as "no consensus".

I think Chesdovi is just refusing to admit that he can not garner consensus for his edits. I am not sure there is purpose in yet another attempt. But for sure not as long as he continues his controversial edits. So how to be about this in any practical way? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to BWilkins "motion". As I said before, I do not think it is correct to punish me with a topic-ban for fighting to maintain the present state of affairs against an onslaught of manifold non-consensus edits that are being heavily protested at all venues (Rfc, Cfd). Perhaps give me the Defender's Barnstar, that I would understand. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For me it is quite simple. If Palestinian rabbis is kept, that is a green light to add it to all Palestinian rabbi articles. Debresser talks of consensus, but there are only two votes for delete at Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before. You can't just call people "homosexual" just because we have such an article. You'll need something better. I have brought you specific reasons in most of the editsummaries why this link is inappropriate. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like BWilkins, I support a topic ban and interaction ban. Both of these editors are nice people, but they cannot seem to work together productively, particularly with respect to Palestine/the Land of Israel. I oppose a broader topic ban on articles related to Judaism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I really am shocked that anybody would consider me for a topic-ban, when I am trying to defend consensus-editing here. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your seeming addiction to getting baited into arguing with him makes it difficult to outsiders to distinguish between you. This is compounded by the number of times you've gone to ANI despite the result being the same (i.e. nothing) every single time. If you want to settle this without a topic ban, avoid engaging with Chesdovi directly entirely and instead engage with other editors either through the WikiProjects or RfC. I personally agree with what I've seen of your position on the content disputes but that's no excuse for the ridiculou drama generated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you seem to understand where I am coming from. I feel bullied by WP:ANI trying to punish me for defending the system from attacks by a disruptive editor. This is the opposite of the welcome I think I receive. Things might have developed different if WP:ANI would have shown some basic insight from the beginning, when the problem first arose. Something like "if a guy comes up with something new and people don't like it, perhaps we should not let him go on with it until he can show consensus". It surprised me that nobody came up with this simple though rather brilliant idea. Excuse the sarcasm, but I really was surprised when that happened.

In addition, I want to post a question. Since when is "creating drama on WP:ANI" sufficient reason for a topic-ban or block? If admins here see no reason to take action, they should just close a thread or refer it elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not a dispute resolution mechanism. This applies the first time you take something to ANI and the 99th time you take it to ANI. Continuing to take things which ANI cannot or will not deal with to ANI, or exacerbating the same by constantly replying to them, disrupts the project and makes admins look for the simplest root cause, which in this case is a content dispute between you and Chesdovi. The simplest solution (which is typically the first one that comes to mind) is to simply eliminate that interaction. When it comes to that point, the onus is on you to explain why that isn't optimal. It has most certainly come to that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I come here to make sure Chesdovi stops. Because he will not listen to anything else. And he does stop when I post here. There is another solution, which is a topic-ban for Chesdovi, even only for article namespace. That would eliminate the whole problem at its source. Because the source of the problem is Chesdovi. Any "simplest solution" need not involve me. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Chris Cunningham, when you said "roughly the dozenth occasion", you were exaggerating by a factor of 2. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• My experience with both of these two is that if you touch anything they are discussing with a 10-foot pole whichever you disagree with will go on a full-scale attack claiming you are an uniformed person and so on. They spend son much time going after eachother that few other people want to join in the general fight. That is why issues they bring up do not get resolved, they scare off the other editors who do not want to get nasty statements on their talk pages. I would say that they both could do a lot better at assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hang on. Before we rush to deliver mutual topic bans, I think there's room to try and resolve this without sanctions. It'll be very unfortunate for the Judaism topic area should both these editors get topic banned over this. Chesdovi (talk · contribs), in an exchange I had with you back in June, it seemed to me you had agreed to the formula "X of Palestine" instead of "Palestinian X." Debresser (talk · contribs), you agreed to this too, didn't you? So why not rename the article Palestinian rabbis→Rabbis of Palestine or →Rabbis of the Land of Israel and that be the end of it?—Biosketch (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some compromise can be worked out. Likewise on the Afd of Palestinian rabbis there have been similar proposals. The problem as I see it, is that Chesdovi keeps trying to come at it every now and again from a new angle, and the whole thing starts anew. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic and interaction bans per Bwilkins. They should still be allowed to file WP:AE reports against each other if they wish, because the format there is much less prone to drowning independent admins in endless discussion between the parties, and calling something as being from Israel vs. being from Palestine amply qualifies as a valid topic area at AE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it’s unfortunate that people support bans over a content dispute. I do not understand why either of us should be penalised here:

FACT 1: There were originally numerous pages with the term “Palestinian Rabbi”

FACT 2: I added the term to more pages, basing it o n the fact that the current majority at the Afd support the term’s usage.

Debreser reports me for doing so, and I report that Debresser removed the word Palestine, and people want us blocked for that? I call that stifling editing because people can’t be bothered to sort out sticky subjects and prefer to just brush it under the carpet…. Is that the wiki way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody care to look at what Chesdovi is doing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism? Just look at the questions he is asking. And see the easy and obvious answers to them. And please tell me after that that he is not a tendentious and disruptive editor who in all likelihood had best be topic-banned. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop stirring the pot Debresser. I want answers, not having to be bullied into accepting what you feel is correct. If you stifle discussion as you have on so many occasions, we will not get anywhere. You answers so far are absolutely unsubstantiated. I would prefer if other users would kindly take up a more credible discussion with me to resolve this. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope people look at what both of you have done at WT:JUDAISM. Another good reason for an interaction ban and a topic ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, if I took the wrong course of action, please advise how I should go about this instead of recommending bans which will not resolve anything. This will not just sort itself out. Do you think Dwellers suggestion of Mediation is good? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi. You may start by recognising that the word "Palestinian" is a loaded word, which you should try to use as little as possible. When adding it to more then a few articles (inside the article or inside a category) you should first establish clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and how do I go about getting that elusive "consensus"?

"By posting at Wikiproject Judaism for the views of other experienced editors"

I have done so in the past, but nobody seemed bothered to respond.

"You saw what happened at the RfC with all those "heavy protests"

But they only came after those categories had been created. I.e. One has to create facts first to the required response to gain consensus. It will not come any other way. One cannot "first establish clear consensus."

"This can't be right"

Yes it is. I am within my right to create Paalestinian rabbis and link as many pages to it as I want. If there is a reaction, then discussion can start.

"Should I have reverted your changes?"

Ideally not. You should have rather gone to the talk page to resolve the dispute.

"I did originally, but you just carried on with your edits."

The discussion had not reached any acceptable conclusion before you started reverting over 150 of my edits.

"We have to keep the status quo."

So stop editing wikipedia then. Chesdovi (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, independent from Chesdovi I too am surprised by your support of a topic-ban. Because the issue of the proper use of the "Palestinian" needs to be solved sooner or later. And also because both of us contribute in many positive ways to Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but please see User_talk:Chesdovi#Palestinian that Chesdovi's point of view (as in POV) as to the meaning of the word "Palestinian" is not normative and not acceptable on Wikipedia. He denies that the word Palestinian has more than one meaning (actually three). An editor with such an opinion can not be allowed to edit within this topic. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

COI by article creator of Market America and possible outing of creator's identity

A new article Market America was created recently by a SPA (User:Mjchipol) - I ran into it after updating its categories and was immediately "warned" on my talk page that he owned the article and check with him before editing it: [161] I responded with a link to WP:OWN. I then went to engage the user on his talk page, however he put in redirects from both his user page and talk page to the article: Old revision of User:Mjchipol, Old revision of User Talk:Mjchipol. After fixing those, I placed the correct OWN warning on his page, and tagged the article page with a COI tag. Mjchipol responded to the tag on the article talk page asking how he could make the article seem less promotional "so it doesn't sound like I'm advertising for the company." [162]. I responded asking if he had a COI [163]. He responded he did not. [164]. I took him on good faith and removed the COI tag and added the {{Criticism section}} tag to the controversy section, and asked that he work on integrating the controversies into the main text in the appropriate areas.

An hour or so ago, an anon IP came by and appears to have outed the identity of Mjchipol and confirms there is a COI. I won't post the details here in case an admin needs to take action on the outing: [165]  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't propose the article be deleted, as there is some good content there worth keeping. It just needs to be NPOV-afied.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the guy outed himself by choosing to use the same name as his other publicly accessible accounts, very close to his real name; is it really outing him to notice that, esp. when he's making up silly stories instead of admitting COI? Maybe so. Do we have a good alternative process for dealing with such COI problems? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's an outing problem, user was clear enough about his relation to the company. Just delete the IP's remarks if they seem out of place, and see if you can keep on working with the editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the user lied that he had a COI - this was kind of a dual-purpose AN/I. One a COI SPA who created an article of the company he works for, and then lied that he was a student doing this for a project and he had no COI. Then, we have the outing by the IP address. Although, I agree the outing isn't much of an outing with such an obvious username issue. Looking through Mjchipol's twitter stream, he even tweeted to get his followers to Google + 1 his new wikipedia article he created and he linked to the Market America article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Mjchipol has now been trying to remove the IP's comments from the talk page. I have restored and caution/warned him twice now on not removing the comments.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning got to final warning and user is still edit warring comments off the article talk page. I reported to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however they removed it since there was a discussion going here in ANI.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Leef5 did good work on this article. I have done some peacock trimming. But parts of the article still seem designed less to inform than to bullshit. (And that's before we even look at the sources that it's based on.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Winward

Anthony Winward (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) is continually breaching WP:OVERLINK and will not listen to anyone who tells him not to do it. Will not talk about, just stops for a day and then keeps going. He has been told here, here, here and here. The last one was my message to him yesterday after I cleaned up going through 400 of his contributions and having to revert 100+ of them because they were against Wikipedia policies and I checked his edits again today and see that he's doing the exact same thing. [166], [167], [168] (some examples and there will be more if nothing is done). Atomician (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He also introduces mass edits without consensus (and per this discussion, the consensus was actually against him), and given his recent contribution at some AfDs, I am concerned that this user does not understand basic notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been told not to do that many times, but he doesn't listen to anyone unfortunately. Atomician (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although mainly nuisance edits, his blitzing of celebrity and movie star articles causes a lot of remedial work. Is he stopping or just taking a rest? Someone giving him a Barnstar is also illogical and tends to reinforce the "non-consensus" behaviour... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

He gave the barnstar to himself. Atomician (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

...and obviously been campaigning on his behalf in other forums, (sigh...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Barnstar self-presented with this edit. GiantSnowman 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Too funny; I am resisting the urge to be derisive... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

The only time I can see him communicating (other than talking about going for adminship) with another user is saying "thank you" when somebody wished him happy birthday - but 11 months after the initial post! Very odd... GiantSnowman 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, he was blocked by MuZemike for sockpuppetry in Feb 2010 and then again in March by Phantomsteve. Without his input at all (I've put a message telling him that it's difficult to communicate without him talking), there is no way of deducing his intentions as of right now, I suggest that he inputs. If he could reassure us that he isn't going to go on mass edit sprees, doing changes against policy and against consensus then perhaps nothing will need to be done? User seems to be quite obsessed with his edit count, which I would recommend he stop (he updates his user page every 100 edits, a fourth of his edits are user page tweaks because of it!) User needs some firm advice. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's currently running through his own contributions history and self-reverting everything he can. It is unclear if he is doing this because he finally heard the message and is trying to clean up after himself, or if he's just pitching a "hissy fit" and overreacting to the situation. --Jayron32 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's doing it to increase his edit count. See above. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted my third (and might I add final) invitation to contribute: [169] around quarter an hour ago. This time firmly implying that he should come and talk here. Atomician (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry ive took a while to reply ive been quite busy, also sorry about all the edits ive made but dont worrie ill have them all reverted within the next few days :). Tony (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And you won't do any of this again? If so, then this can be closed, no admin action needed. But if you repeat then you will probably be blocked from editing, you should know that. Atomician (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ok. Tony (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm satisfied with that, and if there are no objections, I'd like to close this. User seems to have gotten the message. Atomician (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! World's greatest rabbi under attack by an Israeli Soldier

Please block User:Israelisoldier. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we must thank that editor for reminding us that protection on Moshe Feinstein had expired but is still needed. I've reprotected the article and given an a token of appreciation to the editor. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the best DMacks. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong and rollback

As a part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong_and_IRC, it states "Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page." Within the past 24 hours, he came on IRC twice asking for people to look an a dispute regarding MOS and an Infobox. Lately, he has come on IRC and asked for other people to step into his disputes, including once about a kind of flag to be used in an article on a game show article. I have warned the user saying is pushing the limits of not only myself, the other admins on IRC, but the boundaries of his ArbCom sanctions. I was replied to like this. Normally, rollback is seen as OK in userpages, but with it being a notice of ArbCom enforcement, I found it very inappropriate. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for outside input in minor disputes from anyone on IRC, admin or not, is not within the scope of my arbcom limitations. I am not allowed to ask someone to perform an administrative act against someone with whom I am in a content dispute. Also, WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback states "Rollback may be used...To revert edits in your own user space". I was exercising that right, regardless of the content of the message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That warning on their talk page, that's more a shot across the bow than a real warning--it's not very specific. If your sketch of what Ryulong was asking for is accurate (and barely knowing what IRC is I have no other recourse), then they did not fall foul of their restrictions. Asking someone to look into something, though it can certainly be an invitation, is hardly the same as asking for some specific action. As for the rollback, mwuah. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and it's not an ArbCom notification that they rolled back--it's a message from you containing reference to an ArbCom restriction. How about this: Ryulong, please consider not using rollback in such circumstances, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine... And use masculine pronouns to refer to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be similar to what I brought up earlier on ANI about use of rollback. A picture is really starting to be drawn here that is demonstrating that Ryulong either does not know how to use rollback properly, or is unwilling to use it properly. I would recommend removing rollbacker access from his account. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't his desysopping specifically mentioned his use of rollback? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct - a lot of the arbitration case that led to Ryulong's desysopping did revolve around misuse of the rollback feature. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb, I explained why I did the edits you complained about, but you never responded. Nor have you responded to the RFC I started. I know how to use rollback, thank you very much, and I used it properly in every single instance, as WP:ROLLBACK says it can be used in the user space, to edits I have made, or "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page", all of which I have done. Certainly removing bot-generated deletion tags off of images with the rollback tool or removing several orphaned image tags in a row. The finding of fact on the RFAR that thumperward and zscout370 refer to clearly states that "such edits would be tedious to revert manually". I find that removing {{orfud}} tags from fair use images in use in articles or replacing fair use rationales which need not have been removed in the first place to be tedious to do manually, particularly when there are several pages to do this on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanket Reverts Modern liberalism in the United States‎ in lieu of talk page discussion

Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted a good days worth of constructive edits[170] that I made to Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with an edit summary of "A major edit such as yours, which removes a large amount of referenced information, should be discussed first in talk.", but no feedback on the article talk page about which content removal was problematic.

After discussing the issue on our talk pages: User_talk:Rick Norwood, User_talk:Aprock the only feedback that was forthcoming was that "It may be that some of your edits are ok, but some are clearly not". I specifically invited him to present more specific criticism on the talk page. In the meantime, I made several constructive policy based edits to other sections, all discussed on the talk page, with open invitations to discuss any issues with specific changes, engaging editors in a civil policy based discussion of content.

Rick Norwood did another blanket revert without entering into discussion on the talk page[171], taking issue with a single edit that I made which was discussed on the talk page[172]. I appreciate the desire to protect the article from arbitrary and unconstructive edits, but blanket reverting constructive edits because of an issue with one edit seems disruptive. Please advise. aprock (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from Rick Norwood

Aprock made a major edit to Modern Liberalism in the United States, an edit which deleted a large amount of referenced material, along with the relevant references, seventeen edits in a single day. Helpful Pixie Bot twice flaged his edits, first as "(Dated . (Build p613))", then as "(Dated . (Build p613))".

I reverted his edit, as I would revert any major edit that deleted a large number of references. I suggested he discuss major edits before making them unilaterally.

He undid my revert.

Next, BigK HeX reverted Aprock's edits, noting that they involved "unexplained deletions".

Aprock undid BigK HeX's revert, and continued to edit, making 22 edits in less than three hours, and attracting attention again from Helpful Pixie Bot, and also from Rjensen.

I again reverted Aprock, on the grounds that he is deleting many references. N5iln restored Aprocks version, with the note, "Nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. It's how the process starts. using TW"

Aprock asked for constructive comments on the Talk page. I made one within minutes, but not quickly enough for Aprock, who accuses me of not entering into a discussion with him.

Yes, Wikipedia editors can be bold. But they should also seek a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a point of interest, Helpful Pixie Bot most often comes into play to add date parameters to maintenance tags. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I am, per your decission, working through Aprock's edit one line at a time. This involves, for example, his claim that, if a liberal says something about liberalism, I must find a second liberal who says that the first liberal's statement actually represents liberalism generally. (The liberal in this case being JFK, I've added a quote by Schlesinger.) He flagged as "dubious" the referenced claim that liberals support the environmental movement. How many references are necessary for well-known facts? Rick Norwood (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Aprock has now made the claim, on my talk page, that by editing (not reverting) what he has written I am violating the three-revert rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When you remove a tag that I added without discussion, that is a revert, not an edit. aprock (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The two other editors who commented (including myself) both questioned aprock's edits, so he should have stopped editing until he gained consensus. However none of this rises to the level of ANI, aprock should use content dispute resolution if he cannot persuade other editors to accept his views, and therefore I request that an administrator close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had not engaged in discussion and given you solid policy based rationales for my edits, you may have a point. You don't get to prevent an editor from making constructive edits just because you ask a couple of questions. aprock (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You placed a POV tag on the article but failed to explain why you consider it POV. You seem to confuse POV with lacking sources and you have changed a sourced sentence because you believe that the source lacked balance. You need to explain your objections more clearly and get consensus for your changes. TFD (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, when I placed the tag I explained the issues on the talk page, and made note of the edit summaries I had made. Your response to that was: "I should not have to search through multiple edits and discussions threads to piece together your argument." aprock (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this not possibly a question of WP:OWN? In normal circumstances, without choosing a preferred state for the article, the page could be fully protected for a week or more to facilitate calm and policy-based discussion on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In due respect to all of the users involved in this discussion thread, I think that this was a misunderstanding gone wrong and unfortunately blown out of proportion, culminating in this AN/I notice. What I see in the edit history and talk page discussions is mostly a comfortable level of WP:BRD. I've given some itemized feedback to Aprock's numerous edits in response to him on the talk page. He responded acknowledging that since a number of his content disputes regarded the location of content, rather than its credibility, that moving such content is a more appropriate and less eyebrow-raising method of improving the article, as opposed to merely removing the sourced content. I applaud Aprock's boldness, but I also cautioned to him that editors may see red flags if his edits are non sequitur to the premises of his disputes (removing rather than rephrasing POV verbiage, removing rather than relocating misplaced content, etc.). I think that's why Rick Norwood scrutinized the edits that were removing sourced content and felt it appropriate to revert them. I think this was a simple case of everyone acting in good faith and that the reverts followed only because there was not yet a clear connection between Aprock's intended improvements and his actual edits. I recommend that no administrative action be taken, and that the editors forgive and forget the recent activity as we take a bit of a slower approach to addressing Aprock's suggested improvements. John Shandy` • talk 05:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis - Admin intervention needed

Can an admin please take a look at Kostas Novakis. Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) is using every argument under the sun to justify his/her actions. It is an extensive issue, which has been partially discussed here. The user is under the apprehension that the the Macedonian ethnicity "is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo" [173], and has used this biased POV to cause havoc on the page in question (including putting it up for an AfD). The issue regarding the language which Kostas Novakis speaks the and ethnicity he espoused was a while back, as is made evident on the talk page. Many thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I see you were both discussing just fine, no need for administrative action, I am slightly alarmed that you called him racist and he quite civilly, ignored the comment and kept discussing. This post will boomerang if you pursue it. Atomician (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll add to that by pointing out that this may fall under the general sanctions regarding Macedonia, since that ARBMAC decision included the phrase "broadly defined". If it can't be worked out on the article Talk page, I'd urge one or both of you to take it into the dispute resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nipson's comments certainly do look a heck of a lot like nationalist POV pushing, and if so, it's a serious problem that should be dealt with; however, this board isn't really good for that sort of thing. Arbitration enforcement for the ARBMAC case will likely be more useful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the admins for the responses, It may have to go through WP:ARBCOM Dispute resolution. @Atom, it was a simply reaction to being told that your heritage and culture is "not real/an invention/pseudo". Thanks for the feedback. Lunch for Two (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, ARBMAC action against both editors in question is overdue here. I'm involved; my view of the matter is expressed in more detail here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Kaiguy817

This user has an odd habit of drafting articles in their user talk page before moving ([174], [175]) the page to the mainspace/article talk space. While Kaiguy817 may be a misguided newbie, they have fragmented edits originally made to their user talk page into mainspace articles (e.g. [176]). I reverted one move, but I'm not really sure how to undo the rest. As a precaution, I have warned (now blanked) the user and locked both their userpage and user talk page until this can be sorted out. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't yet consumed my second coffee of the day, but I can't see what the problem is. (One article that I quickly looked at didn't impress me, but WP is overflowing with unimpressive articles.) It's normal for people to build up drafts in their userspace; strange to do that on one's user talk page, but if that's what this person wants to do, why not? However, I've very possibly misunderstood something above. (Certainly the bit about "fragmenting" has me baffled.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I left Kaiguy817 a message about developing on subpages, so that when he moves he won't be putting his whole user page history into article space. Looks like he just needed a hint. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good move (and something I could have done in the first place, had I been wider awake). Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam from "GOOD"

I have recently started receiving spam emails from something called "The daily GOOD". I have received this spam on an email account that I have never used for any purpose except replying to Wikipedia emails, so my email address must have been obtained by abusing the Wikipedia email service. I have only used the account to email a fairly limited number of Wikipedians. If anyone else has received spam from the same organisation then I will be very grateful if they can let me know. That way we should be able to work out which Wikipedia account has been abused in this way and block it, including disabling email access. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely that the off-wiki email account of someone you replied to has been compromised, and your address harvested from it. Whether your reply is directly from the email account or through the on-wiki email system, your email address is included. If the person you replied to put your address in their address book, it's even easier to harvest, and use as a forged "sender" address. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted the above message I thought again and came to the same conclusion. I actually do a very good job of keeping my email accounts spam free by having several accounts for different purposes, such as this one used only for sending Wikipedia emails. Once I get spam on one account it's quite easy to ditch that one and replace it: much easier than it would be if I had loads of contacts to that email address. I have to do this on average about once every two years, and the rest of the time I am 100% spam free. Scarcely anyone I tell about this believes me, as it's a "well known fact" that no matter what you do you will get lots of spam. However, I can assure it it really works. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm using a "free" (other than via ads) web-based mailing service that is, you could say, at least moderately well known. I've been using it for a couple of years now, and have freely told my email address to all sorts of people. Other than directly into my spam folder (whose filters, etc, I've never fiddled with), I receive very little spam -- perhaps one every three days. This is better than any POP (conventional) address I've used. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you receive one spam every three days then you receive hundreds of times as much spam as I do, and if we allow for "other than directly into my spam folder" then the ratio could be far higher: who knows, thousands, tens of thousands? I go for years with no spam whatsoever, either in my spam folder or elsewhere. Then one of my email addresses gets into spam lists, and I suddenly start getting spam. I ditch that email account, which is dead easy, as any one of my accounts has only a very small number of contacts to move (except for the account which I use for personal friends, family, etc, which has many contacts, but never ever gets any spam at all). I then go for a couple more years without any spam at all. Almost nobody I have told this to believes it is possible to go for years without spam, but it is. When I do suddenly start getting spam, it invariably follows shortly after adding a new contact that I have never emailed before, and because there are so few contacts on each account I can very often identify the source with some degree of confidence. That contact is always a commercial business or an internet forum, discussion group, or the like, not a personal email account that may have been compromised. (Of course that does not mean it never happens, but my experience does not suggest that it is a major source of spam.) Of course the down side to all this is that I have several email accounts to check. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SYLAR16 and Sorbid11 BLP hoaxes

Resolved

 – socks identified and blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SYLAR16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding hoax information to multiple BLPs, including an entire lengthy fake BLP article Mark Warrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Another brand new user account, Sorbid11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has produced a related fake BLP article, Stephen Freed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same individual. I've CSD'd and rolled back his hoaxes, but it looks possible that this individual - quite likely an existing banned user - is attempting to add false information to Wikipedia to discredit it. Recommend a block and a checkuser on the IP to see if there are any more socks. Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorbid11 is a  Possible match to SYLAR16. TNXMan 13:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has Jake Picasso's neon fingerprints all over it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Digging back some shows that SYLAR16 is  Confirmed as Jake. Sorbid11 is on a different ISP/computer, same geographic area. TNXMan 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I believe they are the same person is because they did the same thing - created detailed hoax biographies - using the same image, File:S 1.jpg, for both. The odds of two independent accounts doing the same thing in different articles with the same image simultaneously are astronomically small. Even the format of the usernames is very similar (name+number). The behavioural evidence very strongly suggests that both accounts are operated by the same person. SYLAR16 is blocked but Sorbid11 hasn't been yet - I think it should be. Prioryman (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient of a WP:DUCK for me. Sorbid11 blocked as suspected sock of Jake Picasso Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Sorbid11 as a sock as well (which is procedural only as the account will now have been abandoned). Comparing Sorbid's creation of Stephen Freed to another Picasso hoax article Max Wood (sorry, admins only can view the deleted articles) created by Jake Picasso sock User:Merrit597 clearly shows the same M.O. Quack. Block. Next! Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets on TMNT template

Resolved

Could you please check IP 70.48.112.235 if he is a sock puppet? If he is, you may send him to SPI. If not, just wait until he becomes a sockpuppet. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically yes. He's a persistent anonymous vandal who IP hops (usually in the 67.xxx range), always adding the same intentionally wrong vandalism. I first noticed him at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles articles (check the history of Template:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to see what an pain this guy is) but more recently he's expanded into outright BLP violations. As he'll show up on a new IP while his previous one is still blocked, he is technically socking to evade a block, but as he's never, to my knowledge, actually used a username, he's impossible to indef/ban (though he absolutely should be). Most of he's repeated targets are currently semi'd, but that'll expire eventually, as will the blocks, and we'll do it all over again.

The only real solution I can think of is to treat all IPs he edits from as the same user (which is absolutely obvious), and all blocks issued be automatically 6 months, not 31 hrs. Yes it may be the first time that IP has edited, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it's the same vandalizing, trolling asshat. I'm just tired of dealing with this douchebag. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• 70.48.112.0/22 blocked for 3 months, practically nothing useful recently off that range. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No more "Puppets in a half-shell – sock power". –MuZemike 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. Is he sent to SPI already? StormContent (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's all coming from IPs and no registered users are involved, SPI won't have much effect beyond what Black Kite has already done. IP addresses aren't blocked indefinitely. Besides, everything in that range definitely passes the WP:DUCK test, so a full SPI would be redundant. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, SPI is where you go to investigate whether or not there is sockpuppetry occurring, it's not where you go after a sockpuppet case is proven. -- Atama頭 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ged UK already blocked him 3 days with talk page ability revoked. Can we monitor the IP's talk page when it's necessary? StormContent (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Yworohater

• Yworohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please block this obviously deranged user and delete the revisions it made to my user page? Yworo (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorted :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yworo (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack???

Just found this very odd edit on my talkpage: [177] by User:194.75.238.104 Just for the record I am neither Stuart Parker (whoever that is), nor a Jew, but even I were either I don't think that gives him carte blanche to graffiti my talk page.Lozleader (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked for one week, just not tagged. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okeydoke :-) Lozleader (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

He has now escalated his bad behaviour by putting a fake block notice my talkpage.Lozleader (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for disruptive editing and personal attacks. They've previously been blocked for vandalism under this IP address, and have just come off a 31 hour block under IP 194.75.238.105 (which is also now blocked for a week) for the same edits. If they hop IPs again, a rangeblock may be required. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes headlines for its reliability. Again.

Resolved

 – WMF General Counsel informed; no admin action required.

The Wikimedia people should probably consult their lawyers, given the implication in this article that legal action may be pending as a result of incorrect information obtained from a Wikipedia article. -- SmashTheState (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've informed Geoff Brigham, the WMF's General Counsel in case there is a potential Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia angle. It looks unlikely but better safe than sorry. No admin action: Rick Rypien is semi-protected and presumably being kept in check following Rypien's death. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I love sentences like "The Canucks may yet take legal action." I may turn into a frog tomorrow, too. To the extent the sentence means anything, I believe the legal action would be against the Star, not against Wikipedia/media. But I suppose informing Brigham can't hurt.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Diff from July FWIW. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll lay odds that eventually all BLP articles will be semi-protected. This vandalism stood for over a month on a BLP? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, there were several changes by the IP vandal, then a legitimate change by another IP, then more vandalism by the first IP. The last changes were reverted, but the first were missed. I've seen this before where the vandalism is only partly backed out. As for Pending Changes, please no. I'd much prefer semi-protection than the convoluted and unwieldy PC.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, as a regular registered user with a clean record, I'd like the privilege to automatically instantly semi-protect upon reversion or rollback of vandalism, subject to review by an admin. That's it - the only privilege I think I'll ever really need or use. --Lexein (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for Pending Changes, anyone? Collect (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, ironic, isn't it? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I read "The Canucks may yet take legal action" in the article and it seems pretty clear that it was directed at the Toronto Star, not at the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit that introduced this change, one of several joke-edits by the same IP. A novice editor changing text enclosed in quotes may have no malicious intent, but the result at least in this case caused problems. Edits like this could perhaps be detected by a bot that triggers when somebody makes a change to a sourced quotation (changes text that is enclosed by quotation marks and followed by a ref tag). Would this be feasible? Sharktopus ^talk 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That's impossible, since it would be nigh-impossible to detect whether it was just a tweak to the sentence, or an elongation of the sentence from one that was not from the source. Additively (and unrelated), this person was an idiot to directly take his information from Wikipedia, even I when doing research go to the sources and not the article itself, it's his own frigging fault and if he did press charges he wouldn't have a leg, half a leg or even a minutiae of a leg to stand on. Atomician (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, they could be tagged in RC by an editfilter, right? That seems like it might be worthwhile. I don't see how we could possibly bot-block bad quote changes anytime soon, but an edit filter could tag suspicious changes to quotes by new users for further examination by RC patrollers. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is a minutia of a leg a toe, or are you going for even smaller than that? As Tarc and I both pointed out, any legal action - which I think is highly unlikely to occur - would be against the Star, not the Star against Wikipedia, or whoever against Wikipedia. The journalist isn't going to sue Wikipedia - he's probably already embarrassed enough as it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if it is a toe, he wouldn't be able to stand on it :D Atomician (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd be a massive programming job. And I mean -massive-. I know a few programming languages and even programmed a pretty good chess game in JavaScript once, but wouldn't really know where to start with coding that. Atomician (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It would not be a massive programming job. It should be pretty trivially simple to set up an editfilter to automatically flag all edits that meet, say, the conditions suggested by Sharktopus. I'm not sure it would be worth the extra server load, but it might be - it would depend on how often such changes are bad changes. There are other editfilters already in place with similar complexity to what would be needed here. Keep in mind, it doesn't have to detect such changes with 100% accuracy, and it doesn't have to determine good changes from bad changes. it just has to tag edits that are by new users that change quotations for further review by an RC patroller. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well how would you efficiently identify the quotation marks? You couldn't, you'd have to do a scan of every edited article, which is impossible (without seriously lagging), which is what I mean when I say that it'd be impossible to program. Atomician (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Prefacing this with: I'm not actually that familiar with regular expressions, but my understanding of them leads me to believe it should be pretty easy. Obviously, it would be possible to identify many quotes, by looking for a quote mark followed by a ref tag. You can look at EF 391 for an example of how to do that. (Not all quotes will meet those criteria, but everything that meets them will be a quote of some sort.) The remaining problem would be to identify places where changes happen between the end of the quote and the start. I don't know enough about regex syntax to suggest precisely how to do that, but it would shock me if it was impossible, since the start of the quote will be demarcated. I don't know if doing such a thing with an edit filter would create excessive server load - it wouldn't surprise me if it would. But you *certainly* could do it, and even if the load is too high to use an EF to do it, it would *certainly* be easy (and probably valuable) to do so in the context of a clientside bot-or-other-program (which is what was originally suggested.) It might generate too much load to do with an EF, but it would not be a massive coding job in any meaningful sense. Existing clientside vandalism fighting tools (like Huggle) already have options to preload diffs, making them flag for extra attention any edit that changes a quote would not be hard - and the extra (clientside) computing power it would require would be pretty trivial. Kevin (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No other RC program that detects edits searches through an entire article, which is what it would need to do, and that is because it would not be efficient. Vandal fighting bots, such as ClueBot search within the confines of the edit and not the actual article, for a bot (or RC tagging program) to look for quotations, it would have to go through an exterior, but hell, I throw my hands up, some genius can probably do it and if that's you then do program it, but it would be very difficult to be efficiently coded, not impossible but that's just my way of saying that it would be hard. But anyway, this really isn't the place for this kind of talk, no administrative action is needed here, so let's end this, if you want to talk about this more, you can go to my talk page if you want? Atomician (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP is known for being open sourced and something nearly anyone can edit. The Toronto Star made the mistake of hiring a third rate journalist who didn't verify his own sources (even WP doesn't claim itself as a WP:RS). They are the ones being sued, not WP. A nearly unread article contains something defamatory for over a month is not shocking. Semi-protecting all BLPs is far more unwieldy than just requiring all users to register with a user name (Having to tag EVERY BLP for semi-protection will take forever for maintenance purposes and blocking those who abuse/refering them to a prosecutor for prosecution is far easier). Buffs (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agrees wholeheartedly like the puppy-dog he is, does Atomician (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting all BLP's is completely insane and will destroy the project - you need a supply of new editors and semi-protecting all BLP's will switch that tap off completely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree semi protecting all BLPs is insane. To be clear; I wasn't advocating it. I was just prognosticating that it will eventually happen. We already protect a wide swath of templates that are "high value". Certainly we'll eventually consider BLP articles to be "high value", and semi-protecting them all is something a bot could readily do. It's not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong words. However, we'll never know because someone is going to come along and close this topic. ANI's not the place to have this kind of policy discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely? No, only on those articles that are biographies of living persons, which make up a small percentage of Wikipedia's articles. If you think semi-protecting all BLPs is insane, what do you propose to deal with these problems instead? I've never yet found anyone who can give me an alternative (other than pending changes, which it seems the community doesn't want). When we're working with living people's biographies, we have an ethical obligation to tell only what is verifiable, and that takes precedence over even our principles of openness. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's why we have general disclaimers that WP itself is not a reliable source. Rather have that and keep the openness we have than to try to be verifiable and lose the one aspect of WP that makes it attractive as a crowd-sourced work. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few thousand articles currently semi-protected, certainly less than 10,000. There are getting on for a million biographies. Now sure not all of them are living but I would expect a decent proportion (20-30%) are.

Shutting them off completely from new editors will kill the project. If needed pending changes is the only viable alternative. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"If"? How on earth is there any "if" about it? How many of these BLP slipups have we had? Even one is too many, and we've had well more than that. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

"Even one is too many" Don't be silly. Mainstream newspapers like the New York Times make inaccurate statements about living people every day, just ask anyone who's ever been quoted by a reporter. It's the nature of the beast that if information can be munged, there's a good chance it will be -- no one has a perfect signal-to-noise ratio. Add in open-sourcing, making a major popular source of information accesible to the vandalism of mischievous children, hormonal teenagers, partisan ideologues and personal enemies, and you've got a situation in which there are inevitably going to be slip-ups. We certainly shouldn't be passive about the problem, but on the other hand we shouldn't go off half-cocked and get all hyperbolic and full of moral panic. The more we go around saying that it's inevitable that all BLP's will be semi'ed, the more we get used to the idea and usher it into reality, rather than looking at more reasonable and effective solutions, such as registration and other techniques to insure that editors take reponsibility for their actions. We've done very little in that area, blinded by the "anyone can edit" mantra, which in reality is less and less true all the time, out of necessity. We need to face reality and bite the bullet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

($0.02 from non-admin) I'm more concerned about the second-order effects of events like this. The original wrong quote can now be supported by citing a major periodical. Sure, the entirety of Wikipedia probably isn't going to spiral into a separate reality because of this, but we need to be careful. One time, someone was lecturing me about what sources were reliable and what were not, and to demonstrate his mastery (and that he wasn't just here to delete), he added a reference to an article. That reference turned out to be a Wikipedia article that some diaper company had printed out and was selling. They didn't even change the text layout. BitterGrey (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't make headlines for its reliability so much as the Toronto Star made headlines for the incompetence of its sports department. Ironic and rather amusing since one of that rag's more prominent sportswriters has a decidedly anti-blogger stance because he claims they are not reliable... Resolute 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

170.211.179.195

IP 170.211.179.195 has over 80 edits, nearly all vandalism Bhny (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They're fresh off an anon block, so they now have a new one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This may sound bizarre, but hear me out - given it's a school IP. Today is when 6th formers go and pick up their A level results from school. That is the only real reason a school IP would be editing at this time of year. So it'll be a 6th former doing the vandalism probably. Who will therefore have left the school. So I'd consider giving it a very brief block and seeing if the troublemaker comes back in two weeks. Egg Centric 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

IP address geolocates to Arkansas, USA. Sixth formers in the USA don't pick up their A level results today, don't generally do A-levels, and in fact, don't generally exist. Many, or even most, schools in the USA have already started their autumn term (or semester or whatever they call it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Only down south; here in the northeast, schools don't start until either right before or right after Labor Day (1st Monday of September). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabwah Times

Hello, some IP tagged this page with {{delete| people behind the paper have requested the information in this article to be deleted as this could lead to death threats for its writers and community members and could gradually serve as a hit list for extremists while basic information about the paper has been added already to [[Rabwah]] page }} here. I have temporarily deleted the page in case it turns out to be true. I have also emailed [email protected]. If any admins around here want to take a look and see if I've just been had, please do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the original page author did come back and put a G7 tag on it, after the IP did (in addition to the above tag). I assume that the two are the same. So... It's a kosher G7, at least. I believe that we can handle the security concerns without deleting the page, by simply not including names, but bits of the previous history might have needed to be revdel'd anyway for that to happen. There is no need to push the issue, either way. I'll leave a note on the author's talk page and ask if he would be able to write a new version of the article instead. lifebaka++ 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP did indeed transfer some content to the town-page, and so it seems that this paper is indeed mentionable per his own claim. Therefore the only possible issue he could be claiming is that there was some specific content on the now-deleted page that could cause the problems. That could certainly be resolved by rev-del'ing from the paper's page (maybe the town-page is being used as a holding-pen of the viable material?). There's certainly enough information between what was retained in the town-page and basic infobox data to make a stub-sized article. It makes claim to notability but does not appear to substantiate (says "notable for X" but ref only supports that X is true?) DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unban of Tobias Conradi? re:#Speedy delete gone bad

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.

Closed upon request. Clearly nothing is going to result from this. –MuZemike 23:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If these templates are to be kept, then we need to seriously consider an unban and unblock of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), as it is clear that he will continue to return to make apparently constructive edits in which users do not want deleted. –MuZemike 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this incident is a perfect example of exactly how disruptive he can be. Nobody ever said that he didn't make constructive contributions, he was banned because of all the collateral damage he causes. A lot of things had to go wrong for this particular incident - a failure to recognize the contributions of others in a G5 speedy delete due to an admin not fully understanding templates, brusque and increasingly agitated editors responding to effective (not intended) vandalism of important project templates that they cannot revert, etc. A different admin, a bit more tact on DePiep's part, a bit more sleep and perspective on mine would have probably have deemed this incident null. VanIsaac_WS 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that would end much differently to your nomination of Template:Cleanup-link rot at TfD the other day.

Still, I'm confused as to why is is that the templates broken by these deletions weren't just rolled back to their pre-August revisions. It's not as if we're talking about edits from years ago here: they all worked fine a month ago so far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple reason? Because the pages transcluding template:infobox writing system had been updated to the new template syntax, meaning that reverting the template would have removed content from at least 160 articles (not all transcluding pages used the broken part). VanIsaac_WS 12:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The job queue could get through 160 articles in about a tenth of the time wasted on drama so far here. The argument for overturning the deletion was that "pages were broken", and that could readily have been fixed in the interim while discussing how to proceed. We obviously do not want banned users to be able to turn G5 into a suicide pact, but nor should it be ignored lightly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's ban Tobias Conradi as a sock of his latest banned sockpuppet instead. I haven't seen these "apparently constructive edits" of which you speak, I just see a stream of what turn out to be socks, which were heading for independent blocks & bans anyway because of their obsessively POV-pushing editing styles. Why are TC's socks laundered so quickly? It's because they have a bad editing behaviour of themselves, and it's also quite a distinctive one. If there are "apparently constructive" edits out there, I'm not seeing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we able to do an IP ban? Or is he accessing from too dynamic a place? He obviously has contempt for WP and policy, I'm just wondering if there's any way to prevent all his SOCKs. VanIsaac_WS 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This line of thinking confuses me greatly; are you saying someone can be as bad as they want as long as they throw in valid edits from time to time? Tobias had a great many legitimate edits. He also went crazy. The negatives of him outweigh the positives (for an early example of this, see User:Wik), especially now that I see he's been socking for years and appears to have not changed. (Though I admit I need to read more about the situation.) --Golbez (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, even banned users have come back as productive members of the community on multiple occasions. We need to encourage editors who want to work productively here to come back in through the front door rather than just socking for the rest of their lives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose unbanning him. This is one of those WP:UCS situations. Yes, banned editors are not allowed to edit, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can never include something useful to the encyclopedia merely because it was first created by a banned editor. Take it to the extreme; imagine if it turned out that George Washington was created and heavily edited by a banned editor; do we refuse to include an article about him merely because the banned editor has his hands all over it? This is a case of "cutting off our nose to spite our face". Yes he is banned. Yes his edits get deleted or reverted. WP:BAN states (bold mine): "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In other words, we should always revert banned editors. Always. Except when doing so does obvious harm to the encyclopedia. In cases where editors-in-good-standing are willing to stand by the edits, I don't see where deleting them does the encyclopedia good. This is clearly one of those cases where it must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to apply a rule so strictly that it cannot have exceptions is always a bad thing. In this one case for this one banned editor the templates should probably remain at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we he should be unbanned, that we won't revert him in the future, that other banned editors will be given similar exceptions, or anything else. It just means that in this one isolated case it is better for the 'pedia to keep these templates. That is all. Don't try to make this a bigger issue, when it isn't. It is always a bad idea to try to change policy based on the edge cases. --Jayron32 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Jayron's common-sense approach. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it help if editors-in-good-standing who come across useful edits by banned users were to revert those edits, and then self-revert with the edit summary: "self-revert, adopting these edits as my own"? That will show other editors searching out the contribs of the banned user that they should not delete those edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • If they want to, I guess they can. If there's a reasonable expectation that someone else might revert it simply because it was a ban violation, despite the helpfulness of the edit, why not. I don't think we should suggest that this be standard behavior, however. -- Atama頭 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case (as I've said in DRV) the "good for the encyclopaedia" approach to resolve this is certainly the way to go. Unlike many examples of article text where we could reasonably expect someone else to come along and write a different version, the nature of these templates where it's data from another source (not collected from diverse sources) in a form pretty much dictated by media wiki, someone else can't come a long and do a completely different version. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gossip Governance? Today's Trollers Thread? What is this? For starters, the original post is a big "what if" sauced with assumptions and injections. Any substantial comment should have been at the DRV (hey, I had to make a link - first mentioning and all that). I hope you don't mind I came along even though I am not invited. Nor was the DRV notified. Actually, I am here to look for for someone else (a helping admins name -- rare species, has any one of you seen one lately?). Anyway, now all you stop talking about rumours (yeah, I know you didn't start it) and go help an editor. Meanwhile I will put this thread up for the longest irrelevant one being open. At Ani Ever. -DePiep (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did post it on the DRV, it just got swallowed up by all the posturing and heat. VanIsaac_WS 18:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Vanisaac, You're not an admin -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Abusive email: the sequel

In a delightful sequel to my "abusive email stalker" situation of the other day (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Abusive emails), another has materialised from Ttnme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I believe the standard practice is to block and remove talkpage access immediately. Would it also be worth performing a Checkuser at this stage? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

• Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
• Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
• Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
• Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Wikipedia for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

Links to past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 - July 2011 (ongoing), covering nearly 6,000 articles
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Billy Hathorn - July 2011 (ongoing) - discussion at DYK regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Ongoing AFDs and 3RR - April 2011, regarding creation of articles on non-notable topics, citing an article he wrote, and canvassing AfD
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 34#User:Billy Hathorn - November 2008 discussion at DYK regarding inadequate sourcing
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn - July 2008, regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and creation of biographies for non-notable individuals
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114#User:Billy Hathorn - December 2007, regarding creation of biographies for non-notable individuals, copyvio, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and citing his own masters thesis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti - April 2007, Billy accused two editors of Wiki-stalking him, on the grounds that a whole bunch of his articles were deleted for non-notability

I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

@ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The most that can come of the discussion at WT:DYK is for him to be banned from DYK. Without further action it's entirely reasonable to expect that Billy will continue to disrupt the encylopedia with unproductive new articles in the same way he has for years. I do think a community ban is in order, as Sven and Orlady describe. DYK can't enact that, and as far as I know neither can CCI. That's why we're here. cmadler (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
  Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
  Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Wikipedia standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Wikipedia is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Wikipedia fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The ones I ran through PUF were not borderline free use, they were blatant copyright violations. Until he understands that taking photographs of other people's work and claiming that it is his own work is not tolerated, something solution is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• What about an article creation ban, AND file upload ban? Forced mentoring? Anything along those lines? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - I've bumped into some of Billy's work as it has come to AfD. He is a decent content creator with a particular regional and ideological focus to the stuff he writes about. This is perfectly fine. I've found his work to be capable. I have no information about him plagiarizing or stuffing DYK, but the pieces I've seen have been acceptably well done. I believe that his charge that he has been stalked in the past over the ideological content of his work (tending, from what I've seen, to be conservative and christian) has a basis in fact. He's a good Louisiana historian and people need to cut him a little slack, in my opinion. Copyvio is another matter, if that's taking place (like I say, I have no information), but this is the wrong venue for that, yes? Carrite (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment Ordinarily, ANI would not be the venue for discussing possible copyvio matters. However, the original report made a case for a chronic pattern of copyvio matters, and sought additional admin input (and, presumably, action). Reading over the discussion so far, my 2p is that it may be moving beyond the scope of ANI, and into that of RFC/U. This is based on the overall apparent intent to help Wikipedia (and my own assumption of good faith), but an apparent and disturbing inability to avoid even the appearance of plagiarism. (Were I a bit more cynical, I'd probably be raising WP:COMPETENCE questions.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

De-archived unresolved discussion. cmadler (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why do we need to un-archive? We've already got a CCI going, and if an RFC/U be opened, that will take care of general behavioral issues. What administrative actions are needed from this specific discussion? Nyttend backup (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The requests under discussion are for an article creation ban, a file upload ban, or a requirement that Billy put all new articles and files in his userspace for review before they are moved to article space. This was suggested as the appropriate venue to bring this issue, and discussion above seemed to support that; however, if this should be taken somewhere else (RFC/U?) let me know, and I'll raise the issue at the appropriate page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this did need unarchiving, but Billy Hathorn should have been notified. I've done that here. For the record, the DYK ban was enacted here. Billy Hathorns's response was here. I've left a note at his talk page asking him to comment here. One of the main problems here is Billy Hathorn's persistent lack of engaging in discussion about these issues. He needs to stop creating content until he has engaged in a proper discussion of these concerns, which at a minimum would be responding here and at the CCI page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only a long rest from DYK but one to three months off article creation are necessary, during which time he should be given access to a trusted, experienced editor who might create a few for him in collaboration, to ensure he knows what is required. He still shows signs of not understanding CP and copyvio. Tony (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Billy Hathorn has refused to not communicate with regards to the concerns here, then and only then a block may be necessary. Now, if he was just notified of this, then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, plagiarism, in particular willful plagiarism, is a very serious concern and just as much as copyright violations – this is stuff in which academics get embarrassed, discredited, and driven out of their profession; and in which students get kicked out of school for. The same applies here, in which we have previously community-banned serial plagiarizers for such long-term conduct (or they have otherwise driven themselves off Wikipedia). The CCI needs to be conducted and followed closely and carefully, while actions should be taken to ensure that he is aware of the consequences of what he may be doing; this could range from an RFC/U or the current CCI, to an outright block if it is found that he is plagiarizing and is not willing to discuss this. –MuZemike 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did notify him of this thread when I first opened it, and he's been notified multiple times of discussions at WT:DYK. I did not think to notify him that I de-archived this discussion since that was more procedural, but thanks to Carcharoth for doing so. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since before I left him a note about this resurrected ANI thread. His response at WT:DYK shows that he rejects some of the claims made about his editing, but I think he needs to discuss on specific article talk pages the specific concerns raised. That is the only way to demonstrate that he understands the concerns raised, and whether he rejects them or accepts them and intends to (or has) changed his editing practices. I still think the root of the problem here is failure to adequately discuss the concerns raised. No-one can be forced to participate in an ANI discussion, but if reasonable concerns are raised on the talk pages of articles an editor has edited or created (or raised at the CCI), and they are notified on their talk page, I think they do have an obligation to respond. Someone may need to explain to Billy Hathorn how best to respond to the CCI - I'm not entirely clear what an editor at CCI is meant to do myself - are they meant to help with the clean-up, are they meant to contest taggings they disagree with, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, they'll help out with cleanup (rewriting content) and - in a perfect world - even proactively identify problems themselves. I can only recall one contributor who put real work into proactively identifying his own problems. There have been a couple who have worked on cleanup, and some of them have done a very good job of it. One of the problems with cleanup, though, is that (in my observation) it can be very challenging for contributors who have issues with writing content from scratch to begin with revising established problems. They seem to do better when starting fresh with a different article; when revising existing articles, they almost always seem to want to do it incrementally, unaware of the dangers of creating a clear derivative work.

I have been busy and am not much involved with this one, but I think that what's generally helpful in cases like this is to see that the contributor can write new content without the former problems. And to make very clear that after CCI we hit zero tolerance for future issues. As somebody who has launched a few CCIs of my own, my thought is that if we ask the community to put efforts into cleaning up a problem like this with a user and then permit them to keep doing it, we are abusing the community. :/ My personal practice on finding continuing issues with somebody who has been through CCI is to indef block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Further update. Two responses, at his talk page and (for some reason) on my user page. See here and here. The latter misplacing of the reply (on my user page, rather than my user talk page) and the "Can you put this information in the right section?" request, reinforces my impression that Billy Hathorn is not that used to editing outside of the article namespace, except in certain narrow areas (look at his contributions by namespace to see what I mean). Anyway, per his request, I will copy his comment here (the latter one, as it says more than the first one), and leave a note on his user talk page again. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from Billy Hathorn, initially posted at his user talk page here and later expanded upon here, and copied here per the request in that post:

Thank you for your suggestions, but I don't know how to respond to such a long list of ad hominem attacks. I don't see responses making any difference in the thinking of the attackers. I don't even recognize other Wikipedia writers by screen name, but dozens have come out attacking me and apparently virtually none in defense. It reminds me of the old Lincoln line that if he answered all his critics, his office would be closed for all other business. No article (and there must be 4,000, and I have no exact count of how many I have created) has even been cited for an error of fact. I haven't copied anyone's work and passed it off as my own. I can fill articles with my own writing. Several attempts to cite copyright violation have failed. Some are also deleting past articles with few allowed to comment. Photos that say "own work" were listed that way automatically by the Wikipedia photo form, and I forgot to delete "own work" in a few dozen of those. Can you put this information in the right section? It appears that nothing cam be done, as I have been banend indefinitely from Did You Know? Where do I go to plead "not guilty" to the charges?Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Would suggest discussion is continued here, as the next step would be to respond to what Billy Hathorn has said, as quoted above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I also gave further advice here (including advice to stop creating new content). I would suggest that around 5 suitable examples are selected and a place to discuss those examples identified (ideally the talk page of the articles concerned) and Billy Hathorn responds there. That should demonstrate whether progress is possible here. I realise some will think that the case is proven already, because a CCI has been opened, but what is needed here is an indication of what Billy Hathorn wishes to contest and where that discussion should take place (possibly at the CCI page?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That would seem like a very good approach; I like the way you've described it at his talk page. :) I have myself not had much time to look at his situation, but did find issues in one article when I was approached about him at my talk page: Bill Noël, [178]. I believe that these were significant enough to require a rewrite. See [179] and Talk:Bill Noël. Billy evidently feels that this article was adequately paraphrased, but perhaps did not see the examples at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG. I'll point Billy Hathorn to Talk:Bill Noël. I will ask SandyGeorgia (as the editor who acted on the Phil Preis article) to comment at Talk:Phil Preis, as Billy Hathorn has started editing that article again, so concerns will need to be thrashed out there if there is disagreement over what is happening there. The other places where Billy Hathorn should respond, if he wishes to contest any of this, are: Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 and (from the CCI so far) Talk:Walter L. Buenger and Talk:George Caldwell (Louisiana). Karanacs raised those concerns. That is four articles. I suggest that Billy Hathorn be required to discuss the concerns raised with his editing on those articles, and after those discussions have taken place (I suggest the way MRG approached things at Talk:Bill Noël is the ideal model to follow), we will have a much better idea of what needs doing and whether Billy Hathorn understands what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Updates: [180], [181], [182]

I hope to find time to weigh in this weekend with specific examples (still building and moving), but the problems with Hathorn's work go well beyond copyvio, which is substantial in and of itself. He uses non-reliable sources, pads articles with irrelevant text, and creates (by the boatload) articles about non-notable people-- look at the sources he often uses, which are sources of information submitted by the subject themselves or family members-- not independent sources. He also creates entirely unsourced articles like List of Louisiana Tech University alumni. I don't believe Hathorn should be creating content at all, since he seems to have little respect for or knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and everything he creates is work that will eventually need to be cleaned up by someone else, and it's unlikely that will ever happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Urgent action required on Anders Behring Breivik

image removed, discussion ongoing, world unlikely to end if either of those change. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Danger: consensus inbound. One editor insists on restoring an image that glorifies Breivik. There is a consensus that this could lead to copycat killings. Would someone please have a look and take appropriate action. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The editor crossed the 3RR line and has been blocked for 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I reverted the addition of the picture again, and commented against it in the RFC that's currently running on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "There is a consensus that this could lead to copycat killings." Wow. Is there wp:consensus that the picture to the right could lead to nucular war? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC) "Consensus that this could lead to copycat killings"? Wow. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a consensus. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Can someone explain to me how including a picture in Wikipedia leads to mass murder and terrorism?--Cerejota (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I see a shiny, bald head over at Jared Lee Loughner. Since that image has been in place, has there been a rash of shootings-in-the-head? Tarc (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This entire issue was madness to begin with. I got banned as a result of placing back the image three times - Martin Hogbin removed it three times. Apparantly, it incites people to murder, and I am "glorifying" Mr. Breivik (a man who's viewpoints I thoroughly disgust) by restoring the image. It's ridiculous. Polozooza (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn has personally attacked my faith community, calling it incestuous.

No admin action forthcoming...not an attack ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, User:Hrafn has spoken offensively regarding my faith community. He has been abusive before and I have either told him my concern or User:Lionel has come to my defence. However, IMO, this particular statement he has made should not go unnoticed. I will abide by your counsel, but this needs to stop. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_R._Brand&diff=next&oldid=445497738 DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) He appears to be using the word 'incestuous' in some sort of figurative or metaphorical way, although I must admit I don't get it. It does indeed seem needlessly offensive and I am sure he will wish to apologise. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (EC) If I were you, I'd assume he was going with definition 3 and just ignore it. -Atmoz (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'd go a step further and WP:TROUT someone. I call my own office incestuous, considering that 4 couples have been married over 5 years who met there, and others are dating. It doesn't mean they screw their sisters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Yup, definitely looks like the meaning Atmoz mentions: the context is definitely about the concept of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Whether he could have used a word less susceptible to mis-interpretation, given that you (DRS) did not recognize that meaning and are representative of the common reader, probably (since it could be specifically identified, even though this term really is commonly used in similar contexts from what I encounter). Administratively actionable? No. DMacks (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I will repeat once and then leave it alone: Hrafn has been abusive. I have tolerated his demeaning of me. But, I ask, why should Wikipedia encourage this abuse. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Err, so? No personal attacks doesn't mean "never say anything nasty about any religion in case someone takes it the wrong way". —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, Lord… I got stuck reading that talkpage. This may sound cruel, but I enjoyed it a lot. @DonaldRichardSands: you misunderstand Hrafn's metaphorical use of the word "incestuous", per the users posting above. Rather than repeat the point you wish to make, please click on my link with examples of the word used in a sentence, and you will see that there is no abuse. The word is used in the second sense given by Wiktionary:incestuous: "Characterized by mutual relationships that are intimate and exclusive to the detriment of outsiders." Bishonen | talk 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC). First, I am semi-involved in this, in that I'm informally providing advice/mentoring DonaldRichardSands, and come to this discussion because he specifically asked me to on my talk page (I've counseled him about canvassing, though I don't think this was done with any ill intent). I don't think that DonaldRichardSands is objecting to only the word "incestuous--the entire tone of that "Bizzaro World quotation" is snarky and mean. That being said, I understadn why Hrafn is upset, in that DRS does seem to be pushing the subtle boundary between dispute resolution and dead-horse flogging. I think part of the problem is that, when I look back at earlier interactions, there was never really a point where Hrafn started off civilly; from as early as August 6 (see Talk:Leonard R. Brand#Lousy writing), Hrafn was using highly negative terms to refer to the article and DRS's editing/writing ability. Thus, while I understand Hrafn's exasperation, I can also understand how DRS sees this as the culmination of a slowly building series of attacks. It would be great (though probably unlikely) if Hrafn would tone down the anger, and DRS would be willing not to push every detail, repeatedly. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) "Incestuous" seems to have been taken out of context, in Hfran's defense. That said, for about 10 days it was just the 2 of them at that article. Hfran had nominated it for AfD, Donald was trying to get it to pass WP:N. Hfran a very experienced editor, Donald a newcomer. Donald would make an edit. Hfran would criticize it, often laced with contempt, ridicule and condescention. Donald's theshhold for abuse is amazing. Hfran's ability to be so consistently nasty is scary. This case is the worst DONTBITE I've ever seen. That said, ANI may be overkill, I think WQA a better venue. And I for one am very proud of Donald for sticking up for himself. – Lionel (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Then let's stop messing around and block him, if he can't get the picture. –MuZemike 07:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Normally articles on Seventh Day Adventism and educational institutions, which have been discussed here at length before (Bello Wello), are fairly neutral and describe missionary colleges that have transformed into universities. These articles do form a sort of WP:WALLEDGARDEN, but that is not surprising. DRS (whose conduct has been exemplary) and many others commenting here work on those articles. BLPs about academics at these institutions can, however, be quite problematic, particularly when controversial subject areas like young earth creationism are involved. That applies to much of the content that DRS is trying to add, even if his intentions are clearly good. It is not surprising that Hrafn is exasperated by the edits of DRS. Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Hrafn has been less tactful than might have been ideal, but to describe Hrafn's comments as a "personal attack" is to take a harmless and common figurative use of a word completely wrongly. There is no need for any administrative action. This section should be allowed to rest. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral evaluation request

• Anders Behring Breivik
• Page history

There is currently an RfC regarding the use of this infobox image. Shortly after the RfC started, an editor removed the image "pending discussion", which resulted in an extended edit war and eventually full page protection. SarekOfVulcan was the last to remove the image, citing a clear consensus in the RfC. While there's a clear consensus against including it in the infobox, opinions seem to be split between moving the image to another section and removing it entirely.

Considering the fact that Sarek has involved himself in the dispute (he opines for removal in the RfC), the RfC had only been going on for one day, and the opinions in the RfC are fairly closely divided, could I ask an uninvolved administrator to look over the situation and determine whether the image should remain in the article during the RfC or not? This is only an issue because removing the image may impede the RfC, as it's kind of hard to request comments on something that you've already removed. Swarm ^{u | t} 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all difficult, considering the image is linked right at the beginning of the RFC. For the rest, see WP:WRONGVERSION.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, see http://www.dianeduane.com/outofambit/2011/07/26/he-whom-im-getting-tired-of-seeing-named/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) On an unrelated note, please tell me I'm not the only person who read the blog post, then tried to WP:MOVE it to "He Who I’m Getting Tired Of Seeing Named" with notes "cf: Rumpole of the Bailey"--Shirt58 (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Which removes the objection to the edit, so far as I can see. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, no it doesn't. An RfC isn't going to generate an effective consensus if what we're discussing has already been decided by an involved admin who's acting as jury, judge and executioner. Swarm ^{u | t} 04:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on his reconfirmation RfA, Sarek specializes in WP:INVOLVED decisions. Nevertheless, he has widespread support of the community to do so. Now eat your hat. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, who are you? Swarm ^{u | t} 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone less self-important than you? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the page wasn't protected when SoV edited it, SoV is perfectly right to point to WRONGVERSION here. The world is not going to explode because an article does without an image for a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Windows55 (2)

I am not sure if this is of any importance, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention. I accidentally stumbled on a new editor account: Windows55 (2) (talk · contribs). This new editor states on his/her user page that this is his/her second account, "Since 2008, when I was in middle school, I created the account Windows55. This year, since I am going to high school, I created a second account called Windows 55 2, the second version since 2008." That seemed odd, and further investigation showed that Windows55 (talk · contribs) was blocked in 2009 for vandalism. The original account is labeled as an educational institution, although Windows55 (2) claims he created it. If it was his personal account, and he was blocked indefinitely, he should not be editing under a new name, correct? Not sure what to do, if anything, since it has been 2 years between the account creations, and the new account has not done any vandalism. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If he's not vandalizing, I'd tend to say there's no problem. After two years, we probably would've given him a standard offer or other unblock if he seemed to be willing to work to improve the 'pedia. Keep an eye on him if you feel like it's necessary, but otherwise nothing needs to be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

what lifebaka says is effectively true. Although a blocked user who creates a new account is effectively evading a valid block and can be blocked on sight, it appears that we have someone who has been clean for a couple of years, and is almost following WP:CLEANSTART. As he has already outed himself by saying the other account is his (he could have just asked for an unblock), he should formally link the accounts - I would expect that if he keeps his nose clean, he'll be fine. Oh, and by the way ... I notified him of this Incident filing, as is required (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

EddyVadim's wikipedia battleground

I recently noticed that, beyond his disregard for wikipedia formats and his manifest problems with proper writing in English, EddyVadim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) finds it very hard to adhere by any standard of civility, of which he must be well aware of by now. His edit summaries, mostly in Romanian, show that he is conceiving of wikipedia as a battleground, accusing those who revert his poor-quality edits of being supporters of Romania's president Traian Băsescu (and, presumably, opponents of EddyVadim's own ideological stance). Be that as it may, EV compliments his attitude with some very inflammatory edit summaries: What is trivialy???....he IS a very good player to wich we Romanians just found out in recent years......formatly coretly???...meaning what? it is VERY corectly....you are a bastard that's what...; e bine acu javra? ("is it okay now, you scoundrel/mongrel?"); e membru d partid bha boule ("he's a party member, you douche"). Note that, as the "formatly coretly???...meaning what?" comment shows, the guy doesn't even seem to understand that at least some of the objections he received relate to format, informative value and writing style issues - indeed, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of the quality standards we re supposed to adhere to. If not blocked, this user needs serious mentoring.

I find the most alarming of these to be this open threat to physical harm, and possibly outing, against a user who reverted him: Daca te prind in bucuresti iti rup gatu ruman spurcat ce esti...tii cu basescu nu javra???? That means: "If I catch you around in [B]ucharest I will break you neck you filthy Romanian you...you're for [Bă]sescu, aren't you, you mongrel/scoundrel".

Please feel free to ask other Romanian speakers to verify my translations. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have blocked for longer, but hopefully this block gets the message through to him (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

His user name points to some association with the far-right movement of Corneliu Vadim Tudor ([183]). I doubt we'll see any useful contributions from this user. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour at MfD

Nothing requiring admin action here ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please could an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TreasuryTag and, if it is thought necessary, step in to regulate the behaviour? It seems to be degenerating into a general, "Let's abuse TreasuryTag," forum – as will this thread, sadly, I suspect – and I don't think that's appropriate or acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not seeing "abuse TT" there. I see "let's dredge up TT's past comments, editing style, interaction style and use it to argue in favour/against TT". Just like at an RFA, your editing history is out there for the widespread use. I expect that bringing it to this forum will only escalate it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC) "The user is a well known wikilawyer" seems to be nothing but gratuitous abuse. "I received an email ages ago from someone who will remain anonymous telling me to be careful as you were a wikilawyer" is particularly disturbing abuse. "We're not required to have any respect for your actions. Have you earned any?" doesn't seem like a constructive comment to make in a deletion debate. I don't see why I should be forced to put up with such comments. They are not relevant to the deletion discussion. They're not helpful. They're just a bunch of trolls taking advantage of the fact that there's a page where they can make nasty comments about me. I think that a responsible admin should put a stop to it. And yes, I daresay that bringing it here will escalate it. But what is your alternative suggestion? Just tolerate the abuse and harassment I'm suffering? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) "They're just a bunch of trolls ..." Is that not "gratuitous abuse"? Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) No, I think that's a reasonable description of the sort of editor who posts, ""I received an email ages ago from someone who will remain anonymous telling me to be careful as you were a wikilawyer." ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 11:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Let me be serious here for a moment: WP:SPADE. TT, your actions and edits show your colours. You are a gratuitous wikilawyer - that's not a personal attack, it's the truth (and I daresy you're about to prove it with your next reply). You have to realize that in your Wikicareer your own actions have pissed off a lot of people. You have two incidents on this page alone of accounts created just to harass you ... that's not random. Here's an idea: delete the portion of your talkpage that is pissing everyone off, and meld into the background for awhile, be a wikignome for awhile, and build a positive reputation on the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Or in other words, "I don't give a shit that you're being abused and harassed, and I'm not going to do anything about it," – is that it? I never had a high opinion of you as an admin, but this really takes the biscuit. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 11:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I did receive the email. Stating so is not trolling. I used it to back up my statement that you were a notorious wikilawyer. Admittedly not the best source due to it not being publicly available - but since pointing it out your editor review has been mentioned, and as you can see it's there as well from a source wholly unrelated to me. And even in this thread someone, again entirely unrelated to me, is pointing it out! Egg Centric 11:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Eggshells armed with hammers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Constantly playing the victim and expecting others to give a damn does not appear to be working in your favour TT, you have to realise this. Frankly, it is YOUR behaviour that is out of line: it is not the behaviour I would expect of someone who deserves to remain unblocked, let alone be allowed to keep a message on their talk page that is designed purely to attack others. And most of these people who you have grievances with are decent editors who work damn hard to try and make wikipedia a decent place. 195.43.48.140 (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated page creation and tag removal by User:Allenj54

Resolved

 – User blocked, promtional pages deleted and salted.-- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Allenj54 has created the page AMAZIN MUZAK four times now. He has removed the speedy deletion tag from the current version twice. He has been warned by SD patrol bot multiple times. His editing is very disruptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest a hint of salt for this dish? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm looking for. In addition, someone should leave a warning that he will be blocked for disruptive editing if his behavior continues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Article is on its 5th time around now. Apparently, it is the user's own album. Maybe a block for using Wikipedia for solely promotional purposes is in order. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Allenj54's User page is nothing but a promotional link for his album. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a vandalism only account. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not vandalism per se, but definitely self-promotional. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism, but I've salted the non-notable album, deleted (twice) the userpage promotion, and issued a last warning. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC

(edit conflict)I don't think you could say vandalism only in the literal sense of the word, but the user is extremely disruptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The user is now using their userpage to again promote his albums. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and everything has now been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Persistent COPYVIO issue

Resolved

 – User blocked for one week by Zscout370 for copyright violations. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Virginiasallyfischerpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing Beppe Severgnini, adding apparent COPYVIO material from the author's own Web site (which is clearly marked as being copyrighted). The editor has removed the copyvio template once and re-added the infringing material, above the template, once. Warning templates on the user Talk page are apparently not getting through. Could an admin try some additional persuasion? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston administrative judgement

I have concern regarding EdJohnston (talk · contribs) administrative judgement.

1. proposed a sanction on me for violating an interaction ban with RolandR.[184] The only problem is that I do not share an interaction ban with RolandR.
2. closed a complaint against RolandR, for whom he reverted after being lied to about the content of the sources provided. The argument for considering a blatant misrepresentation of multiple sources as justified was "for BLP reasons". i.e. according to EdJohnston's statement, it is ok to lie about multiple wiki-reliable sources if you have concerns that the information involved makes someone look bad.original thread against RolandR To give insult to injury, he proposed Gatoclass, a highly partisan editor in the subject of WP:ARBPIA, as someone who validates his observation on the matter.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This complaint would appear to be forum-shopping about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no notification of EdJohnston, as is required (I left one) and, worse, no discussion on his talk page about your complaint before you brought it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to find out EdJohnston's response to this. Regardless of whether this thread should've been posted in the first place, the points Jaakobou raised all seem to be correct, and it's generally not possible to appeal WP:AE decisions on the administrator's talk page (I have never seen it work, anyway). I trust however that EdJohnston, as a responsible administrator, will look seriously at these points and comment on both. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appeal of an AE case, which is still open, it's a complaint against an admin's behavior, and the first place that should be dealt with is on the admin's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Heyo BMK,

I did discuss with EdJohnston the issue of RolandR prior to him closing that case and suggesting administrative action against me. Regardless, thank you for notifying EdJohnstons about this post, my family took me away from my computer for a bit.

Best wishes, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) +better phrasing 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC) -shorter 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The AE report wasn't for violating an interaction ban with RolandR, it was for violating one with Nableezy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. EdJohsnton has not read the thread properly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But he drew the correct conclusions from it anyway. Funny, that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The complaint consisted of a single diff. An indirect link in context of discussion of a 3rd editor -- and I removed it two weeks ago.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC) -s 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston has acknowledged that he made an error.[185] Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for my error in thinking that the interaction ban was with RolandR. I have struck my comment on Nableezy's AE complaint about Jaakobou.
• There is no noticeboard appeal process for AE requests when they close with no action, as the RolandR request did. You should either ask the admin to reconsider, or go to Arbcom. I considered the complaint to be weak due to the BLP issues at Ezra Nawi that Roland said he was correcting. His concern was plausible. I do not imagine you will get an enthusiastic response from Arbcom if you appeal the issue there. Specific charges of sex abuse against the subject of a BLP article will probably not be taken lightly by Arbcom.
• WP:Arbitration enforcement will benefit from having a variety of admins come in and give their opinions. Maybe we should put up the 'admin backlog' sign on the page. There is a long-running case at WP:AE#Miradre which is lacking in comments from admins and uninvolved editors. Thanks to anyone willing to help out. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I find EdJohnson's response satisfactory. While the idea that lying about sources does not sound like something which should be condoned, I will let this one slide and am withdrawing my request. 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Omnicon

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnicon (2nd nomination), the nominator said they want the article to be a redirect. Isn't it improper to nominate an article for a deletion when the nominator doesn't want it deleted? Shouldn't the nomination be closed and the nominator can propose a redirect? Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW

• Please remember to notify the editor(s) you being to ANI.
• Please remember to use gender neutral terms and pronouns when they have not volunteered their gender. "They" works a lot better than "assigning" one for convenience, and even if it is to a long held default in English.
• The knee-jerk reaction - and yes, it comes off that way - is not helpful.
• It also flies in the dace of what the closer of the first AfD pointed to:
  • It reads as very prejudicial to the second AfD, contrary to WP:NPASR, and
  • It definitely maintains a battleground mentality and imposes it on the 2nd AfD.
• Bringing it here immediately enhances those issues.

- J Greb (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of all that, it was clearly an invalid AfD nomination and fulfilled the first criterion of WP:SK so I closed the discussion appropriately. -- Atama頭 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Update: I asked the nominator of the AfD to attempt to ask others who are active in Transformers articles whether or not they'd support changing the article into a redirect, or to simply put the proposal on the article talk page, do it if nobody objects (I suggested a 24 hour wait) and then to start the discussion with anyone who reverts it. The reason why we have "articles for deletion" and not "articles for redirect" is because you don't need to start a formal discussion to redirect an article, and then wait 7 days for an administrator to do it for you. You can just do it yourself. -- Atama頭 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

While the SK is technically correct, the problem is that if someone undoes the redirect, it's nearly impossible to follow through with it other than an AfD. The only other option is an RfC, but since those are rarely closed by administrators, it's almost certainly not to end up with a good result. Note that if the person had simply nominated the article for deletion (under notability grounds), and said nothing about the redirect, and then later other editors !voted to redirect, that would have been the result (and anyone who disagreed would have been pointed to the AfD and then onwards to DRV). While it's outside the scope of ANI, I wonder if this should be changed--that is, not requiring an AfD for a redirect, but allowing one if there is resistance and the issue needs community input. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We've a long precedent of using AfD to formalise a consensus that a subject isn't independently notable in spite of it being explicitly disallowed because of the problem with redirects being undone against consensus. It's the only way to get a diverse set of opinions without having to resort to RfC. To be honest it's long past time that this were specifically codified, as this pantomime happens all the time with fiction AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I get what you both were saying. But what would happen in this situation... An article goes to AfD, the consensus seems to be to change it to a redirect, and that happens. Then another person comes along and undoes the redirect. I'm not aware of any policy saying that can't happen. Is an AfD where a consensus wants a redirect any different than an RfC or similar discussion where a consensus wants a redirect? It's not like an admin closing an AfD will turn it into a redirect and then fully protect the page. I just don't see that an AfD is going to be any more helpful. -- Atama頭 18:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We have far too much fictional content of this sort to clean up to resort to RfC every time. AfD has been shown to work well for this sort of thing for at least three years, and redirecting with protection has been a successful outcome in the past (if you want examples, try any Games Workshop-related AfD Le Grand Roi was involved in). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of explicitly allowing someone to take an article to AfD to ask for a redirect and protection. That might be worth trying at WT:AFD. In that case, we'd possibly want to set it up with a new template that says something along the lines of "this article is a protected redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo, please make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion Review to have the protection removed". That prevents someone from going to RFPP and suckering an admin into removing protection against the AfD result. -- Atama頭 21:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

user:RonaldMerchant

Resolved

 – user now blocked, no need to pile on Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

RonaldMerchant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly edit warring to restore his trolling comments on my talk page. He's posted three or four times since I asked him not to post on my talk page. He's restored his own comments after I've removed them several times since being informed and acknowledging that "Users are allowed to remove items from their talk page, and by removing it they acknowledge that they read the item, so please stop undoing his edit" by ZamorakO o.

He's also broken 3RR on Espresso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The edit warring report can be found here, along with duckish behavior in response. Yworo (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Check his contribs. He first reverted my edit, I corrected it - then he HOUNDING all my edits across Wikipedia, exhibiting a BATTLEGROUND mentality. He's upset that I beat off his challenges to my edits, so he's looking for admin's help. It's simple: if you don't want to be harassed, then don't harass others without any reason. I've merely responded to totally unprovoked aggression. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not upset at all. My edits were intended to remove uncited additions and opinions. That you found sources actually improves Wikipedia, which I am all in favor of. I do have to say though that your sources look pretty dubious and the citations are incomplete. Yworo (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So, challenge them again then. And lose, again. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Haha, he just did. And yet again, he's barking up the wrong tree. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1496629 RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is now writing "i suspect citation is fake" on all my edits. LOL. If this is not a BATTLEGROUND mentality and "baiting", what is? RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you mean it when you said "So, challenge them again then" just 3 lines above? Yworo (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and you fell right for it! Welcome to my level! :-) RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe I'd have to fall a lot further to reach your level, Sir. Yworo (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Now RonaldMarchant is blocked for 31 hours for the edit warring; I think we can let this go for now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, someone might want to revdel his latest comment on his talk page. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not revdel-appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan blocked for 31 hours, RolandMerchant made a particularly uncivil attack on Sarek, which I removed (I don't know if it rises to the level of RevDel, someone else can decide). I then reblocked for 60 hours and removed talk page access. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If we could stop worrying about rude words for a minute... Sarek reverted RM's last edit to the article with "not in source" (tiny fix added). Sarek, are you sure? If so, then the block should be changed to an indef block. Willingness to fabricate sources to win an argument should be just about the worst thing an editor could do here, orders of magnitude worse than the dreaded "incivility". Combine this with a MMORPG attitude, and we can never trust him again. No series of escalating warnings, no hand holding, this editor's mindset is fundamentally at odds with our goal. If someone can verify with certainty that the restored edit was not in the source provided, then indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried, it's behind a jstor paywall... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I checked it in JSTOR - it's accessible through my local public library. The article referred to Armenians, bottom pinching, and charms, but never in the combination claimed in the article. I'd appreciate a cross-check to see if I was reading too quickly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source (or, if you're in the same humble position as I am, merely its first page). The first footnote, which we all can read, says that there were a grand total of two (2) "Armenian" informants, but the title shows that these were actually resident in the US and so might better be described as "Armenian-American". The paper is sixty years old; it may have been exemplary in its day, but I'm puzzled to see "Jews" all thrown together -- no distinction between, say, Spanish and Lithuanian Jews? Further (to put it in WP terms) the "in-universe" account ("All witches possess the evil eye...") seems very quaint. JSTOR brings to my mind one thing; this paper (even though authentically at JSTOR) is quite another. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, the point of the "All witches" section is to describe what the author saw the folklore as teaching; of course the author isn't advocating the idea that all witches really do possess it. The same style appears later in the paper; it's always used to describe what's believed by believers in the evil eye, and it doesn't seem to me to be difficult to distinguish the folklore from the author's analysis of the folklore. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the same humble position. If, as Sarek says, there is reference to "Armenians, bottom pinching, and charms", then I'm concerned that "not in source" is a serious accusation to make. Now in this particular case, with the approach to editing that RonaldMerchant has, I suspect he's not going to last here anyway. But in the more general case, possible misuse of sources and possible incorrect accusation of misuse of sources are more serious than rude words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is an instance of "newcomers" doing the biting. –MuZemike 07:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Here is the claim. I have read the referenced source, and Sarek is correct that there is nothing in there about Armenians or Armenian Americans believing either of those two things. I think I misunderstood Sarek above, I was worried that there might be something in there about Armenians and broken charms, for example, but not quite what was in the article. But instead, there is nothing that links Armenians with either belief; one is linked to another ethnic group, and one is not mentioned. (Having read the source, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it turned out one or both were true about old Armenian beliefs too, but they are not in the source provided.) If this was a one-off, I could easily chalk it up to misreading the source, but coming as it does in the middle of cries of "I win", and general problematic behavior across multiple articles, I am going to re-block RonaldMerchant indef for intentionally misrepresenting sources in an article to win an argument with a perceived enemy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Request move technical issue

Resolved

Somebody has already fixed it. So I'm closing this. --Tachfin (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think this belongs here but I'm not sure where to put it: I have recently requested a move here but it wasn't properly added on the requested moves page. The bot put it in Could not determine date section and my whole argumentation wasn't copied. Should I go for a bold manual copy/paste in the requested moves page? or is there any other way to fix this.
Thank you in advance--Tachfin (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Resolved

 – See subpage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Now at RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

--Discussion moved to subpage, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie - purely due to length. Not closed; ongoing.  Chzz  ►  23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, depite moving it due to length, input is requested, esp, in La_goutte_de_pluie#Resolution. (OK, a few bolded words, has to be preferable to 500Kb of text?) Ty.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it unresolved and, to prevent its archiving, am signing this without timestamp. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) Thx  Chzz  ►  as in without timestamp Elen of the Roads (talk)

For whatever reason, it was archived [186], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week;  Chzz  ►  Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Aaand. it got archived again [187]. Anyone know how to prevent that happening?  Chzz  ►  08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, add a future timestamp. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Thanks, Fastily. I noticed this timestamp while skipping through the page and almost had a heart attack. God knows how many other editors you finished off. :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• This remains unresolved and any fresh eyes from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we speed this up? Seems like a bad idea to shift it off this board. Response is getting slow. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• This thing still remains unsolved. We might as well move this to WP:RFC/U or contact ArbCom. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think we're close though. There are two open proposals currently on the page. Can we get an uninvolved admin to look at the two proposals there and enact them if consensus exists? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I closed the second proposal as having reached consensus. There was virtually no opposition, even La goutte de pluie supported the proposal. The only objection to the proposal at all was opposed to 1RR restriction but supported semiprotection, and semiprotection was added to the proposal after that objection was made. With 8 others supporting, and no other objections over a 10 day period, it was an easy close to make. I have included an entry at WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community to formally list the sanctions, as well as creating editnotices for all 5 articles, semiprotecting them, and placing a notice on the talk pages of the articles. I think that crosses every I and dots every T. If I made a mistake, PLEASE let me know on my user talk page, this is my first time initiating a general sanction. -- Atama頭 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• I gave the first proposal more thought, as it wasn't nearly as clear. I found that there were basically two different issues being discussed, first that La goutte de pluie has misused administrator tools at Singaporean political articles, and secondly that she has caused enough disruption at those articles as an editor to warrant a topic ban. I see more support for the first suggestion, and much less for the second. I have therefore closed the topic ban proposal as "no consensus". There was a suggestion that an RfC might be created to discuss the misuse of tools, and may be warranted at this point given the numerous complaints at that page and previously on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, Atama. I think your closures are fair although I am fairly disappointed there was no consensus for a topic ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now at RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Account may be compromised

There have been two edits made in my name today, neither made by me, so it seems my account is compromised. I've had no experience with this, so can someone tell me where to from here. The edits are here and here. Moriori (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I trust that you immediately changed your password...? I see that both edits are rollbacks - perhaps you accidentally clicked rollback from your watchlist. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, password changed. After the first phantom edit, which truly puzzled me, I became super careful. I am totally confident I never accidentally hit rollback on that second edit (and certainly not deliberately).. Moriori (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

Is there anyone you work or live with that might have used your computer while you were logged in? If so, you should ask them. lifebaka++ 00:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No. No-one but me has used this computer since last Friday. All tests show it as virus free.Moriori (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would consider changing your email password(s) and check your email config for Wikipedia to make sure you aren't leaving a way for him to get your new password. A checkuser could tell whether the IP & machine is one you've been using or completely different.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Email adjusted. Have changed my mouse just in case it was somehow activating rollback without being clicked. Seems zillion to one unlikely, but who knows. Will plod on and see if it happens again. Moriori (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser says that all recent edits have been made from the same computer, including the questionable ones. Is there anyone else in your home/office/whatever that may have been able to get to your computer when you stepped away for a bit? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see how without my knowledge, anyway I fully trust the only other person with potential access who is as mystified as I am. Moriori (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another one has been pointed out to me, here, a revert to a nasty message on a user's page. Trust me, I did not knowingly make that edit. Very embarrassing. Moriori (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever use Wi-Fi? And, if you do, is it encrypted? Cardamon (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

...additionally, it is a good idea to login on the secure server...which I note has been removed as an option from the standard login page (Does anyone know why?)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

May indicate that your email account may be compromised, change the email password. Also, check the keyboard cord for any attachments to what looks like a extension. Phearson (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It could simply be a lag in the internet connection, has happened to me a couple of times. When my watchlist is loading, I think I'm clicking on something, but instead I've rolledback something else or have clicked on another user's contribution history link because the page just loaded completely and the list moved a bit! Since all these are simple rollbacks, that's very likely what happened. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That happens to me too. It seems to happen more often these past few months, actually. Sometimes it will look like the page is done loading, and then ZIP it loads one more element and now I've misclicked. I also have a problem where I'm editing a page, and I'm actually in the middle of typing something and the page isn't actually done loading. When the page finishes loading, all of a sudden the keys I'm typing are no longer adding text and some keystrokes will be interpreted as commands for the browser (for example, a backspace will put me back to the previous page). Really annoying. -- Atama頭 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Me three on that. The edit window apparently loads, and I start typing, only to find I'm actually typing over the heading. Or I click to edit a section, and it loads a different one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

+1. I have little tech knowledge, but it seems to be Javascript related, by rendering the page before extensions are loaded, and then again afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith while using admins tools

Request withdrawn by original poster. lifebaka++ 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At this DRV page I had a discussion with Ironholds (talk · contribs). Ironholds was the admin who deleted pages, I started the DRV to have that reviewed. The DRV itself is not what I am here about, it is about Ironholds behaviour in that discussion. Background: The deletions are about banned user's creations & edits (speedy CSD-G5). One issue in the discussion is, whether there were sub~stantial edits by other editors than the creator. While the four pages were deleted, their content and history were invisible to me as I am not an admin. I had to argue from memory rather than diffs, Ironholds had full view. Then I started a subthread, with this original post: Ironholds behaviour This is getting nasty. A big part of this thread (all four templates) is about "substantial edits by others [than the banned editor]" after creation of a page (see WP:SPEEDY {{db-g5}}). In this, non-admins like me are dependent on admins for that look at the histories. Several times I have pointed to the "substantial edits" part: OP note c [188] [189], and to Ironholds selective reporting by only mentioning & deminishing my, DePiep's, edits [190] [191]. Now it appears Ironholds has effectively left out substantial edits by other editors (half a page added!) to suit their argument [192]. To me this is acting in bad faith by Ironholds, through (ab)using their admin's rights, especially since a non-admin is dependent on such information. I want a full and open review of the histories. That is, of course, only if there is not a better & faster solution (reverting right away). The arguments here of Ironholds are to be considered irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Follow up: Over there, Ironholds has not responded to this post (they did edit the page elsewhere). Meanwhile, the pages have become available again, and their histories show that my suspicion was right. hist1, hist2, hist3, hist4: other user edits were more substantial. (Note: depending on the outcome of the DRV, e.t.a. about Tuesday 23nd, these histories might disappear again for non-admins). So in the discussion, Ironholds represented the relevant history way too sided. This was not corrected by any other admin. In the process, these representations were personalised (towards me [193]) and had a sense of ridicule ("[this was] hardly a substantial contribution, or even, really a contribution at all"[194] - this being about templates, documentation, and even copyvio as an argument introduced by Ironholds themselves). My request: I would like to have a judgement on this behaviour here at ANI, and corresponding actions. Apart from some form of blaming this behaviour, I do not have a specific outcome myself right now. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Notified User [195] and DRV-page [196]. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Without looking by myself, have you tried to discuss this issue directly with Ironholds on their talkpaghe as required before coming here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I don't see that there's anything that needs doing. Ironholds made concise points regarding the nature of the history of these templates which do appear to stand up to scrutiny of the histories, specifically that the "substantial edits by other users" are almost all by you, and mostly fairly uncomplicated. Even Vanisaac's contributions to {{ISO 15924/numeric}} are "data" rather than "logic" (filling in a switch statement, basically), and while they are "substantial" in terms of bytes they are not "creative" in a way that you'd still firmly identify Bogdan Nagachop as the architext of the work. As such (and especially given that these are new templates, and that any fallout could be fixed trivially by reverting to the pre-Bogdan revision of the calling templates) the "substantial edits by others" clause in G5 doesn't look to be a cast-iron defense. There was confusion all round in the DRV, but that was the making of both of you. It is not at all clear why you thought taking this to the dramaboard was a good idea when the usual remedies handed out here (blocks, protection) are obviously inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Especially given how much of the template is just data, my contribution was a jump in logic that significantly added utility and was a highly unobvious extension of the template. By adding simple equivalences for number=number, and code=code, these templates enable input in either of the standard ISO 15924 forms to be displayed consistently, while the previous versions required that the input parameters be in only one of the forms. Even though they were simply adding data, the entirety of the templates /code and /numeric are a single #switch statement - the data is the content. VanIsaacWS re BWilkins. Directly yes, in their talkpage no. I discussed it at the DRV page as part of the whole discussion. I addressed Ironholds directly in some edits. Ironholds has chosen to delete this whole DRV topic from their Talkpage [197]. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Re Chris Cunningham. Most of your post here is plain DRV reasoning, so should be there. I am not here to redo the DRV. As for this incident, I get the impression you are paternalising a non-admin, by giving me your judgement on a situation, while I had no view of the facts. Also, you too zoom in on my edits, which is irrelevant for the discussion. Exactly this behaviour is in my OP here. You are right: the outcome is not cast-iron, but that works both ways. And to get to an outcome, I needed facts that were withheld. Re "confusion all around in the DRV" and "dramaboard", I don't see how those broad remarks relate to my specific post here, especially since the OP and diffs I provided point to a clear description, I think. If you want me to rephrase my question to make it more clear, please ask so. But that I do not ask for a "usual remedy" like a block does not mean the question does not belong here. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My only statement to make is that I have long since disengaged from the discussion, mostly due to the accusations DePiep and another user see fit to throw at me. If anyone wants me, I'll be writing articles or doing something similarly productive, but quite frankly this is far past the point at which I stop giving a shit. I deleted the discussion on my talkpage because I consider the matter settled; the templates have been restored, I have learnt to take things slightly slower when dealing with G5 cases, and everyone wins. Why DePiep isn't satisfied with this, I don't know - and to be honest, I don't care. He can make whatever additional accusations he wants, because I won't be following them. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My impression is that Ironholds, whose RfA was as recent as January, has a few problems in the role of admin—these were anticipated by some of the comments at the RfA, which was not his first attempt to become an admin. While I think some of his contributions are fine (he's a good writer/editor), to put it kindly there has been a flippancy and, dare I say it, immaturity, on display in some of his actions. However, I've gained a bad impression through only limited observation, and I can't suggest how the situation might be improved. Tony (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My limited observations have all been positive. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) re Tony. To be fair, I prefer this topic not zooming out to such a general one. I think that would become an impossible discussion. My aim was to be as precise as possible into one single topic, and I will try to stay there. -DePiep (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My impression of this situation is that both users were frustrated and reacted in less-than-friendly ways on the DRV. Ironholds seems to have realized (rather maturely, in my estimation, to counter Tony1's feeling that he's showing immaturity) that the discussion between them was going nowhere except to hell, and disengaged to let the DRV run its course; DePiep is continuing to push the issue, both in regard to getting the templates restored prior to the DRV closing (at which he has been successful) and in regard to engaging personally with Ironholds. Is there a reason we can't chalk this up to "two users rubbing each other the wrong way; one disengaged, the other didn't" and go on with our lives, especially since Ironholds has, just above, noted that he intends to be more cautious with G5 deletions from now on? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) This is a good description & suggestion, I'll chew on it. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I personally think this incident has pointed out a rather glaring flaw in the WP:SPEEDY criteria, and I have engaged that talk page with getting a note in the G5 criteria about transcluded templates. The fact is that even though there was an aparent violation of the substantive contributions provision in the G5 delete of template:ISO 15924/code and template:ISO 15924/numeric, template:ISO 15924/alias had no such problem, even though it was similarly essential to the functioning of the Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode information template. I think this is a problem inherent in doing speedy deletes of any template that is transcluded elsewhere, so I'd like to prevent these sorts of incidents from happening by forcing transcluded templates that are otherwise G5 eligible to the regular deletion process, with editors who did the transcluding informed so they can make other provisions or simply remove the dependencies. I'd be happy for others' input at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as the conversation seems to have died down a bit. VanIsaacWS 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Re Vanisaac: totally OT. This is not about the DRV or Speedy. Please read the intro. -DePiep (talk) Re Fluffernutter: on second reading, imo your description doesn't show the right picture. The engagement/disengagement was not that crisp, and diffused along the timeline (see the diffs in the big self-quote above). Since I claim that admins tools were abused, I think I am perfectly right to ask (admins) opinion about that. And my engagement with the topic resulted in this result [198], which can be regarded as quite a positive contribution if not a solution. At least I did something with my "pushed point". -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I thought that this was already addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Speedy_delete_gone_bad. Perhaps it is time to move on to other matters. --After Midnight 0001 14:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC) As a someone pretty much uninvolved in this, my analysis of this situation is that Ironholds deleted the articles in good faith following the letter of G5; he could not have necessarily forseen the shitstorm that came about when he did so. Things only got out of hand when other users started making rude and unreasonably worded demands on him, for which understandibly led to Ironholds taking a defensive stance itself. He certainly didn't do anything to merit the vitriol hurled his way. If the users who wanted the deletions reviewed had merely taken the issue calmly to DRV, and patiently waited for it to resolve itself (which it did in total spite of their own rudeness in making loud, unreasonable demands of others) then we would have arrived at the same results (the deletions being overturned) and we could have gotten at those results without any of this unneeded drama. It seems clear that the worst thing Ironholds did was to overreact to the rudeness hurled his way by others who were too impatient to allow Wikipedia's established processes to work. Did he get a little rude himself? Sure he did, but I don't see that as an ultimately sanctionable event. His only use of the admin tools was valid, and he was backed into a corner by users who assumed bad faith from almost the start and never gave him a chance. --Jayron32 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Jayron, I took it to DRV, so you are addressing me. Please provide the diffs that is was not "calmly". I started asking Ironholds to revert: "I request you undo the reverts." [199]. Then, taking it to DRV, I wrote the OP there [200]. I cannot see very much uncalm there. Hours later, indeed, an other editor added less becoming and non-DRV related commments. At that moment, the disruption was some 20 hrs old. I cannot blame too much an editor for crossing a line then, reacting to disruptions is a primary reaction at WP. And eventually, instead of "waiting" patiently for the problem to solve itself (after 20 hrs), that same editor took it to ANI and that is how it was solved. You might remember that ANI post, because it was you who closed it correctly when it was done. And any "overreaction" by Ironholds after the vitriol doesn't fit the timeline: the links in my post, quoted above, are of earlier time. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Look, I can't spell this out any simpler: Yes, Ironholds was rude. What action do you want the rest of us to take about that? Shall we initiate desysop procedures with the Arbcom immediately because he got too heated in a discussion? What outcome do you seek? --Jayron32 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Acting in bad faith? Why would Ironholds purposefully antagonise you over something like this? I'm certain he believed they were deletable under G5 - you disagreed, but people disagree all the time. I did see the original messages you left him, and your attitude was not entirely non-accusatory, in my opinion. He didn't feel comfortable restoring for you, but disengaged to allow the DRV to run its course. Neither side were particularly polite about the whole thing, but accusations of bad faith? That's too extreme. If he made a mistake deleting them under G5 then he made a mistake, pure and simple, I doubt there are many admins that never ever make mistakes. Is it easier to kick up a fuss and accuse someone of abusing their admin tools than just to admit it was a disagreement and move on? Surely not. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I withdraw this request. After being off screen for some 3 hours, this is my feeling: if it takes so much time for me to explain and defend my point, my point might be empty. I thank any editor who contributed here. If not for content then by contributing, you helped me. I ask any not-too-involved admin walking by to close this thread. Also, that same cool admin could delete (blank) this ANI's notice section over at Ironholds's talk page, please. That would be good. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I largely agree Jayron32, except that I didn't notice Ironholds being rude. What I did see was two editors, DePiep a little, and VanIsaac a lot, making themselves look obnoxious. They also managed to make a very ugly mess of a simple DRV case. I see absolutely no case for alleging "Bad faith while using admins tools", or any other complaint beyond a policy deletion that might be better not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia being spammed by multiple new accounts

I don't know what to make of this. But, a whole series of newly registered accounts are going around adding {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} to various South Asia related articles. Examples: [201][202]. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I dug up and blocked several accounts, although the motive remains a mystery to me as well. TNXMan 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I don't know what to make of it. The edits seem fine. So why have a slew of alternate accounts add it? Doesn't make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Two sockmasters like to use this template User:Dewan357 and User:Mrpontiac1. Many of their edits are generally fine, but they use that to disguise the rest. Dewan357 is currently active, Kww and I have blocked a few socks recently (including one yesterday), MrP, last we blocked was a few weeks ago. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be Mrpontiac1. Does Dewan357 have any socks that have been active recently? TNXMan 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Areapeaslol, 69.115.82.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.196.0.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.197.112.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He also uses the two public library IPs, and that of his college plus a few others. —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There's our winner. The accounts I found are  Confirmed as Dewan357 by way of Just4edit (talk · contribs). TNXMan 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite a farm that went undetected! —SpacemanSpiff 05:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Resolved

 – See subpage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Now at RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

--Discussion moved to subpage, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie - purely due to length. Not closed; ongoing.  Chzz  ►  23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, depite moving it due to length, input is requested, esp, in La_goutte_de_pluie#Resolution. (OK, a few bolded words, has to be preferable to 500Kb of text?) Ty.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it unresolved and, to prevent its archiving, am signing this without timestamp. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) Thx  Chzz  ►  as in without timestamp Elen of the Roads (talk)

For whatever reason, it was archived [203], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week;  Chzz  ►  Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Aaand. it got archived again [204]. Anyone know how to prevent that happening?  Chzz  ►  08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, add a future timestamp. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Thanks, Fastily. I noticed this timestamp while skipping through the page and almost had a heart attack. God knows how many other editors you finished off. :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• This remains unresolved and any fresh eyes from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we speed this up? Seems like a bad idea to shift it off this board. Response is getting slow. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• This thing still remains unsolved. We might as well move this to WP:RFC/U or contact ArbCom. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think we're close though. There are two open proposals currently on the page. Can we get an uninvolved admin to look at the two proposals there and enact them if consensus exists? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I closed the second proposal as having reached consensus. There was virtually no opposition, even La goutte de pluie supported the proposal. The only objection to the proposal at all was opposed to 1RR restriction but supported semiprotection, and semiprotection was added to the proposal after that objection was made. With 8 others supporting, and no other objections over a 10 day period, it was an easy close to make. I have included an entry at WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community to formally list the sanctions, as well as creating editnotices for all 5 articles, semiprotecting them, and placing a notice on the talk pages of the articles. I think that crosses every I and dots every T. If I made a mistake, PLEASE let me know on my user talk page, this is my first time initiating a general sanction. -- Atama頭 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• I gave the first proposal more thought, as it wasn't nearly as clear. I found that there were basically two different issues being discussed, first that La goutte de pluie has misused administrator tools at Singaporean political articles, and secondly that she has caused enough disruption at those articles as an editor to warrant a topic ban. I see more support for the first suggestion, and much less for the second. I have therefore closed the topic ban proposal as "no consensus". There was a suggestion that an RfC might be created to discuss the misuse of tools, and may be warranted at this point given the numerous complaints at that page and previously on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, Atama. I think your closures are fair although I am fairly disappointed there was no consensus for a topic ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now at RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Account may be compromised

There have been two edits made in my name today, neither made by me, so it seems my account is compromised. I've had no experience with this, so can someone tell me where to from here. The edits are here and here. Moriori (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I trust that you immediately changed your password...? I see that both edits are rollbacks - perhaps you accidentally clicked rollback from your watchlist. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, password changed. After the first phantom edit, which truly puzzled me, I became super careful. I am totally confident I never accidentally hit rollback on that second edit (and certainly not deliberately).. Moriori (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

Is there anyone you work or live with that might have used your computer while you were logged in? If so, you should ask them. lifebaka++ 00:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No. No-one but me has used this computer since last Friday. All tests show it as virus free.Moriori (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would consider changing your email password(s) and check your email config for Wikipedia to make sure you aren't leaving a way for him to get your new password. A checkuser could tell whether the IP & machine is one you've been using or completely different.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Email adjusted. Have changed my mouse just in case it was somehow activating rollback without being clicked. Seems zillion to one unlikely, but who knows. Will plod on and see if it happens again. Moriori (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser says that all recent edits have been made from the same computer, including the questionable ones. Is there anyone else in your home/office/whatever that may have been able to get to your computer when you stepped away for a bit? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I really can't see how without my knowledge, anyway I fully trust the only other person with potential access who is as mystified as I am. Moriori (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another one has been pointed out to me, here, a revert to a nasty message on a user's page. Trust me, I did not knowingly make that edit. Very embarrassing. Moriori (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever use Wi-Fi? And, if you do, is it encrypted? Cardamon (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

...additionally, it is a good idea to login on the secure server...which I note has been removed as an option from the standard login page (Does anyone know why?)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

May indicate that your email account may be compromised, change the email password. Also, check the keyboard cord for any attachments to what looks like a extension. Phearson (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It could simply be a lag in the internet connection, has happened to me a couple of times. When my watchlist is loading, I think I'm clicking on something, but instead I've rolledback something else or have clicked on another user's contribution history link because the page just loaded completely and the list moved a bit! Since all these are simple rollbacks, that's very likely what happened. —SpacemanSpiff 11:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That happens to me too. It seems to happen more often these past few months, actually. Sometimes it will look like the page is done loading, and then ZIP it loads one more element and now I've misclicked. I also have a problem where I'm editing a page, and I'm actually in the middle of typing something and the page isn't actually done loading. When the page finishes loading, all of a sudden the keys I'm typing are no longer adding text and some keystrokes will be interpreted as commands for the browser (for example, a backspace will put me back to the previous page). Really annoying. -- Atama頭 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Me three on that. The edit window apparently loads, and I start typing, only to find I'm actually typing over the heading. Or I click to edit a section, and it loads a different one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

+1. I have little tech knowledge, but it seems to be Javascript related, by rendering the page before extensions are loaded, and then again afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith while using admins tools

Request withdrawn by original poster. lifebaka++ 04:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At this DRV page I had a discussion with Ironholds (talk · contribs). Ironholds was the admin who deleted pages, I started the DRV to have that reviewed. The DRV itself is not what I am here about, it is about Ironholds behaviour in that discussion. Background: The deletions are about banned user's creations & edits (speedy CSD-G5). One issue in the discussion is, whether there were sub~stantial edits by other editors than the creator. While the four pages were deleted, their content and history were invisible to me as I am not an admin. I had to argue from memory rather than diffs, Ironholds had full view. Then I started a subthread, with this original post: Ironholds behaviour This is getting nasty. A big part of this thread (all four templates) is about "substantial edits by others [than the banned editor]" after creation of a page (see WP:SPEEDY {{db-g5}}). In this, non-admins like me are dependent on admins for that look at the histories. Several times I have pointed to the "substantial edits" part: OP note c [205] [206], and to Ironholds selective reporting by only mentioning & deminishing my, DePiep's, edits [207] [208]. Now it appears Ironholds has effectively left out substantial edits by other editors (half a page added!) to suit their argument [209]. To me this is acting in bad faith by Ironholds, through (ab)using their admin's rights, especially since a non-admin is dependent on such information. I want a full and open review of the histories. That is, of course, only if there is not a better & faster solution (reverting right away). The arguments here of Ironholds are to be considered irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Follow up: Over there, Ironholds has not responded to this post (they did edit the page elsewhere). Meanwhile, the pages have become available again, and their histories show that my suspicion was right. hist1, hist2, hist3, hist4: other user edits were more substantial. (Note: depending on the outcome of the DRV, e.t.a. about Tuesday 23nd, these histories might disappear again for non-admins). So in the discussion, Ironholds represented the relevant history way too sided. This was not corrected by any other admin. In the process, these representations were personalised (towards me [210]) and had a sense of ridicule ("[this was] hardly a substantial contribution, or even, really a contribution at all"[211] - this being about templates, documentation, and even copyvio as an argument introduced by Ironholds themselves). My request: I would like to have a judgement on this behaviour here at ANI, and corresponding actions. Apart from some form of blaming this behaviour, I do not have a specific outcome myself right now. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Notified User [212] and DRV-page [213]. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Without looking by myself, have you tried to discuss this issue directly with Ironholds on their talkpaghe as required before coming here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I don't see that there's anything that needs doing. Ironholds made concise points regarding the nature of the history of these templates which do appear to stand up to scrutiny of the histories, specifically that the "substantial edits by other users" are almost all by you, and mostly fairly uncomplicated. Even Vanisaac's contributions to {{ISO 15924/numeric}} are "data" rather than "logic" (filling in a switch statement, basically), and while they are "substantial" in terms of bytes they are not "creative" in a way that you'd still firmly identify Bogdan Nagachop as the architext of the work. As such (and especially given that these are new templates, and that any fallout could be fixed trivially by reverting to the pre-Bogdan revision of the calling templates) the "substantial edits by others" clause in G5 doesn't look to be a cast-iron defense. There was confusion all round in the DRV, but that was the making of both of you. It is not at all clear why you thought taking this to the dramaboard was a good idea when the usual remedies handed out here (blocks, protection) are obviously inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Especially given how much of the template is just data, my contribution was a jump in logic that significantly added utility and was a highly unobvious extension of the template. By adding simple equivalences for number=number, and code=code, these templates enable input in either of the standard ISO 15924 forms to be displayed consistently, while the previous versions required that the input parameters be in only one of the forms. Even though they were simply adding data, the entirety of the templates /code and /numeric are a single #switch statement - the data is the content. VanIsaacWS re BWilkins. Directly yes, in their talkpage no. I discussed it at the DRV page as part of the whole discussion. I addressed Ironholds directly in some edits. Ironholds has chosen to delete this whole DRV topic from their Talkpage [214]. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Re Chris Cunningham. Most of your post here is plain DRV reasoning, so should be there. I am not here to redo the DRV. As for this incident, I get the impression you are paternalising a non-admin, by giving me your judgement on a situation, while I had no view of the facts. Also, you too zoom in on my edits, which is irrelevant for the discussion. Exactly this behaviour is in my OP here. You are right: the outcome is not cast-iron, but that works both ways. And to get to an outcome, I needed facts that were withheld. Re "confusion all around in the DRV" and "dramaboard", I don't see how those broad remarks relate to my specific post here, especially since the OP and diffs I provided point to a clear description, I think. If you want me to rephrase my question to make it more clear, please ask so. But that I do not ask for a "usual remedy" like a block does not mean the question does not belong here. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My only statement to make is that I have long since disengaged from the discussion, mostly due to the accusations DePiep and another user see fit to throw at me. If anyone wants me, I'll be writing articles or doing something similarly productive, but quite frankly this is far past the point at which I stop giving a shit. I deleted the discussion on my talkpage because I consider the matter settled; the templates have been restored, I have learnt to take things slightly slower when dealing with G5 cases, and everyone wins. Why DePiep isn't satisfied with this, I don't know - and to be honest, I don't care. He can make whatever additional accusations he wants, because I won't be following them. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My impression is that Ironholds, whose RfA was as recent as January, has a few problems in the role of admin—these were anticipated by some of the comments at the RfA, which was not his first attempt to become an admin. While I think some of his contributions are fine (he's a good writer/editor), to put it kindly there has been a flippancy and, dare I say it, immaturity, on display in some of his actions. However, I've gained a bad impression through only limited observation, and I can't suggest how the situation might be improved. Tony (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My limited observations have all been positive. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) re Tony. To be fair, I prefer this topic not zooming out to such a general one. I think that would become an impossible discussion. My aim was to be as precise as possible into one single topic, and I will try to stay there. -DePiep (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My impression of this situation is that both users were frustrated and reacted in less-than-friendly ways on the DRV. Ironholds seems to have realized (rather maturely, in my estimation, to counter Tony1's feeling that he's showing immaturity) that the discussion between them was going nowhere except to hell, and disengaged to let the DRV run its course; DePiep is continuing to push the issue, both in regard to getting the templates restored prior to the DRV closing (at which he has been successful) and in regard to engaging personally with Ironholds. Is there a reason we can't chalk this up to "two users rubbing each other the wrong way; one disengaged, the other didn't" and go on with our lives, especially since Ironholds has, just above, noted that he intends to be more cautious with G5 deletions from now on? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) This is a good description & suggestion, I'll chew on it. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I personally think this incident has pointed out a rather glaring flaw in the WP:SPEEDY criteria, and I have engaged that talk page with getting a note in the G5 criteria about transcluded templates. The fact is that even though there was an aparent violation of the substantive contributions provision in the G5 delete of template:ISO 15924/code and template:ISO 15924/numeric, template:ISO 15924/alias had no such problem, even though it was similarly essential to the functioning of the Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode information template. I think this is a problem inherent in doing speedy deletes of any template that is transcluded elsewhere, so I'd like to prevent these sorts of incidents from happening by forcing transcluded templates that are otherwise G5 eligible to the regular deletion process, with editors who did the transcluding informed so they can make other provisions or simply remove the dependencies. I'd be happy for others' input at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, as the conversation seems to have died down a bit. VanIsaacWS 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Re Vanisaac: totally OT. This is not about the DRV or Speedy. Please read the intro. -DePiep (talk) Re Fluffernutter: on second reading, imo your description doesn't show the right picture. The engagement/disengagement was not that crisp, and diffused along the timeline (see the diffs in the big self-quote above). Since I claim that admins tools were abused, I think I am perfectly right to ask (admins) opinion about that. And my engagement with the topic resulted in this result [215], which can be regarded as quite a positive contribution if not a solution. At least I did something with my "pushed point". -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I thought that this was already addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Speedy_delete_gone_bad. Perhaps it is time to move on to other matters. --After Midnight 0001 14:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC) As a someone pretty much uninvolved in this, my analysis of this situation is that Ironholds deleted the articles in good faith following the letter of G5; he could not have necessarily forseen the shitstorm that came about when he did so. Things only got out of hand when other users started making rude and unreasonably worded demands on him, for which understandibly led to Ironholds taking a defensive stance itself. He certainly didn't do anything to merit the vitriol hurled his way. If the users who wanted the deletions reviewed had merely taken the issue calmly to DRV, and patiently waited for it to resolve itself (which it did in total spite of their own rudeness in making loud, unreasonable demands of others) then we would have arrived at the same results (the deletions being overturned) and we could have gotten at those results without any of this unneeded drama. It seems clear that the worst thing Ironholds did was to overreact to the rudeness hurled his way by others who were too impatient to allow Wikipedia's established processes to work. Did he get a little rude himself? Sure he did, but I don't see that as an ultimately sanctionable event. His only use of the admin tools was valid, and he was backed into a corner by users who assumed bad faith from almost the start and never gave him a chance. --Jayron32 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Jayron, I took it to DRV, so you are addressing me. Please provide the diffs that is was not "calmly". I started asking Ironholds to revert: "I request you undo the reverts." [216]. Then, taking it to DRV, I wrote the OP there [217]. I cannot see very much uncalm there. Hours later, indeed, an other editor added less becoming and non-DRV related commments. At that moment, the disruption was some 20 hrs old. I cannot blame too much an editor for crossing a line then, reacting to disruptions is a primary reaction at WP. And eventually, instead of "waiting" patiently for the problem to solve itself (after 20 hrs), that same editor took it to ANI and that is how it was solved. You might remember that ANI post, because it was you who closed it correctly when it was done. And any "overreaction" by Ironholds after the vitriol doesn't fit the timeline: the links in my post, quoted above, are of earlier time. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Look, I can't spell this out any simpler: Yes, Ironholds was rude. What action do you want the rest of us to take about that? Shall we initiate desysop procedures with the Arbcom immediately because he got too heated in a discussion? What outcome do you seek? --Jayron32 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Acting in bad faith? Why would Ironholds purposefully antagonise you over something like this? I'm certain he believed they were deletable under G5 - you disagreed, but people disagree all the time. I did see the original messages you left him, and your attitude was not entirely non-accusatory, in my opinion. He didn't feel comfortable restoring for you, but disengaged to allow the DRV to run its course. Neither side were particularly polite about the whole thing, but accusations of bad faith? That's too extreme. If he made a mistake deleting them under G5 then he made a mistake, pure and simple, I doubt there are many admins that never ever make mistakes. Is it easier to kick up a fuss and accuse someone of abusing their admin tools than just to admit it was a disagreement and move on? Surely not. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I withdraw this request. After being off screen for some 3 hours, this is my feeling: if it takes so much time for me to explain and defend my point, my point might be empty. I thank any editor who contributed here. If not for content then by contributing, you helped me. I ask any not-too-involved admin walking by to close this thread. Also, that same cool admin could delete (blank) this ANI's notice section over at Ironholds's talk page, please. That would be good. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I largely agree Jayron32, except that I didn't notice Ironholds being rude. What I did see was two editors, DePiep a little, and VanIsaac a lot, making themselves look obnoxious. They also managed to make a very ugly mess of a simple DRV case. I see absolutely no case for alleging "Bad faith while using admins tools", or any other complaint beyond a policy deletion that might be better not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia being spammed by multiple new accounts

I don't know what to make of this. But, a whole series of newly registered accounts are going around adding {{HistoryOfSouthAsia}} to various South Asia related articles. Examples: [218][219]. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I dug up and blocked several accounts, although the motive remains a mystery to me as well. TNXMan 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I don't know what to make of it. The edits seem fine. So why have a slew of alternate accounts add it? Doesn't make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Two sockmasters like to use this template User:Dewan357 and User:Mrpontiac1. Many of their edits are generally fine, but they use that to disguise the rest. Dewan357 is currently active, Kww and I have blocked a few socks recently (including one yesterday), MrP, last we blocked was a few weeks ago. —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be Mrpontiac1. Does Dewan357 have any socks that have been active recently? TNXMan 18:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Areapeaslol, 69.115.82.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.196.0.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.197.112.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He also uses the two public library IPs, and that of his college plus a few others. —SpacemanSpiff 19:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There's our winner. The accounts I found are  Confirmed as Dewan357 by way of Just4edit (talk · contribs). TNXMan 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats quite a farm that went undetected! —SpacemanSpiff 05:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User banned nearly two years has returned

User:TrEeMaNsHoE was banned in December of 2009. See discussion. The editor is back now under a new username with a declared association. See User:The New Improved Person. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

After two years? Didn't really do all that much to get banned. Sure, give them another chance (but with a trigger happy block finger, at least initially) Egg Centric 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, second chances are good, especially with supervision.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Has to be standard offer now: I wasn't aware they were still up to their old tricks 2 weeks ago. If they can show they were only socking to avoid the ban (and not doing anything wrong otherwise) I could be persuaded to change vote to "second chance" again... otherwise I guess they have to do standard offer and put some extra effort in to demosntrate good faith.Egg Centric 18:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sod it - oppose After seeing beeb's diffs I have to oppose an unban at this time. However, I invite the user concerned to create another sock (well why not, you have enough and email me and we can discuss things off wiki, ideally through some kind of instant messenger and I will attempt to help them out. Egg Centric 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I know now that what I did was wrong. I thought that I could create a new account to start again, however didnt take into consideration the confusion it would cause to other wikipedians. I was first afraid to reveal my first account because I thought I would be prejudged. I have read the rules and am open to any suggestions/criticisms of other wikipedians regardin my editiing. Thank you --The New Improved Person (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think openly declaring the association was a smart move. If you'd attempted to hide and had been discovered you would have been raked over the coals. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This person was socking (and denying any connection with other accounts) as recently as August 10th. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive- I'll block the latest sock momentarily. If another admin wishes to unblock after further discussion, that's fine. TNXMan 17:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unbanning for now, given Tnxman307's evidence that he has been socking pretty much non-stop since the December 2009 ban discussion. For the record, I had typed a long message supporting this user for following WP:STANDARDOFFER, and suggesting that he be unbanned, but I edit conflicted with the above. Given that he has never considered abiding by his ban for an extended period of time, I have completely changed my mind on that. My suggestion is to go away for six full months, then log into your account and request an unban discussion through using the "unblock" template. --Jayron32 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – please consider this frivolous SPI case against another editor several weeks ago by another sock. –MuZemike 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, go with OFFER.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hell no Didn't do that much to bet banned? Really? Original ban discussion [220] was unanimous. 28 confirmed socks along with another fifteen suspected. Socking began just after I extended the standard offer to them, so that is not really a viable option, and look at the way this user tried to come back, by WP:EVADEing the ban. This is an WP:LTA case. Uphold the ban, revoke all talk pages and refer the user to WP:BASC if they want an avenue of appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that the editing behavior that led to the initial pre-ban blocking is reflected even in this latest sock. Nothing has changed and there is no reason to even consider unbanning. Egg, I don't believe he would need to create another sock to email you, their original account and the most recent sock still have email access, and encouraging even more socking is not a good idea. They just need to go away for a long time, which they apparently lack the self control to accomplish. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't wish to encourage him to sock destructively (I see no harm at all in sockpuppets that don't edit, so long as they are not profrane in name and even then the harm is minor to say the least) - I just think I may be able to talk sense into him one to one and that was the best way I could think of. If he's able to email me from one of his original accounts then frankly so much the better because at least I know it's him. FWIW he ain't emailed me yet. Egg Centric 20:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Recent socking merely resets the WP:OFFER-clock. Someone tell this kid that "6 months away from editing en.Wikipedia" means "6 months away from editing en.Wikipedia" ... he will definitely need to show positive editing of another Wikimedia project during that time, because the community's trust is now fully eroded (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

 – user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Macai (talk · contribs) who otherwise appears to be have been trying to be a good editor has recently started using "see also" sections for trolling. Individually, they are just questionable edits that should be reverted and discussed, but all together it's looking more like a major problem. He put a link to the article Child Molestation in the Michael Jackson article, 9-11 terror attacks in the Islam article, Redundancy, Aspergers Syndrome, and Self-insertion in the Wikipedia article, Minecraft in the Boredom article, Religious wars in the Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars article, Banjo in the Agriculture article, Gangsta Rap in the Bluegrass Music article, East Iowa Bible Camp in the Hell article, and (the thing that made me conclude the other edits were deliberate vandalism instead of mistakes) Greed in the Judaism article. This is after months of inactivity, and I'm trying to assume good faith (as he wasn't previously outright banned as a vandalism only account), so I can only assume for the moment that the account has been compromised. If it hasn't, then this user has become a vandalism only account. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indef for now; I'm fine with an unblock if the user can produce a good explanation or regain control of their account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking more at his past contributions, the account definately had to be compromised. Has me wanting to reevaluate my password strength. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my first thought was "suicide by admin" but all his battleground activity is from 2010. He makes 3 benign edits in June and then shows up 5 days ago making "trollz and lulz" edits to "see also" sections. If he were going to burn his bridges he would have done so back in his climategate days so WP:GOTHACKED seems likely to me too. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive and unmotivated ban of User:Jean_Philacridus on WP:FR

We at en-wiki can only ask for an explanation, and fr-wiki provided one
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gentlemen, today my account on wp:fr has been banned without any reason, without any information, on wp:fr. I appologise in advance if it's not here the best place to react againt this highly unfair abuse of authority but, unfortunatly, been unable to post on wp:fr, I don't know an other way to claim high how I'm terribly disapointed and to contest high and clear this totally unfair decision. Sorry for my poor english and thank you for your attention. Jean Philacridus (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC) We can't help you - each Wikipedia project is run separately and we have no control or influence over WP:FR and they have no control or influence over us at English Wikipedia (WP:EN). Sorry about that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I posted a query for the blocking admin, but only an admin at fr can do anything for you. Gimmetoo (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) LOL. The admin there blocked me for asking on his talk page. Welcome to en-wiki, Jean Philacridus :) Gimmetoo (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I guess they run it the French way, LOL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC) In fact of vandalism I've just expressed, a few days ago on the discussing page of an article, and today on the discussion page of another article, each time in few word (as "I aggree with de person having post above" ), the fact that I'm OK with a proposition .... But ok, I undestand there is nothing to do. Thank you to people in wp:en for your support, and goodbye wikipedia Jean Philacridus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC). @Gimmetoo : you've been unblocked quickly, it was indeed a mistake, sorry. About Jean Philacridus, see my talk page on fr.wp and [221].--Lgd (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)